The public--all of us should pay for sidewalks. We all use them and we all benefit. That means government. No ifs, ands or buts. The issue is how we raise the money and manage the situation.
Disagree with me? Okay. Do you fly on airplanes? Airports and the skies are public and we have an FAA to keep you safe. Do you boat on the waterways? Waterways are public and we have a Coast Guard to keep you safe. Do you have a car and drive? Well we have a Federal Highway Adm. and a State Highway Admin. and police and rescue squads to keep you safe. Does your car use fuel? Well we have a host of agencies and private corporations to get you that fuel, not to mention the US Army, and Marines to guard supplies and the US Navy to keep shipping lanes open, and agencies to ensure the fuel is what the label says and that our cars meet emissions standards......
Who pays for all this? We do. We the people. Even if you don't drive, don't fly, don't go boating and don't use oil, you help pay for this. (Alternative--no transportation)Don't have kids in school? You still help pay for them. (Alternative? An ignorant society) Don't use the libraries? You still help pay for them. Don't go the parks? Don't drink water, brush your teeth or use a toilet? You still help pay for the infrastructure....and on and on. (Alternatives??? Yuck--ever heard of the hydraulic theory of civilization?)
Why do we do this? Because they serve the greater good. They benefit everyone. The same goes for public transit, police and fire services and social security and so called health care...well, maybe not health care as configured. And not only that, these are areas where the market does not work--where there are no incentives for the private sector to invest. BUT..... how can anyone even reasonably question whether or not sidewalks are public property, public rights of way for the public good?
Does it even require further discussion? Because if you believe it does, then let's start talking about privatizing everything. Unless you are a strict libertarian and want the gummint' only to protect the coast and leave you alone, then admit that we live as members of a society, supposedly a civilized society, and to a great extent, it is the mediating influence of government that makes it possible.
And that means sidewalks too.
Anybody who thinks sidewalks should be a private burden is hereby dis-invited from ever walking in front of my house--or on any sidewalk. Now let's privatize the roads. You can't drive by my house either. And when your grandchildren come to visit, tell them to go play in the road. And when they get hit by a driver who knew there were no police or speed limit enforcement, or whose car was never inspected, you can just hire a private security agency to round him up, hang him from a tree and then go rob his house for damages...after you've paid the private ambulance and private hospital to administer private care and treatment....but don't use any treatment, therapy, drugs or technology supported by public dollars or providers....which I guess would mean nothing coming from research or regulation from the NIH, or the FDA, the CDC....
Think I'm being extreme? Absolutely not. It's the folks who think sidewalks are a private matter who are being extreme. They can take a hike....but not in a public park or sidewalk.... They probably never walk anyhow, and then they scoff at paying tolls on roads.
CP welcomes your comments and articles. Please subscribe, tell your friends about CP, and support our sponsors.
Bay Daily on Hiatus
-
Congratulations to Bay Daily creator, Tom Pelton, who has accepted a
position with another organization working to make the world a better
place. In his ab...
10 years ago
7 Comments:
My problem is not with having to pay for sidewalks. What I have a problem with is the suggestion that the city has any intention whatsoever of actually maintaining them with the money they are given. The city is supposed to maintain the streets as it is now, and they can't even do that with anything approaching responsible decision-making ability.
Have you actually driven up Bay Ridge Ave from Forrest Drive to Eastport? It is in horrendous condition. Instead of fixing that major artery, we have some sort of traffic calming coming down a small one-way residential section of Bay Ridge the other way. The streets in my neighborhood are just slightly better than an off-road course, despite the capital facilities fee we pay.
But we definitely have enough money to cover the Mayor's sister-city program.
Further, it is unclear to me that the city is actually taking the liability off of my shoulders. How, exactly, do they get around state laws that make me liable? And since they still require that I shovel the walk during the winter, aren't I still liable for accidents that happen during the winter? If I fail to call the city about some damage to a sidewalk, am I liable? If I DO call the city, do I need to get some sort of receipt so I can prove that I did so?
Let's face it, whatever portion of the sidewalk fee actually ends up supporting sidewalks will be used to maintain brick sidewalks for downtown residents so that the city can maintain a look that Dave barry once described as "sort of colonial or something". This is an attempt by the council members, seemingly all of whom, would like to be mayor, to buy off the downtown residential voting block, and to do so with my $25.
I make no apologies for being cynical about city government. It is a learned response. "We are from the government, and we're here to help you." Just lovely, but no, thanks.
Dear B. Cook:
We are glad to hear from you. You don't have any argument from me. As for Bay Ridge, I am told that plans are underway for repaving and repairs there. I was involved with some of the planning of which I think you are speaking and was terribly upset about the whole process and outcome, but there was plenty of time for citizen input.
You write of "capital facilities fee" but I am not sure what you mean by that. Shoveling our own walkways is absurd for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that snowplows plow roads, so why are sidewalks less important? Furthermore, when roads are plowed, snow is thrown tight back on to the sidewalks--a double whammy and adding insult to injury.
