CA state law - city sidewalk responsibility issue

[JMc4K]

Hi,

I live in the Bay Area in CA, and recently I received multiple letters from local city saying I'd need to repair the sidewalk area that's the local city property -- and adjacent to my property. This was due to the city tree that's causing sidewalk hazard. The city said I could pay them $3k for them to repair their sidewalk, or I could repair the sidewalk for the city. If I wouldn't repair their sidewalk within the deadline, they'd put a lien on my property.


Many folks (including me of course) feel that this is just very wrong ethics. I simply cannot even imagine going to the court, and tell a judge that my next-door neighbor should be the one to pay for the repair cost of my own property -- which is caused by my property's own condition.


What can I do now with this CA state law that so many are seeing is just wrong? Any help I can obtain -- so this wrong law can be changed for the good of the community?

The city should be responsible to provide a safe environment -- for public areas that are owned by the city. Period. This is very basic and essential duty of the local city government. I believe this is the right kind of law instead.


The state can use the population's tax money to fund this kind of basic and essential operations. That's the right way to do it.

I only have less than two months to respond to the city's letter. Anyone can help here? I really want to see that something can be done, not just for myself, but for everyone who lives in this state.


Regards.

 

[quincy]

Hi,

I live in the Bay Area in CA, and recently I received multiple letters from local city saying I'd need to repair the sidewalk area that's the local city property -- and adjacent to my property. This was due to the city tree that's causing sidewalk hazard. The city said I could pay them $3k for them to repair their sidewalk, or I could repair the sidewalk for the city. If I wouldn't repair their sidewalk within the deadline, they'd put a lien on my property.


Many folks (including me of course) feel that this is just very wrong ethics. I simply cannot even imagine going to the court, and tell a judge that my next-door neighbor should be the one to pay for the repair cost of my own property -- which is caused by my property's own condition.


What can I do now with this CA state law that so many are seeing is just wrong? Any help I can obtain -- so this wrong law can be changed for the good of the community?

The city should be responsible to provide a safe environment -- for public areas that are owned by the city. Period. This is very basic and essential duty of the local city government. I believe this is the right kind of law instead.


The state can use the population's tax money to fund this kind of basic and essential operations. That's the right way to do it.

I only have less than two months to respond to the city's letter. Anyone can help here? I really want to see that something can be done, not just for myself, but for everyone who lives in this state.


Regards.

Please cite the law you are referring to. Thanks.

 

[Zigner]

This is more likely covered by city code as opposed to state law.

 

[adjusterjack]

That's right.

I've been discussing a similar situation with a poster on another site.

He lives in San Jose, CA and posted the municipal code sections 14.16.2200 through 14.16.2205 which may explain this OP's situation if he happens to live in San Jose or in a city with a similarly draconian ordinance.

14.16.2200 - Maintenance and repair of sidewalks.

A. Anything in this chapter to the contrary notwithstanding, the maintenance and repair of sidewalk areas and the making, confirming and collecting of assessments for the cost and expenses of said maintenance and repair may be done and the proceedings therefor may be had and taken in accordance with this part and the procedure therefor provided in Chapter 22 of Division 7, Part 3, of the Streets and Highways Code of the state as the same is now in effect or may hereafter be amended. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of said Chapter 22 of Division 7, Part 3, of the Streets and Highways Code of the state and this Part 17, the provisions of Part 17 shall control.

B. The owners of lots or portions of lots adjacent to or fronting on any portion of a sidewalk area between the property line of the lots and the street line, including parking strips, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and persons in possession of such lots by virtue of any permit or right shall repair and maintain such sidewalk areas and pay the costs and expenses therefor, including a charge for the City of San José's costs of inspection and administration whenever the city awards a contract for such maintenance and repair and including the costs of collection of assessments for the costs of maintenance and repair under subsection A. of this section or handling of any lien placed on the property due to failure of the property owner to promptly pay such assessments.

