Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Lawrence residents receive tickets for not clearing sidewalks

January 9, 2013, 11:11 a.m. Updated January 11, 2013, 9:38 a.m.

Advertisement

Last Thursday after 8 a.m., 24 Lawrence homes were ticketed for not shoveling their sidewalks 48 hours after the snowfall.

The citations given out were for $80 each: $20 for the fine and $60 for court costs. Those who were ticketed have the right to challenge the ticket in court, said Brian Jimenez, the code enforcement manager for the city’s planning and development services.

Last winter, which was unusually warm and lacking in snow, no tickets were issued. In previous winters, more than a hundred tickets have been issued.

According to city ordinance, residents have 48 hours after a snowfall to clear their sidewalks. For older residents who may have trouble shoveling snow, Douglas County Senior Services offers a Safe Winter Walkways program. The program finds volunteers to shovel sidewalks. However, the deadline to apply for the 2013 program has passed.

“We pride Lawrence on being a walkable city,” Jimenez said. “It goes down to the basic property owner responsibility, which is that sidewalks, wherever they may be, are designed to promote pedestrian travel. It can potentially become hazardous as the snow melts and refreezes.”

An earlier version of this story did not include information that the application deadline for the Safe Winter Walkways program has passed.

Comments

patkindle 1 year, 11 months ago

While our ancestors, climbed mountains and forded rivers To discover the west , todays citizens of Lawrence Have evolved to a race of people that are unable to Walk on uneven surfaces. So our government has to Protect them from cradle to grave .That is sad

B0B 1 year, 11 months ago

While our ancestors, climbed mountains and forded rivers To discover the west , todays citizens of Lawrence Have evolved to a race of people that are unable to take 10 minutes to shovel 2 inches of snow.

Jeremiah Jefferson 1 year, 11 months ago

let that be a leasson for all you godless heathens who wont shovel the sidewalks

Jeremiah Jefferson 1 year, 11 months ago

the best part is those tickets were probably handed out in the poorest neighborhoods in lawrence.

patkindle 1 year, 11 months ago

the police only issue tickets when someone complains, so it depends which side has the most whiners.

koman 1 year, 11 months ago

For people who need sidewalks to get around - whether with a walker, cane or scooter/wheelchair - or even, gasp, people who exercise by running or walking outside - having clear sidewalks is more than a convenience - it may determine if they can get around at all.

Charles L Bloss Jr 1 year, 11 months ago

I wouldn't live in Lawrence for all the money in the world. What a bunch of idiots! Go on, keep trying to attract retirees to your liberal dump.

boltzmann 1 year, 11 months ago

We appreciate the fact that you don't live here. Thank you.

PhilChiles 1 year, 11 months ago

Retirees prefer snowy sidewalks? I had no idea! Maybe we could kick all of the college kids out of town, they'd probably like that too.

George_Braziller 1 year, 11 months ago

What's the definition the city uses for "cleared"? I have 100 year old brick sidewalks which are impossible to get completely clean.

And, when does the clock start if the snow is blowing? There have been times when wind-blown snow has re-covered the sidewalk after shoveling and after it has stopped snowing.

Laura Wilson 1 year, 11 months ago

It's a lot safer to walk on packed snow then on ice (and that's what was beneath my snow from the first go round). And wet sidewalks that have melted during the day can easily refreeze over night. If a person falls on a sidewalk you've cleared as best you can, you can be held liable. If they fall on a sidewalk you haven't done anything to it's considered an act of God.

And not everyone has the sun shine on their sidewalks. There are parts of mine that never get any sun. Even cleared off as best as I could get it, it didn't fully melt until two days ago in a couple spots.

jhawk0097 1 year, 11 months ago

Which is why you're required to put down sand if unable to free your sidewalk of snow/ice. I also hear of a magical product called ice melt that could help. 50 lb bag for $8 at Wal Mart. This isn't a difficult concept to understand people.

George_Braziller 1 year, 11 months ago

Which also kills or stunts the vegetation around the area and eventually ends up in the river.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

you're thinking salt, not snow-melt, which has no salt. Here's the low down on it: looks pretty benign and works better than salt: http://www.roadsolutionsinc.com/PIS/NATURAL-MELT-SM100812.pdf

Kathy Getto 1 year, 11 months ago

Not to mention, if someone falls on your snow or ice covered sidewalk, your insurance will take a hit.

