CA state law - city sidewalk responsibility issue

[HighwayMan]

Sarcasm, perhaps?

Definitely.

 

[paddywakk]

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.

I think you'll find this policy is in wide use in CA. My neighbor cut down a diseased tree out by the sidewalk and the city was on him in no time - he should either have treated it or replaced it, both at his own expense. The tree belonged to the city.

 

[quincy]

I think you'll find this policy is in wide use in CA. My neighbor cut down a diseased tree out by the sidewalk and the city was on him in no time - he should either have treated it or replaced it, both at his own expense. The tree belonged to the city.

There is quite a difference in how cities in California handle sidewalk issues, especially as these issues concern city trees. The most reasonable ordinances (reasonable to me, at any rate) put the obligation to repair sidewalks damaged by tree roots on the tree owner.

 

[JMc4K]

This is just so sad. So if my house needs repair, I should be on my neighbor? How'd this logic play out if it were to apply to every situation in life? The justice system would be in shambles.

This should spark a public outcry.

I've talked to every neighbor who comes across this sidewalk issue, and everyone agrees the city is the entity responsible for the maintenance of the sidewalk.


This looks to me it's just a blame game by the city who doesn't want to pay for its own bills.

 

[quincy]

This is just so sad. So if my house needs repair, I should be on my neighbor? How'd this logic play out if it were to apply to every situation in life?

This should spark a public outcry.

I've talked to every neighbor who comes across this sidewalk issue, and everyone agrees the city is the entity responsible for the maintenance of the sidewalk.


This looks to me it's just a blame game by the city who doesn't want to pay for its own bills.

You can be the one to spark the public outcry. Start a petition drive. Contact the media. Call your legislators.

But also trim the tree roots and repair the sidewalk. For better or worse, the law is what it is.

Good luck.