Comments on: LA to shift sidewalk burden

By: Mary Patterson

Mary Patterson — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 17:29:58 +0000

I injured myself severely on an uplifted sidewalk in Los Angeles. Who is responsible? The homeowner and the city ignored the problem and I’m suffering with permanent injuries.

By: Bay Area Homeowner

Bay Area Homeowner — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:45:34 +0000

The precident is pretty clear and well established. Cities have implicitly taken ownership of sidewalks by the original installation, design, maintenance and oversight policies. Now – they’re feeling the pinch of a tighter economy and would like to shift that responsibility to homeowners – despite years of acting, in every way imaginable, to the contrary. State of disrepair is the responsibility of the current owners. I do not see how cities can suddenly whip out (to use a phrase from Animal House) “..a little known codicil..” in hopes of undoing decades of their own actions and liability.

By: LA property owner

LA property owner — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:57:48 +0000

If this is approved, what prevents the city in the future from extending the homeowners resposibility to mainataining the pavement all the way to the centerline of the road, then the infrastrucutre underneath as well!
Sidewalks is used by the public without control or restrictions from property owners similar to paved roads. Its maintainance should always be the responsibility of the city not the homeowner!

By: Tesa Becica

Tesa Becica — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 23:53:41 +0000

The article fails to mention how much control the homeowners in those “regulated” cities maintain. We have no control over what type of trees are planted, and then are responsible for what damage they do? This is not logical. If Los Angeles quit being a sanctuary city, we would have plenty of money for our government to run properly!

By: LA Homeowner

LA Homeowner — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 18:19:04 +0000

If I am compelled to pay for repairing my sidewalk, then I reserve the right to control that sidewalk- it’s my property. If repairs are needed, I will select the contractor, not pay the bloated city rates. If it’s my sidewalk on my lot (and it is my lot) then I will select who gets to use it, and it will not be open to the general public any more than my front yard is.

By: Sue Castillo

Sue Castillo — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:39:59 +0000

It was interesting to read about San Francisco’s approach to this – good research. I’d like to know more: how long has this been the law there, and how is it working? Are any people losing their homes (due to lawsuit awards against them)? However, I don’t see how the City could keep from being named in the lawsuit as well, as the City has been maintaining (or failing to maintain) the sidewalks for decades here. Lawyers will always go after the deep pockets…the City, not individual homeowners. If this goes forward, it should be accompanied by another law, requiring pedestrians to take responsibility for paying attention to their movements, instead of expecting compensation when they trip over a 2″ sidewalk joint irregularity. I would also like to see the city make sidewalk repairs more affordable, and waive inspection/permit fees for homeowner repairs. Going a step further, the City should allow homeowners to opt into a City-led pavement repair contract, in order to benefit from the City’s ability to bargain effectively for the best price on a large contract.

By: Tylerle13

Tylerle13 — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 20:01:01 +0000

What the hell is the infrastructure maint. money being spent on? They are paying police overtime to be at the Michael Jackson Funeral & the Lakers riots, but they are so cash strapped that people have to pay to fix the sidewalks? They want more power to control every little aspect of peoples lives, but they cannot even efficiently handle the basic purposes of a government. What a joke.