4 ms·
NYC is also interesting in that landowners are responsible for maintaining the sidewalks in front of their property instead of the city. Depending on your poin
by morley 3y ago
NYC is also interesting in that landowners are responsible for maintaining the sidewalks in front of their property instead of the city.
Depending on your point of view, that's actually a solution to the problem you pose: the costs of maintaining damage from this plan are spread across private owners.
It does mean that owners will grumble in fall months when they have to clear leaves from their sidewalks, and will complain in the rare occasions when their sidewalks crack, meanwhile their home value ticks upward silently.
- couchand 3y ago> NYC is also interesting in that landowners are responsible for maintaining the sidewalks in front of their property instead of the city. Is that really unique? Everywhere I've lived the resident is required to clear leaves and snow.
- 1over137 3y agoI’ve never heard of such a thing. Where I am sidewalks are municipally owned and maintained.
- lupusreal 3y agoI thought clearing ice from sidewalks was always the responsibility of the land owner. The sidewalks are on easements but it's still owned by whoever owns the rest of the property. This is why sidewalk clearage is always inconsistent; some property owners are very diligent while others are negligent. And this is also why there are so many horror stories about property owners getting sued when somebody slips and breaks their hip; it was their responsibility to keep the sidewalk passable so if they don't they become liable for resulting accidents.
- 1over137 3y agoIt definitely doesn’t work like that in Quebec.
- mindslight 3y agoCreating perverse incentives where real estate owners are responsible for the damages caused by trees that the city insists on planting (and real estate owners are likely prohibited from maintaining) is not what I'd call a "solution". Asset values going up doesn't do anything about those perverse incentives. And in fact rising asset values is actually a liability for long-term owner occupiers, ultimately just facilitating more financialization and centralization of wealth by professional investors. I'm all for more trees. I'm just against this dynamic where such improvements are partially funded at the outset only, leaving the fallout as externalities that everyone has to suffer. If the city wants to plant trees that will eventually destroy the sidewalk, then the city should take on the responsibility for maintaining the sidewalks.
- amanaplanacanal 3y agoIf they are planting trees so that the roots destroy the sidewalk they are planting the wrong trees.