From today's News-Gazette:
The mayor said she is proposing:
– That commercial properties, including apartment buildings and the downtown area, be required to remove snow from sidewalks. But the emphasis will be on obtaining voluntary compliance. Enforcement is likely to be patterned after the city's no-smoking ordinance in bars and restaurants, with violators first receiving education, then warnings and then "penalties as a last resort," Prussing said.
– A voluntary approach to clearing sidewalks in residential areas. Prussing said she will try to create a "good Samaritans corps" of residents who own snow blowers to clear sidewalks along major arterial streets and major walking routes to schools and grocery stores.
At least requiring everyone to shovel is logically consistent, even if it's ridiculous overkill. But requiring businesses only is both illogical and unnecessary. But I can't really blame Urbana, as Champaign passed this illogical and unnecessary requirement first.
I'm hopeful about the emphasis on voluntary compliance. Perhaps there is a unit of government in our area that still has a little bit of faith in the fundamental goodness of the people it governs. Hopefully a little education and urging will remind people to do the right thing.
I wonder where Champaign will go with the snow removal--an interview with Sue Salzman on one of the loca television stations whose department oversees compliance indicated that City staff would like to see the program City-wide, meaning they want to cover the residential neighborhoods as well, I assume.
Would someone please explain to me why sidewalk-shoveling is the one single case in which property owners are expected to maintain a public right-of-way just because it is near their property? (It's my understanding that you don't actually own the area near the street even if you don't have a sidewalk.) You aren't expected to plow the street in front of your house, so why is it your job to clear the sidewalk? If pedestrians are as important to the city as drivers, then the city should spend a little money to clear the sidewalks itself rather than cajoling or coercing everybody to pitch in. The city would no doubt complain about an unfunded mandate from Springfield or Washington, but has no problem imposing one on its own citizens.
warrior-
actually property owners are also responsible for mowing the city right of way between the street and the sidewalk, but let's not stop with the dead horse beatings since the smoking thread is (finally) slowing down.
They need to create explosive devices called Illini Wicks to blast the snow off the sidewalks. City officials dressed as Native Americans could detonate the Wicks.
Enough with the mowing baloney. That is such a different thing, and perhaps the responsibility for that should go back to the city rather than continually using it as an excuse to make citizens responsible for maintaining the city's property.
Mowing is entirely forseeable, and doesn't at ALL put a boundary on what the city is allowed to ask. I don't worry about my 80+ year old father having a heart attack while walking behind a mower once a week, but put 6" of snow on the ground and drop the temperature to 20 degrees and I'm not so confident. Grass grows where it is planted, and can be replaced with gravel or RoundUp. Snow fall is and act of God and is nobody's fault and everyones' hassle.
And before it comes up, I tried to go shovel him out during the blizzard last year, but the City didn't plow his street for almost four days afterwards.. and in fact they didn't, one of the neighbors got a friend to come plow it, but can they send the City a bill for 5x what they paid as an "administrative cost" ?
And as Rex has aptly pointed out before, the roads and sidwalks were put in at private expense and the donated to the city at the cost of the city maintaining them. And all the "progressive thinking class BS" in the world doesn't make it OK for the City ot force citizens to maintain the City's property!! Or to force them to pay 5x the going rate for the city to send someone to do it, especially when the city agreed to maintain it. Just because that deal was generations ago, doesn't make it null and void!
Look on the bright side....Urbana can create an, " OFFICE OF SIDEWALK RESPONSIBILITY", hire some more city workers, offer more 401K plans and bounce taxes even more.
"They need to create explosive devices called Illini Wicks to blast the snow off the sidewalks. City officials dressed as Native Americans could detonate the Wicks."
Now this is how to troll - use a little humor, and don't be so insulting.
Heh heh...