John Hamm 1 year, 11 months ago

Good! I'm tired of trying to walk on snow and ice covered sidewalks.

Old_Oread_Phart 1 year, 11 months ago

I wonder where Eride's run was this year.

koman 1 year, 11 months ago

Glad we didn't have the same attitude about traffic and drunk driving laws.

"Heck - saw a guy run that stop sign the other day, take 'em all down!" "Saw me a drunk driver the other day - take all of the limits off - they do no good!"

The level of logic required to convince the vast majority of nra members does not quite meet the level required to convince anyone with a 5th grade education.

Bob Forer 1 year, 11 months ago

Have no idea whether it is true, but I heard that someone overheard a table of college kids laughing about turning the "bourgeoisie" against itself by turning in homeowners in the upscale neighborhoods for failing to shovel their sidewalks. Apparently the college kids were quite proud of themselves.

Wonder if this is what is known as "class warfare?"

parrothead8 1 year, 11 months ago

If you have no idea whether or not it is true, it seems irresponsible to present it as possibly being so. Perhaps you should talk to the someone else that your source heard it from.

Bob Forer 1 year, 11 months ago

Why is it irresponsible? The mere possibility of this happening is good reason to examine the method of enforcement and to come up with something that is fair and not arbitrary and fortuitous.

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

Well, folks in upscale neighborhoods have even fewer excuses for not clearing their sidewalks, I'd say.

Complaint driven systems are flawed, to be sure, but implementing more city driven ones would cost a lot more, I'd guess - do you want to pay higher taxes to implement one of those, in which city employees travel all around the city instead?

kernal 1 year, 11 months ago

Sychophant, didn't someone else write this same comment two years ago, except the conversation took place at a McDonalds?

clovis_sangrail 1 year, 11 months ago

I like that. I think I may have just found a new hobby -- sidewalk snitching.

Do you think we could get it elevated to the status of a winter sport?

Bob Forer 1 year, 11 months ago

If I received one of these tickets, I would fight it on Constitutional Equal Protection and Due Process grounds. By not enforcing the code except when a complaint is made, its application becomes arbitrary and capricious, depending on the motivation of the fink and the fortuity of being finked on--nothing to do with pubic safety.

This is a no brainer. One does not have to be a constitutional scholar to understand that the application of this law is about as arbitrary as it gets.

All 24 of them ought to pitch in and hire one attorney. The citations are public information so they should be able to organize each other.

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

Or you could just shovel your sidewalk. Either/Or.

Bob Forer 1 year, 11 months ago

I don't have a sidewalk. But what if I were ill or out of town. The law doesn't allow you to get out of the ticket by shoveling after the ticket. Is it fair that one gets a ticket simply because a neighbor doesn't like them?

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

I've often said "fair" is impossible to define. Would you please restate your question leaving that concept out.

SnakeFist 1 year, 11 months ago

I agree that there are many legal issues at stake (but not equal protection or due process - everyone with a sidewalk is subject to the ordinance, and there are many laws that aren't enforced absent a complaint, such as trespassing, assault, battery, etc.).

I think arguments against the ordinance include that it violates (1) the freedom to travel (you can't go anywhere for more than 48 hours without risking a ticket), (2) the American's with Disabilities Act (I believe there are no options for the disabled other than to beg or pay for help), (3) the Takings Clause (which I don't believe applies to labor but does apply to material goods such as salt and sand), and (4) statutory or common laws against unreasonable involuntary public service.

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

Not sure any of those would work either.

You can travel and don't lose that freedom - you just have to make sure your property is maintained while you're away or get fined.

Requiring homeowners to maintain sidewalks doesn't preclude the disabled from owning them, any more than requiring them to maintain other aspects of their property so that they don't damage neighbors' property (like old or diseased trees, etc.). Disabled homeowners have to hire folks to do what they can't do themselves in that regard.

I'm not sure what you mean there about takings.

The question there would be "unreasonable" - clearly there's an argument that this is reasonable.