As for being cynical about government, well, I can understand, but this is why CP is here--and that's why participating in this forum is positive!
I appreciate both your views. they represent personal verses external responsibility, both of which require some energy (or funding). the issue is a example of a boundary in flux. The problem is expecting the gov't to do something generally costs more than doing it yourself if you could and builds bueracracy which we have to pay dearly for.
Is the gov't going to weed my sidewalk too? If they're charging $25 a year payers might be less motivated to do such menial, time consuming and necessary tasks. hopefully the final bill will define all these things. personally I would prefer a stripped version keeping personal responsibility, where the gov't would fix a sidewalk and bill the homeowner putting a lien against the lot if it went unpaid.
that way we wouldn't all have to pay because some scofflaws don't do their civic responsibility, and I will keep shoveling my walk & my elderly neighbors to try to keep my tax bill from getting any higher. I already don't get anywhere near my monies worth. Break down the math and its easy to see why the non-affluent are often housepoor. lets tighten the ship.
Paul,
Eloquent as ever and a great party guest. Your argument would stand up well if we lived in our great city for free. The fact is, the PROPERTY taxes that we already pay to the city could and should be used to pay for sidewalk upkeep. Instead of looking for ways to cut expenses during a recession, our government continues to hunt for new revenue sources (from you).
Why not demand that our city cut non-essential pet projects from the budget to fund the real needs of tax paying citizens? Something like sidewalk repair?
Best Regards,
David Leudemann
The fundamental issue here is whether or not sidewalks are public and therefore should be maintained at public expense. I think, but am not certain that all the commentors agree with that. And to David, I don't think we are disagreeing on anything here. As I spelled out in the original post, the alternatives are pretty dismal.
The remaining issue or question or argument is how we pay for and how manage them. Is that a reasonable way to proceed in the debate?
General fund taxes? Special assessment?
However, some seem to argue that our government is so mismanaged and so wasteful and inefficient that it can't do anything right, so why expect sidewalks to be different? I think that while there is vast room for improvement, and I write about this all the time (Market House, buses, police station) anyone who looks around can see that the city is not falling apart. Some if not many things work right, but to be clear, efficient management is not the hallmark of this government. But we do get trash picked up twice a week, roads generally are repaired, I use the nice pool at Truxtun Park daily, my kids went to the camps there,the City Dock has been rebuilt, we have a fine web site, police and fire show up rapidly in an emergency.....but on the other hand we waste all this energy and resources for a lot of SHTOOPIT stuff, much of it at the whim of our arrogant and self-serving mayor.
BUT...sidewalks are public and serve everyone. Unless you want to charge a toll each time you walk on the sidewalk from the front of one person's house to the next, and the next etc., etc......what alternative is there but for government to manage it? I am not saying public employees have to pour the concrete, but the private sector is not coming out to do it unless it gets paid--which means by the government for which we all pay. THIS DOES NOT MEAN I FAVOR A SPECIAL TAX....WHICH IS ILLEGAL ANYHOW!!
Three years ago a neighbor had to repave his sidewalk and the day they did it, I immediately knew it was sub-standard with no proper screeding, reinforcing wire, smoothing or expansion joints. I called the city inspector immediately and said it's a disaster. Nothing was done. It is already failing, cracking and settling.
This was actually sent to CP from loyal reader Stanford Erickson:
Paul
Me thinks you are missing the point. The uprise was not caused by a lack on understanding that sidewalks need to be improved in Annapolis or that a means to pay for that might include taxpayers. The uprise was caused by the awareness of the general populace that incompetent and arrogant elected officials once again, without doing their homework, passed an illegal tax on us.
Dilletantes have no business managing our city. Let them hug their trees, have homecoming parties, read the Great Gatsby, eat, drink and be merry but don't let them vote on how this city should be managed.
Stanford
Hi Paul
As you know, I don't generally like to leave comments, but Stanford's response brings up my biggest problem with this whole issue. Regardless of how you feel about this fee, there is no denying on any side that this fee was passed at City Council, with a public hearing and the opportunity to speak out on it. The fact that some feel this issue wasn't broadcast loudly enough by the paper or by bloggers or by the mayor herself doesn't really matter. If you're not going to be an active member of the citizenry, keep an eye on what is happening at City Council meetings, and stand up and speak out when an issue comes up that you feel strongly about (at that time, not 8 months later), then your right to complain is greatly diminished. Well, you can complain as much as you want, but it doesn't mean that much. If you consciously choose to bury your head in the sand until after a law has been passed, then the fact that you don't approve of the law is, in many respects, too bad. had the city done this under cover, without public hearing, I could better empathize, but as it is, it just sounds like a lot of whining after the fact. Especially from people publicly quoted in the paper as saying that they shouldn't have to pay because there aren't sidewalks in their neighborhood. The city publishes the agenda for each and every city council meeting. It takes mere second/minutes to glance at it and see if there is anything worth speaking up about - probably less than an hour over the course of a year. If you care about your city and your government and your future, it's an hour well-spent. It's irresponsible not to.
Post a Comment