Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
https://www.wpri.com/news/local-news...ts-businesses/
50/50 split for costs below $5k, the owner responsible for all cost beyond $5k. How does this make sense, considering that the city controls the conditions that damage the side walk (trees...)? And would the hassle getting it approved is probably not worth the $2.5k of potential payment towards cost.
https://www.wpri.com/news/local-news...ts-businesses/
50/50 split for costs below $5k, the owner responsible for all cost beyond $5k. How does this make sense, considering that the city controls the conditions that damage the side walk (trees...)? And would the hassle getting it approved is probably not worth the $2.5k of potential payment towards cost.
This is a bit outrageous. I guess gone are the days when you simply call your councilperson to get a new sidewalk when necessary.
Location: Earth, a nice neighborhood in the Milky Way
3,777 posts, read 2,683,716 times
Reputation: 1597
Quote:
Originally Posted by independent man
This is a bit outrageous. I guess gone are the days when you simply call your councilperson to get a new sidewalk when necessary.
Yes, it is outrageous. Calling a city councilperson to ask for a replacement might work if you are appropriately connected to them. That’s not most people. I do know a couple of very connected people who managed to get their sidewalks replaced, even though there were far worse sidewalks in their neighborhoods... “Funds are tight”. Sidewalks are supposed to be replaced on an as needed basis, by an objectively defined condition assessment, but it does not seem to work that way in practice.
Yes, it is outrageous. Calling a city councilperson to ask for a replacement might work if you are appropriately connected to them. That’s not most people. I do know a couple of very connected people who managed to get their sidewalks replaced, even though there were far worse sidewalks in their neighborhoods... “Funds are tight”. Sidewalks are supposed to be replaced on an as needed basis, by an objectively defined condition assessment, but it does not seem to work that way in practice.
When I lived in Elmwood, the council made bond money available in every ward as requested by the councilperson. Some had other more pressing priorities for their share. Most owner occupants, connected or not, who requested a new sidewalk in our ward (as needed) received it. Even though absentee landlords or their tenants made few requests, some of the worst walks in front of their properties were replaced regardless. The endeavor was seen as a success in Elmwood.
I can’t imagine homeowners having to bear the financial burden of sidewalk replacement.
Our city services here aren’t that great but they do repair sidewalks and when the sections tend to lift a bit at the joints they come out with a grinding machine and grind the joints to alleviate the tripping hazards.
Every now and then we have someone try to sue the city when they have tripped and fallen on a broken sidewalk.
Who is responsible in this case in Providence? The city or homeowner.
This is ridiculous. It's one thing to have to shovel the sidewalk, but I'm not paying for something I don't own. I pay taxes to the city so they can take care of these things, so that makes it more than 50/50.
Location: Earth, a nice neighborhood in the Milky Way
3,777 posts, read 2,683,716 times
Reputation: 1597
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBtwinz
I can’t imagine homeowners having to bear the financial burden of sidewalk replacement.
Our city services here aren’t that great but they do repair sidewalks and when the sections tend to lift a bit at the joints they come out with a grinding machine and grind the joints to alleviate the tripping hazards.
Every now and then we have someone try to sue the city when they have tripped and fallen on a broken sidewalk.
Who is responsible in this case in Providence? The city or homeowner.
It is my understanding that the city is legally responsible for keeping the sidewalks structurally sound.
In Providence, they haven’t figured out that concrete can be ground down when a panel lifts. Cranston does it, but Providence doesn’t. Providence Department of Public Works will slap some asphalt down to try to make the grade match, but people don’t like that because it looks bad and doesn’t last. It is throwing good money after bad. Mayor Smiley should get his DPW to step up their game.
It is my understanding that the city is legally responsible for keeping the sidewalks structurally sound.
In Providence, they haven’t figured out that concrete can be ground down when a panel lifts. Cranston does it, but Providence doesn’t. Providence Department of Public Works will slap some asphalt down to try to make the grade match, but people don’t like that because it looks bad and doesn’t last. It is throwing good money after bad. Mayor Smiley should get his DPW to step up their game.
In the 90s, asphalt sidewalks or even patches were verboten in Elmwood by order of the councilwoman. However, it was common practice in other less organized neighborhoods.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