C. For the purposes of this part, maintenance and repair of sidewalk area shall include, but not be limited to, maintenance and repair of surfaces including grinding, removal and replacement of sidewalks, repair and maintenance of curb and gutters, removal and filling or replacement of parking strips, removal of weeds and/or debris, supervision and maintenance of signs allowed pursuant to Section 23.04.340 and Section 23.04.830, tree root pruning and installing root barriers, trimming of shrubs and/or ground cover and trimming shrubs within the area between the property line of the adjacent property and the street pavement line, including parking strips and curbs, so that the sidewalk area will remain in a condition that is not dangerous to property or to persons using the sidewalk in a reasonable manner and will be in a condition which will not interfere with the public convenience in the use of said sidewalk area.

D. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5614 of the state Streets and Highways Code, the director of streets and parks may in his or her discretion, and for sufficient cause, extend the period within which required maintenance and repair of sidewalk areas must commence by a period of not to exceed ninety days from the time the notice referred to in said Section 5614 is given.

14.16.2205 - Liability for injuries to public.

The property owner required by Section 14.16.2200 to maintain and repair the sidewalk area shall owe a duty to members of the public to keep and maintain the sidewalk area in a safe and nondangerous condition. If, as a result of the failure of any property owner to maintain the sidewalk area in a nondangerous condition as required by Section 14.16.2200, any person suffers injury or damage to person or property, the property owner shall be liable to such person for the resulting damages or injury.

https://library.municode.com/ca/san_jose/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT14PUWOIM_CH14.16IMPRCO_PT17MARESI_14.16.2200MARESI

 

[quincy]

If there is a similar code in JMc4K's Bay Area city, it appears JMc4K will need to do some tree root trimming.

 

[JMc4K]

I live in San Jose. So the SJ city code applies to my situation.

But this law is just wrong in the first place.

How'd a property owner get to demand someone else to pay for the owner's own maintenance work that's caused by the owner's objects (tree)? This won't stand in the court of law.

Can this law be overturned?

Someone suggested me to subscribe to service, and get the AG involved.

 

[quincy]

I live in San Jose. So the SJ city code applies to my situation.

But this law is just wrong in the first place.

How'd a property owner get to demand someone else to pay for the owner's own maintenance work that's caused by the owner's objects (tree)? This won't stand in the court of law.

Can this law be overturned?

Someone suggested me to subscribe to service, and get the AG involved.

Contact your legislator.

 

[Zigner]

On the other side of the coin; it's all fine and dandy when you get free enjoyment of the tree on your property, but once that tree becomes a problem, you're the first one up in arms.

 

[JMc4K]

All those who walk along the sidewalk and enjoy the view all these years get to share the maintenance cost as well - yes? Isn't this what the tax system is for?

Something is terribly wrong about the idea of 'whoever lives next to the sidewalk... .' The sidewalk is a public area, owned by the city. Else, what responsibility does an ownership carry along with?


Sadly, none of my neighbors ever enjoyed the tree. They complained to me and wanted to take it down as it's causing safety hazard. The city did nothing. I slipped over the tree fruits 3 times the past week.

I simply see this law by the city as an evasion of responsibility.

 

[quincy]

All those who walk along the sidewalk and enjoy the view all these years get to share the maintenance cost as well - yes? Isn't this what the tax system is for?

Something is terribly wrong about the idea of 'whoever lives next to the sidewalk... .' The sidewalk is a public area, owned by the city. Else, what responsibility does an ownership carry along with?


Sadly, none of my neighbors ever enjoyed the tree. They complained to me and wanted to take it down as it's causing safety hazard. The city did nothing. I slipped over the tree fruits 3 times the past week.

I simply see this law by the city as an evasion of responsibility.

Here is a link to a document from the League of California Cities 2014 Spring Conference, on California sidewalks and the differing responsibilities that various cities and property owners have in maintaining them:

https://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Member-Engagement/Professional-Departments/City-Attorneys/Library/2014/Spring-Conf/5-2014-Spring-Gerald-Hicks-But-Its-Your-Sidewalk_S.aspx

There are cities in California that make sidewalk repair the responsibility of the property owner EXCEPT when the damage to the sidewalk is caused by a city tree. You might want to check the wording of those ordinances when working to change the one in your area that forces property owners to repair damage caused by the city's failure to maintain their own property.

