Sidewalk Liability

Maybe I have a lot to learn about sidewalks, but it strikes me that maintaining sidewalks should be the government's responsibility. In response to citizen outrage, most of the Aldermen are holding public-meeting-type gatherings for the dual purposes of discussing the issue and eating cookies. One of this blog's operatives at one such meeting obtained the fiscal note that accompanied the bill, and I find it appropriate to reproduce the text:

The fiscal impact this legislation produces is an estimated
$510,000 for FY 2008 and has already been provided in the Adopted Budget.
The fees have been set at $25 residential and $150 non-residential annually along with a $10 inspection fee under section 14.04.080/090.

The city has roughly 125 miles of sidewalk or 2.64 million sq. feet.
It is estimated that 25% is brick or 660,000 sq. feet and the balance of 1.98
million sq. feet is concrete. Repair and replacement cost is $12 per sq.
foot for brick and $5 per sq. foot for concrete. Under this legislation
the city is taking responsibility for sidewalks with an estimated replacement
value of $17,820,000.

This is certainly an interesting issue. Here are the main components of citizen response to this issue as I see it:

-some citizens are angry because they have to pay for sidewalks when there aren't any in front of their house

-some citizens are wary that the city is taking on an additional $18 million in construction liability

-some citizens are concerned that the cash we be used for purposes other than fixing sidewalks

-some citizens believe that sidewalks are a priority at any expense

Here is my view. Sidewalks are important, and they should be taken care of by the government. Take downtown--nobody would argue that people need the sidewalks to patronize the stores. It does not make sense to have the stores themselves maintain their own sidewalks, because some might be red brick, some white brick, some cement, some dirt--who knows. It would be ridiculous. Sidewalks promote non-motorized-vehicle transportation and make such pedestrian travel safer.

Even so, the manner in which this issue was handled probably still deserves criticism. As is so often the case, the city seems to operate in a bubble that considers only the face of the issue at hand and fails to consider neither the long-term consequences nor the ambient economic situation. We all know that 2 budgets are tight right now: the city's, and also everyone's. Heck, I had to cancel the monthly replacement of my solid gold toilet seats just so I could afford my monthly massages! Usually, the financial well-beings of the city and its taxpayers have an inverse relationship. Incredibly, this bill actually places an economic strain on both the taxpayer AND the city at the same time.

The issue is the liability. Before, citizens had to replace their own sidewalks but were not taxed extra for this. A sidewalk repair can cost thousands of dollars, yet the city is willing to assume that responsibility for the mere charge of $25 per person. So, people are pissed to pay an extra $25 (even though they may be saving thousands), and taxpayers are pissed to have to pay the thousands. Distinction: under the old situation, the city could determine how strict it was going to be when making citizens fix broken sidewalks, whereas now the city must fix sidewalks if the citizens place an order.

Ultimately, I think that the city should take responsibility for the sidewalks. They should not pay for it through a special tax--they should pay for it out of the general fund. If there isn't enough money in the general fund, they should cut other nonsense things like the Department of Economic Affairs or the Sister City Program. Should this happen now? Probably not: it is a major policy shift, it probably should go through a bit more scrutiny, and the timing is crummy. I'm not saying there shouldn't be outrage, but I wonder if it's not misplaced.

Sidewalk Tax

I live a life of luxury, amenity, and commodity* outside of city limits, so I did not receive a $25 or $150 sidewalk bill like many of you folk. However, I am aware of said bill, and have some thoughts on the matter.

(*By life of luxury, I of course mean that only the left side of my basement floods when it rains.)

People are pissed about the tax. The most prevalent argument seems to be "I don't have a sidewalk in front of my house, so why should I have to pay?". This argument is not proper--sidewalks are an appropriate care of a government--i.e. the entirety of the people. Even if there isn't a sidewalk in front of your house, odds are you use one in a public area. Most people believe that having sidewalks, at least on busy streets, is enough of a safety benefit to public health as to warrant public money. Sidewalks are necessary, and since it doesn't make sense to have people individually building sidewalks, it's the government's/the citizens' job.

The problem, for me, is that sidewalks are not taken care of by the 83 MILLION DOLLARS ALREADY COLLECTED EACH YEAR BY THE CITY! Roads and sidewalks are like priority #3 for the city government, yet non-profit grants and the city magazine are funded before sidewalks? Poppycock! Even if you group sidewalks separate from roads, the city priorities look like this:

1. public safety
2. infrastructure (water, sewer)
3. roads
4. sidewalks
5. public works services (trash removal, etc.)

I will not accept that in the entirety of the general budget, sidewalks cannot be funded. But what I am willing to accept doesn't matter--it's what the city council is willing to do. The council passed the tax in October of last year, apparently a time in history when "tax" meant not a forced seizure of money. Alderman Hoyle, in particular, seems confused. The fee "wasn't a big deal", she remarked. Mrs. Hoyle also added "It has gotten racial, with people saying 'The city wants to build sidewalks so Hispanics can walk the streets'", a statement which is more lacking in appropriateness than my choice of bright magenta for the color of tile in my foyer.

Fortunately, the city council is not beyond persuasion if they realize they have made a political error, and reeling has already started. Alderman Cordle, amongst others, seemed to take both sides of the issue, and an article today revels that the future of this tax could involve repeal, amendment, or even immunity from action. The normally solid Alderman Paone, in a move that will surely anger his fan club (though possibly not his ward), suggested that "he also would be open to amending the bill if residents without sidewalks didn't have to pay the tax", handily opposing the point I made in the second paragraph.

More evidence supporting a structural problem with this tax (rather than the idea of the tax itself) comes from Eastport activist and provocateur Bob McWilliams, who researched some data for Los Angeles, which adopted a similar policy:

1) They have 10,750 miles of sidewalk

2) 43% or 4,600 miles are in need of repair (and that's in a climate that doesn't have the freeze and thaw of winter)

3) If not one more sidewalk breaks, Los Angles estimates it will take
83 years to fix what is currently broken

4) Los Angles estimates that it will cost $1.2 billion to fix their 4,600 miles of broken sidewalk.

5) Annually, Los Angles spends $3,000,000 on lawsuits over broken sidewalks.

Bob estimates Annapolis' burden as a fraction of that total, and calculates a total liability created by this law of $7.5 million--not a good cost-benefit analysis when you consider that the measure will generate only about $500,000 in taxes.

Sidewalks should be funded out of the general fund. The city would be forced to trim other budget items that are probably less useful, and can fix the sidewalks without added legal concern. Time will tell if the political winds will sway such a result.