"Snow Group" Meeting this Friday Night!

[J Hrlec]

How would it be handled if residents are not in town for a length of time. Will they be given warnings because they are not present? Will the city provide services for those who will not be around and does the city have the manpower to do so if 100, 200, 300 + people (families) decide to take vacations in the winter...along with the other sevices the city would offer?

Under the current system in place, it's the Owner of the property who gets a warning letter, according to Mary Simon. Owners are ultimately to be in control of their property, even when away.

It's not unthinkable that people can and should make simple arrangements with their friends and neighbors (or even paid shovelers) for keeping the walks clear in their absence, in line with taking in the mail and feeding the cat. When I take in the mail for friends, and if it had snowed the night before, I shovel the walk in front of their home, and clear a path for the mail man, because it needs to be done and they obviously can't do it.

If one is mindful of the responsibilities of being a person that lives in a civil community, the job can be handled. It's mindlessness that is the problem in many cases. We need to expand and maintain a culture of mindfulness about snow.

I can envision a service whereby we notify the city when we need a city sidewalk plow "on retainer" for extended vacations, much like "hold the mail" requests to the Post Office. But I do think, if such a program would ever exist, any who need this should pay the true cost of this per shoveling, and not taxpayers at large. This would be a Plan B, with Plan A being to arrange with friends and neighbors to see to it in our absence.

Nothing is unthinkable, but much could be unrealistic.

I personally don't think it would affect me, but I think it is very important to take in consideration those Lakewoodites for whom this would not be "thinkable".

- Some people do not have local family or associate with neighbors (good or bad) therefore there is no PLAN A for many.

- I think we need to stop the focused association of "carelessness" to these problems. Sure it could be the case sometimes... but the issues I asked above are not even related to that state of mind. Let's stop imaginging we will ever be a utopia where everyone should and would be available and willing to clear the snow and figure out some very realistic solutions, if there are any.

- As much as I agree we should all help each other (just cleared my neighbors place this morning), I don't believe we should assume what is simple for us is simple for everyone.

- It seems at times the city has a hard enough time keeping up with the standard snow removal, I have a hard time believing they could ever be used as a "on retainer" service.

- How would they enforce the fines? I thought I heard about many houses and businesses that owe years of taxes to the city, but their focus will be on these citizens who couldn't get snow removed?

- I guess the last item I think would necessary is that any report to the city must include the full name of who reported the problem as well as their residence. Two reasons: One so the city can judge who may be abusing the system and secondly I think it only fair that their residence be checked as well as the one reported. The last thing that should happen is having someone's own place not cleared and they are reporting others.

Also, I hope I don't come across as anti-snow removal. I just want the best most realistic solutions to come out of these great brainstorming ideas if it involves direct actions against citizens.

[Charlie Page]

There’s an ordinance that prohibits you to “park...on any street in the City for a period in excess of twenty-four hours without usage in the usual and ordinary manner”. A while back a former neighbor got a ticket for this. I don’t know how much the ticket cost him but he never left his pickup truck on the street in the same spot for a week at a time again.

After each snow ceases, maybe the block club person for each street could take a walk to remind those who haven’t shoveled that “every owner, occupant or person having charge of any tenement building, lot or land fronting any avenue, street, alley or public highway in the City” has a responsibility to “remove and clear away, or cause to be removed or cleared away, snow and ice from a path of at least four feet in width from so much of the sidewalk whether or not flagged or paved as is in front of or abuts such building or lot or land”.

And “if the owner of any building, lot or land fails to comply with the provisions of this section, then the Director of Public Works may remove the snow, ice...from the sidewalk in front of the premises of such owner, and may charge the expense thereof to such owner, and if, upon being notified, he fails to pay the City the amount of such expense, then such amount may be certified by the proper City officer to the County Auditor, and the same shall act as a lien upon the property of such owner, and shall be collected as provided for in the case of special assessments.” Further “whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor.”

Either way, I think the law is pretty clear on the removal of snow and ice from sidewalks. It just has to be enforced by the City. I say hit’em where it hurts, right in the wallet.

[Mike Zannoni]

I do think that many of undone walks are pure unawareness, a.k.a. mindlessness. I don't have proof, but I see plenty of able bodied people in and out of houses, going to their cars, on cell phones, leisurely strolling from their cars, bringing in a 6-pack, etc. without an apparent thought about the walks. (I’m a grumpy old man!)

But I'm not talking about a Utopia: I think I myself am more conscious and mindful of my driving, and the fact that it is my sole responsibility to observe posted speed limits, in a real way, as a result of tickets for my being careless about it in the past. As I drive 25 down Detroit, I watch my speed without thinking, because I'm really aware that it's 25, and I have to slow down, check my speed. I've given up my god given freedom to be oblivious, it seems.

