Hacker News Reader

Comment by analog31 | Hacker News Reader

It could have to do with how they are paid for. When the sidewalks were repaired on my street, each resident received a bill, proportional to how many of the segments were in front of their house. When the road was rebuilt, the money came from Somewhere Else.

Yeah, Somewhere Else is ultimately the same place, but homeowners don't see it as personally flowing out of their own pockets.

View on HN

That's insane. I'm in Scotland and this sort of maintenance is just part of my council tax bill. Shared with everyone else in my county.

Are you part of some private community, that is able to make purchase orders on behalf of its members?

Otherwise, what you describe is not normal. The bill would be paid by whoever issued the PO. If it wasn't me, I'm not paying. If it was not on my property, then not my problem, and if it was, you have also trespassing on top.

So the only alternative that occurs to me that you are a part of some community, with common maintenance of shared property and where the bill is footed by members.

The bill is called a "special assessment." It does permit you to do the work yourself if you want, but that's much more expensive typically. Right to work on the property is called an "easement."

These measures are common in urban areas in the US.

Just adding a note that there are other easements as well. For instance the back line of my family's property grants an easement to the utilities for maintaining the electric and telecom wires.

Another way of thinking about it is that the notion of "ownership" is limited in a variety of ways. We also don't have mineral rights or control of the airspace above our house.

Wow, that’s active, unbelievable, nonsense.

I must say I was not aware that people can be responsible for the maintenance of the sidewalk in front of their house if there is one. But it's quite common to have to shovel that sidewalk (or pay someone to do it)--at least in the city--and you can be fined if you don't. It's probably an easement on your property so you're responsible for it.

Yes having to keep the sidewalk traversable sounds like a possible duty as, as you note, you have an easement.

But having to pay for it directly sounds extremely counter-productive.

And even the first part is dubious really: there should be sidewalks most everywhere including non-residential locations or the like, which the city would almost certainly have to clear alongside the roadway. Surely in that case it’s more efficient and simpler to just clear everything uniformly?

The situation in most US cities is that there are neighborhoods with and without sidewalks. Some subdivisions have them, others don't. And it's not like you can readily add sidewalks after the fact, without wreaking havoc.

In my town, for the most part the neighborhoods without sidewalks also have extremely little car traffic, and pedestrians walk in the street without issue. The drivers also tend to behave themselves.

Changing anything that requires substantially raising the city budget is hard, because the state makes many of the rules for city budgets and taxes. Adding a large seasonal workforce and equipment for clearing sidewalks would be a tough nut to crack. They do clear the sidewalks around parks, schools, and the like. There's also a matter of the preferences of residents. For instance I don't want a ton of salt poured onto the sidewalks in front of my house, and am happy to keep it clear of snow. Every 3 or 4 houses, somebody has a snowblower that rarely gets used.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com