I think the ordinance in your city is in need of its own repair.

Again, contacting your representative might be a starting point. Good luck.

 

[JMc4K]

If I own the sidewalk and I get to design how the sidewalk looks and what is planted and who uses the sidewalk, then I'm happy to own the maintenance cost. But I don't own the sidewalk.

The sidewalk is a public area used by all residents in the area. Maintenance cost should be shared by residents in the city who share the usage of the area (except when damage is caused by a single individual, but damage to a heavy concrete by a single person hardly ever occurs, except perhaps when the owner's big tree root caused the concrete damage).

The owner of the sidewalk -- the city, needs to be responsible to get this done in the proper way (tax, or whatever state/city funding, and along with the proper city planning and design).

This is the fair law and the right way to do it.


I just can't imagine the city asking a retired old lady to dish out thousands of dollars, for something that's used by everyone in the city.

This is just wrong.


Legislative change is not going to happen soon enough to help my case I think. In the meantime, I'll have to figure out what to do to right this wrong for me.


If anyone sees this and feels the same way of this unfair/improper law, please notify your local representatives as well.


Nothing is going to happen until the citizens voice out, if the government is not doing the job right.

 

[Zigner]

If I own the sidewalk and I get to design how the sidewalk looks and what is planted and who uses the sidewalk, then I'm happy to own the maintenance cost. But I don't own the sidewalk.

The sidewalk is a public area used by all residents in the area. Maintenance cost should be shared by residents in the city who share the usage of the area (except when damage is caused by a single individual, but damage to a heavy concrete by a single person hardly ever occurs, except perhaps when the owner's big tree root caused the concrete damage).

The owner of the sidewalk -- the city, needs to be responsible to get this done in the proper way (tax, or whatever state/city funding, and along with the proper city planning and design).

This is the fair law and the right way to do it.


I just can't imagine the city asking a retired old lady to dish out thousands of dollars, for something that's used by everyone in the city.

This is just wrong.




Legislative change is not going to happen soon enough to help my case I think. In the meantime, I'll have to figure out what to do to right this wrong for me.


If anyone sees this and feels the same way of this unfair/improper law, please notify your local representatives as well.


Nothing is going to happen until the citizens voice out, if the government is not doing the job right.

Wrong or not, it is what it is. Contact your legislators.

 

[quincy]

If I own the sidewalk and I get to design how the sidewalk looks and what is planted and who uses the sidewalk, then I'm happy to own the maintenance cost. But I don't own the sidewalk.

The sidewalk is a public area used by all residents in the area. Maintenance cost should be shared by residents in the city who share the usage of the area (except when damage is caused by a single individual, but damage to a heavy concrete by a single person hardly ever occurs, except perhaps when the owner's big tree root caused the concrete damage).

The owner of the sidewalk -- the city, needs to be responsible to get this done in the proper way (tax, or whatever state/city funding, and along with the proper city planning and design).

This is the fair law and the right way to do it.


I just can't imagine the city asking a retired old lady to dish out thousands of dollars, for something that's used by everyone in the city.

This is just wrong.


Legislative change is not going to happen soon enough to help my case I think. In the meantime, I'll have to figure out what to do to right this wrong for me.


If anyone sees this and feels the same way of this unfair/improper law, please notify your local representatives as well.


Nothing is going to happen until the citizens voice out, if the government is not doing the job right.

You should start a petition drive. Get other residents who share your view to speak out. Contact the media and your state legislators.

Because nothing is likely to change anytime soon, however, I suggest you follow the law that is in place and trim the city's tree roots and repair the sidewalk, this before someone is injured on your section of the sidewalk and sues.

Good luck.

 

[HighwayMan]

This won't stand in the court of law.

So go for it.

Sounds like an easy win.

 

[quincy]

So go for it.

Sounds like an easy win.

Sarcasm, perhaps?