As for the city right of way between the sidewalk and street, if I am not mistaken that is actually owned by the property owner, but the city/utility companies have an easement on the property allowing utility work. Street light power lines, street lights, power and water utility lines all live under those strips of land. You can -and should- mow it, plant flowers on it, or whatever you reasonably want to do, however the city or the utility company has the right to come dig that area up, flowers and all, if they have to get to the utilities buried there. I have an easement in my front yard for water, and another in the back for power and sewer. This is a long standing matter of property law.
"As for the city right of way between the sidewalk and street, if I am not mistaken that is actually owned by the property owner, but the city/utility companies have an easement on the property allowing utility work."
Maybe where you live Dane but I only own to my property pins. They are located about a foot towards the house from the street. If Champaign passes an ordinance requiring me to shovel their side walks, I will be looking for a tax break at my hourly rate.
Clarification: My property pins are about one foot behind the sidewalk towards the house from the street.
The requirement to mow the lawn on city owned right-of-way is found in the City of Champaign code. It is almost universally required by every municipality in the country. It makes sense to have the individual property owners do this task, rather than tax them for the cost of having the governemnt maintain it or having it not maintained. I would prefer living in a community where this is required, wouldn't you?
Sec. 35-18. Responsibility for maintenance of trees, shrubs, alternative vegetation and vegetation--Parkway.
(a) Subject to Section 35-21, every owner shall maintain the unpaved sections of the parkway abutting and adjacent to his/her property so as to prevent the growth or accumulation of:
(1) Litter or garbage, trash and rubbish;
(2) Shrubs in excess of twenty-four (24) inches in height and vegetation in excess of eight (8) inches in height unless it is alternative vegetation with foliage not greater than twenty-four (24) inches in height or blossoms in excess of thirty-six (36) inches in height;
(3) Vegetation, alternative vegetation, or shrubs which prevent the free and unobstructed travel of pedestrians upon sidewalks, or vehicles on streets and alleys, or otherwise negatively affects traffic or pedestrian safety by impairing the visibility or passage of pedestrians or vehicles;
(4) Vegetation, alternative vegetation or shrubs which harbor or aid in the harboring of rats, dangerous snakes and vermin;
(5) Vegetation or alternative vegetation, or shrubs which harbor or host diseases or insects which may reasonably be expected to injure other forms of life;
I wish Urbana would do something about all the youngsters who play their base so loud it rattles my house EVERYDAY when they drive by. While it was depressing realizing that I became that guy, I chose Urbana because it was a nice, peaceful neighborhood. Neighbors had called to complain about the ordinance violations, but advised me that it will only be enforced if an actual police officer catches them in the act. I appreciated that the likelihood of Urbana taking steps to enforce their own laws was unlikely. When I read about this snow shoveling deal, I just figured it was only relevant if WUNA, SUNA and whatever other UNA is out there takes on enforcement. Since those UNA people are fully-engaged in fending off developers, I'm doubt anyone should be worried one way or another.
Reporting from Urbana with my walker, this is B is for Business.
Nice comment and recital of Sec. 35-18 but totally unrelated to the topic of snow removal. Maybe you have your seasons mixed up.
I like loud stereos in cars. It helps me know when ------ hooligans are coming.
Dear Oil Man:
The recitation of Section 35-18 stood for the proposition that it is routine to place requirements on property owners to perform some maintenance of publicly owned land adjacent to their privately owned property. And such a delegation of duty is not only commonplace, but it is the most cost-effective and efficient way for a community to accomplish a task which the community generally wants to see accomplished. (whether that be snow removal or mowing or litter removal).
That does not mean that requiring snow removal is a good idea. It is not, because it is so different in many ways from the requirement of lawn mowing. (Predictability of snowfall and duration of the nuisance if not addressed)
On January 5th, 2008 at 10:58 AM, B is for Business said:
"I wish Urbana would do something about all the youngsters who play their base so loud it rattles my house EVERYDAY when they drive by. "
That's a good example of a law passed that is not enforced! It's not just Urbana . These stereo enthusiast know the police are far too busy with all of the other thing police do to stop some punk and write him up for a loud thumping car stereo, and if they did the might find an outstanding warrant or a missing front plate or any of a dozen other things that would make the stop illegal and be challenged in court as some kind of profiling. I know that employees of the States Attorney are on here from time to time, I would like to hear about the charging of this kind of violation and what the conviction rate is for these kinds of crimes. If Urbana moves on this as slow as they do on "Real" problems, it will be the middle of August 2020 before anything happens.