Personally, I do find it odd that sidewalks are public property and yet private homeowners are supposed to maintain them. If something is public, the city should maintain it, and if it's private and I have to maintain it, I can control access to limit the use/abuse.

But if we had the city take care of all the sidewalks, it would cost a lot more - most folks who complain about clearing the sidewalks wouldn't want to pay higher taxes for that, so...

SnakeFist 1 year, 11 months ago

With regard to travel, you would have to contract with a private company to provide a service - not a service that benefits you (as with the healthcare mandate), but a service that benefits others. And not everyone will have that extra money. Keep in mind that the poor generally rent, and landlords often, through the rental agreement, make yard and sidewalk maintenance the renters' obligation (so even though the landlord would receive the ticket, the renter would have to pay it).

With regard to the disabled, you can avoid almost all yard maintenance by carefully choosing or changing your property when you purchase it. But you can't anticipate what the city will do with regard to building or creating more requirements to maintain public infrastructure. Some have suggested, for example, that people should buy property without sidewalks - but the city can install a sidewalk whenever it wishes.

Anyway, I doubt anyone will challenge the ordinance over an $80 ticket, which is a shame because, as liberal as I am, impressing me into public service or requiring me to spend money to maintain public infrastructure solely for the benefit of others goes too far. I don't mind paying taxes for government services, or not paying taxes and providing my own services, but I don't want to pay taxes and then be forced to provide those services for others.

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

Good point about poor folks renting - I hadn't thought of that.

You can't avoid all the necessary home maintenance though, so some will always be necessary, and disabled folks can't do it themselves, so they have to hire somebody.

So you'd be ok paying higher taxes and having the city do it instead? Most who complain about this sort of thing are also against higher taxes.

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

I can't answer that question, because I don't understand how it would apply to the topic here.

One way or the other, sidewalks should be cleared. We can either do it ourselves, or we can pay higher taxes to have the city do it. Which do you prefer?

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

Answer my question, and then I'll answer yours.

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

If all those who complain about clearing the sidewalks would be willing to pay taxes and have the city do it, that's fine with me. However, I bet you will find that, for the most part, those who complain about sidewalk maintenance will resist any more taxes as well.

I'm not at all sure that you're correct about these sorts of things being unconstitutional.

But, as Katara suggests below, you should take the case to court, and as high up as you can get it, and then we can find out what the courts say about it.

I agree that public sidewalks on private property are an odd sort of thing, by the way.

akt2 1 year, 11 months ago

You could probably save yourself about $60 by finding a junior high or high school kid to shovel. My brother shoveled snow when we were kids. He knew everyone in the neighborhood and they always gave him hot chocolate and snacks when he shoveled. Plus he always had a pocket full of money every time it snowed. Then in the summer they figured if he could shovel snow, he could probably mow.

JackMcKee 1 year, 11 months ago

Don't buy property with a sidewalk. Dogs poop in your yard, people toss litter in your yard and the City gives you tickets when you don't clear the snow fast enough. You'd have to pay me to get me to live in a house with a sidewalk.

gatekeeper 1 year, 11 months ago

I have no problem with the law, IF the city gets out and clears all the sidewalks they are responsible for. They didn't clear sidewalks at the park near my house (they never have, even though they are responsible). B.S. if they give anyone a ticket when they can't follow the law themselves.

matahari 1 year, 11 months ago

so I wonder just how much the ticket may cost for streets not being cleared

bearded_gnome 1 year, 11 months ago

“We pride Lawrence on being a walkable city,” Jimenez said. “It goes down to the basic property owner responsibility, which is that sidewalks, wherever they may be, are designed to promote pedestrian travel. It can potentially become hazardous as the snow melts and refreezes.”

---we also pride lawrence in good English.

“We pride Lawrence on being a walkable city,” Jimenez said. “It goes down to the basic property owner responsibility, which is that sidewalks, wherever they may be, are designed to promote pedestrian travel. It [it = what?] can potentially become hazardous as the snow melts and refreezes.”