I am just talking about what Charlie is: no "direct action" against citizens but the ones already on the books, but under-enforced. Once you're afraid of a ticket for real, then you are more likely to remember next time it snows that it's YOURS to do, some how, some way, and you'd better do some thinking about when you're going to shovel it, who you might call for assistance if needed, how to deal them on your upcoming long vacation. Maybe you would start to talk to your neighbors, because they may be part of the "solution", now that you're fully aware of the "problem" of your just not thinking about it. The "mindfulness" comes in because the enforcement brings it home that it's truly and seriously yours to figure out. No utopia required.

I only mention the pipe dream of a paid city service, because the city might even make a small amount of money, by charging nominally, inviting the "business" (some people do do this as a business, and therefore it can be made profitable), and maybe it can be partially subsidized by what increased fines bring in from wider enforcement. Maybe the city can buy a small "fleet" of walk plowers and lease them like cabs to individuals who can make money using them throughout the city. These might actually be the people "on retainer" to those who can afford to go on extended vacations, or just anyone not wanting to shovel but also not wanting to get a ticket.

Since a lien is the collection of last resort, the city would at least some day see the collection of a fine from even those who can't pay their taxes, let alone snow fines. The liens would not have to be large to be a deterrent to just "leaving it be" after you've had one or two put on your house.

If these ideas are just wacked, then I invite more and better ones, because I just can't believe there is no answer to improving the situation. Has anyone lived in a "walking city" and seen things done better? Seriously, anyone?

By the way: Ed Favre explained at the snow meeting last week that he approached the manager of a large corporate gas station which at last big snow (when he was still a cop) cleaned their own lot to the extreme detriment of the abutting sidewalks, that he could give HIM (or HER) a ticket because the situation was a violation of city code, and that said manager was "in control" of the property. I checked today: their walks were REALLY NICE, better than I've EVER seen after a snow, and I live right around the corner. Kids walking to and from schools, and other pedestrians, were not walking into the busy intersection to avoid the mountains of snow and ice blocking the walks. I think it's possible that the manager was a little more mindful of the situation. Why, it's almost become a little slice of Utopia! (Sorry, I couldn't resist that . . .)

I know we can do better. Just our talking about this here has made my own walks better. I do it way more promptly, more thoroughly, I'm buying melting crystals, my back hurts more, etc. I didn't have to get a ticket, it seems, but I've come to see the seriousness of it anyway. And I'm a renter!

(You may say I'm a dreamer . . .)

[Mike Zannoni]

How would it be handled if residents are not in town for a length of time.

Maybe there ought to be high enforcement zones, main streets and main arteries off the main streets, and streets leading to schools. If you live or have a business on one of these, you are on the stick for finding a solution for when you are absent.

Will they be given warnings because they are not present?

This is the case now, as letters are sent to the owner's address whether he or she is home or not.

What are the proposed standards for violation? Is it shoveled vs. non-shoveled or are people going to issue warning on their opinion of "how well" an area is shoveled?

Mary Simon does this every day. We should ask her. I'm sure she's not Hitler about it.

Can they elaborate more specifically how older plowing methods can be better? I am interested since complaints have existed for years and years and I personally can't remember a time when people were saying "these trucks are plowing better...I am satisfied"

I'll let Ed Favre answer this, because he's old. (Just kidding, Mr. Favre.) He spoke to this at the meeting, and seemed to know what he was talking about.

[Kristine Pagsuyoin]

Mike,

I spoke with employees of the Division of Youth on Wednesday morning about the current program that we have for seniors. As you know, kids who participate with H2O are assigned to one or two senio a season to clear snow for them. The person who organizes the kids will also ask them if they want to be put a on list to shovel for a fee for citizens to contact if they need help with snow removal. I think that this list can be expanded and be made more public--not contain just H2O kids, for example.

Also, I am currently awaiting to get clarification on whether the program is extended to the disabled.

As far issuing tickets I think that in some cases that paying a fine will be the only motivator. A couple who attended the meeting (moved her from Evanston IL) mentioned to me that in their city snow had to be cleared by 9am or the parking attendant could issue a ticket--$120.00. I worked in Evanston and it is a walking city like Lakewood.
I think the idea of using parking attendants help with enforcement is a good idea.

During snow bans, citizens are allowed to park their cars in the school and city parking lots.

I do think that a multi-faceted approach is necessary if we really want to improve the snow removal and help make the sidewalks safer. That includes; fines, an awareness campaign, collaboration between the school and city, using pedestrian friendly plowing methods, and especially clarification on the snow ordinance and street snow ban law. As I look at the list it doesn't seem like it would cost a lot, but that the results could be significant.

Many of these aspects are being worked out. I hope that soon I will have an update in the Lakewood Observer.