Gregg and B,
You're both talking out of your respective rumps. Urbana PD writes dozens of tickets, both city ordinance and IVC violations for loud car stereos on a monthly basis. You are correct in that every person doing it doesn't get caught every time, but to say the problem goes unadressed is simply wrong.
I'm talking out of my rump?
If Urbana PD drives by a car with loud music, I understand they will write a ticket. If a citizen calls to complain, they will not. My problem will not get addressed unless by some miracle the PD decides to allocate resources to these complaints and catch them IN THE ACT in my neighborhood. It is not going to happen proactively. It's not murder, just really annoying. I appreciate if they park a patrol car on the street, the kid will just turn down the volume. There are bigger fish to fry...like the people who don't shovel their sidewalk.
Call up UPD and tell em where you live and that you want some extra patrol from the beat officer. Better yet, ask for a supervisor and ask them to assign a beat officer.
I'm not sure how a program that levies fines "as a last resort" is voluntary. I believe that the Champaign ordinance had the same sort of ask nicely first, provide education, and if all else fails, shovel and bill them. Urbana is doing much the same thing, but calling it "voluntary."
That said, I am all for it, as one of the pro-shoveling ordinance zealots on this blog. If it were up to me, the laws would cover the entire C-U area, residential and all, and come with stiff fines. I am generally against nanny state ideas, but if you don't shovel your sidewalk, you have (at the risk of rump talking) just proven that you still need a nanny.
...If a citizen calls to complain, they will not...
They will if you, as the preson that observed the violation, can identify the car and the operator and will then go to court and tesitfy as to the facts. You have to be able to identify the car and specifically the driver. Otherwise, if you call and the officer makes an observation based on your report of where to look, then he is the one that does all that. If when the officer gets there and the music is off, then he will observe no violation (he might pass on the complaint to whomever is in the car however). These are the requirements of the law. If you make a complaint about a car you can ask to be the complainant on a report. If the officer did not see or hear it then he has to use what other people tell him, just as in any other case. They must then be the witness in court, becasue its all hearsay to him.
Dane,
while factually correct, I don' t know of anyone that has ever done this. In fact, I doubt the officer would issue a citation based only on your account of what you heard. Other than your eyewitness testimony, there is no way to corroborate your account. I understand that people are prosecuted by eyewitness testimony, but there are usually other mitigating factors that also come into account. And although loud music is annoying, I don't think it rises to the level of attempting to prosecute someone based solely on eyewitness testimony.
Think about the possibility for abuse. For example...I don't like my neighbor's kid, so I'm gonna call every time he pulls out of the driveway. Or...my ex-boyfriend cheated on me, so I'll call every time I see him driving around.
I think it would be best to leave these types of discretionary calls to the police, save for very special occasions.
I still can't believe the thread is called "Urbana's Common Sense" Gordy did it make think twice?
The only reason I shovel my sidewalks is to ensure the turkeys a safe passage through my neighborhood.
The URBANA police department will do nothingt. Drive down colorado avenue on a saturday night....loud music, beer bottles and other mahem. The county market looks like south side chidago. Once a nice area, given up by the city and the police.
The Urbana Police will do nothing as long as those people are not shooting anyone or beating up somebody, The crack will be sold and all the trouble that comes with that will be ignored, There is no money to be made by the City on this bunch, they are tax parasites, The reason the place looks like the South side of Chicago is that's where these people are from, they have migrated to Champaign, Urbana, Rantoul and Bloomington-Normal and brought the Crack business with them! Also Garden Hills in Champaign is a cesspool of drugs and gangs. The Mayor has looked the other way!