[Betsy Voinovich]

Hi all--

Check it out, if you have not already seen it! This is from a Lakewood water bill, and the Recycling/Leaf Collection flier from the City of Lakewood.

recyclingnotice.jpg (199.8 KiB) Viewed 2085 times

waterbillturn.jpg (187.9 KiB) Viewed 2085 times

Results from the snow meeting--- at least a beginning, letting residents know what their obligations are in terms of snow removal.

Thanks City of Lakewood, Kristine Pagsuyoin who took the initiative to put the meeting together and Observer Deck posters and readers! Great start!

Betsy Voinovich

[Charlie Page]

Results from the snow meeting--- at least a beginning, letting residents know what their obligations are in terms of snow removal.

Their obligation should be easily understood: It snows, you shovel

[Mike Zannoni]

Results from the snow meeting--- at least a beginning, letting residents know what their obligations are in terms of snow removal.

Their obligation should be easily understood: It snows, you shovel

Frighteningly, the word "should" seems to have less and less meaning every day. Those who still believe in it, or who can even be "guilted" into abiding by it, are a shrinking group.

So, quoting the ordinance is good, even though it leaves tenant without any clear legal responsibility: the city WILL fine you, the owner, if you don't understand and make provisions for what you and your tenants SHOULD do. Hopefully more landlords will bring this up to tenants or even put verbiage into their leases. Since landlords get the water bill no matter where they live, this message will hopefully get out to them.

If I were a landlord, I'd probably make clear in the lease that clearing sidewalks is something either that I will take care of ongoing, or that they are expected to do. If the latter, then I will pass on the fine to them by raising rent in the amount of the city's fine for each incident.

I also think fines should be reserved for the worst and repeat offenders, and that due consideration toward age, disability, etc. is given. But enforcement (citation, fine) has to happen for many to become motivated enough to plan adequately for snow solutions, assign formal responsibility, buy shovels, whatever, in lieu of a well-formed sense of "should".

And with the way things are set up (per Mary Simon), the city will not know, in most cases, until they are made aware through complaints.

We are the carrot, and we are the stick . . .

[Mike Zannoni]

. . . and the Recycling/Leaf Collection flier from the City of Lakewood.

I never got this on Victoria Ave!

[Will Brown]

I thought one of the benefits of being a tenant is that you are not responsible for many of the tasks in keeping up the property. You don't have to paint the place; you don't have to make repairs; you don't have to shovel the snow or cut the grass.

If a landlord tried to impose those things in the lease, he should charge far less for the rent.

If a property owner doesn't get the tasks done, perhaps the city should hire a contractor and bill the property owner, preferably with a healthy markup to cover the city's costs.

[Mike Zannoni]

I thought one of the benefits of being a tenant is that you are not responsible for many of the tasks in keeping up the property. You don't have to paint the place; you don't have to make repairs; you don't have to shovel the snow or cut the grass.

If a landlord tried to impose those things in the lease, he should charge far less for the rent.

If a property owner doesn't get the tasks done, perhaps the city should hire a contractor and bill the property owner, preferably with a healthy markup to cover the city's costs.

I'd be all for this, but this is not what Lakewood's current code states. Anyone "in control" of a property is responsible, but only an "owner" can be fined. This is one of those vague situations, which manifests as NOBODY doing it in many cases, with the buck mentally passed from one party to the other by both parties.

Let's keep in mind that we are talking about the sidewalks here, which the city owns, and this is not really part of the property that every landlord knows he/she must maintain (e.g. paint, repairs, grass, as Will mentions). My landlord does neither the driveway nor the sidewalks, and it would NEVER ENTER HIS MIND to, but he does sporadically mow the lawn in the summer. It's this mindlessness we're trying to address.

There's no doubt that if my landlord had to come form North Royalton and do my walks and driveway after doing his own at home, or contract someone to do it, my rent would be raised a nice chunk. That's part of the picture that keeps things from being addressed. I just do it, rather than endure a $25 to $50/month increase, which is probably what he'd impose.

(It's analogous to the northbound "two lanes" of most of Warren south of Madison: it can't be marked as two lanes, because the lanes would probably be not wide enough to be legal. But it won't be marked as one lane either, because that would back traffic up. So we muddle through with a confused "faux double lane" and an uncomfortable, vague sense that things aren't as they should be, but somehow it just has to be exactly like it is, somewhat and chronically dysfunctional.)

Will's comments show exactly what is most problematic about the current situation: people have their own ideas and the law is not terribly helpful in determining whose responsibility that it is has has been all along . . . We don't want to displease landlords, and we don't want to displease tenants (and it might not be feasible to hold them legally responsible), therefore kids have to walk in the streets and risk being hit by cars.

I’m all for clarifying the law as one effort to improve things regarding snow removal on sidewalks.