---besides sloppy speaking, this statement embodies another problem: the assumption that cleared sidewalks are always going to be safe sidewalks. sadly it is frequently the case that you clear the sidewalks only to provide a nice flat surface for very dangerous ice, when leaving the snow would actually be the safer alternative.

enforcing a hard and fast rule doesn't make sense across the entire city, IMHO.

greenworld 1 year, 11 months ago

Chances are out of the 24 people I would have to guess that over half or more are seniors that just cant do it. Pretty pitiful if you ask me. Also im sure hundreds or even thousands in lawrence didnt shovel their snow. Im call BS!!! I think its impartial to randomly select 24 people or wait for complaints. Im sure probly no call in's just random ones that the city knew had previous yr lawsuits for people falling down on them. Also one other thing the 80.00 is pretty high, This is a money maker and it should definately only be in the 10-30.00 range for the fine. Seat belt fines are only 10.00 and that is suppose to save your life. I would shovel it for these people for half the amount of the fine, thats whats really sad. They should issue a warning on all these and right them a warning ticket that gives them 3 days to get it done and then if its not then issue the fine. The current ticket system is BS to the fullest.

Jean Robart 1 year, 11 months ago

the fine is only $20. The balance of the bill is court costs. Did you read the article where this was explained?

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

Then the seat belt ticket is $70 if the fine really is only $10. Court costs are $60 for all tickets I believe.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

Well good for them--shows that the legislature can be pretty useful sometimes!

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

Then the seat belt ticket is $70, not $10. Court costs are $60 for all tickets, I believe.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

Weird comment software program alert: sorry for the duplicate. The program sent me notification that it was unable to post the comment, then put it up after I had reposted it.

Eugehne Normandin 1 year, 11 months ago

If I had a sidewalk I would clear it but why are the parking lots at Lyons park plowed before North 5th St. ???

Jeremiah Jefferson 1 year, 11 months ago

Pretty lame they wrote tickets for what equated to less than an inch of snow especially when they can't keep the streets clear and as someone else mentioned the side walks at the parks and other city owned facilities cleared. If you can't figure out how to safely navigate a couple inches of snow, you probably shouldn't be walking on a normal day let alone a snow day and should be catching a ride or taking the bus. Theres no reason an elderly person or physically impaired person should be out in that kind of weather any how. I will shovel my walk once during a snow storm and thats just because I feel like going out to enjoy the snow, not because the city is threatening me. My neighbor and I actually take turns shoveling each others side walks. Just seems like a pretty stupid rule. As for a walkable city, have you seen some of the clowns walking around this town? What about all the pedestrians and cyclist getting smoked by cars? Last thing I am worried about is someone slipping and falling. As Dennis Leary would say "Life sucks, get a helmet."

jesse499 1 year, 11 months ago

That way Obama could share the wealth like he wants to do from your pocket to his.

kernal 1 year, 11 months ago

Our esteemed obstructionist Congress fought like rabid dogs to block tax increases to the wealthy. Referring to the masses as having wealth is ludicrous.

tanaumaga 1 year, 11 months ago

Hey brownie,Lawrence is in fact very walkable. ' walkable.' Very bikeable, joggable, skippable, and driveable as well.

FlintlockRifle 1 year, 11 months ago

Why is there a court cost??, why not just the $20.00 fee like a downtown parking ticket??

bugbuster 1 year, 11 months ago

Have we reduced our police force to a bunch of want ta be cops going around busting home owners ,, maybe if there only needed during the snowing season the city should consider firing a few of them ,, obvious the drug and home less problem is not a concern ,, busting home owners is like shooting fish in a barrel ,, we got ya you cant run heres your ticket ,, i'am sure we could get the pinkerton wanta be cops for a whole lot less then what the city is spending

bugbuster 1 year, 11 months ago

i like the comment about the smoking on who passes out the tickets,,it was my understanding at the city meeting that the fire department passes out the tickets,,so now the fire department wants to be cops to,, this is a confused city,, glad i dont live in lawrence ,, i suppose next the sanitation department wil be arresting you for not using their trash cans,,hum,maybe iam on to something,, give city hall time

Michele Dillon 1 year, 11 months ago

The safe walkways program is very short of volunteers. Perhaps some of you that are always complaining can volunteer to help some seniors so they don't get tickets. Better yet, you can just laugh when they attempt to shovel their own walks and then fall and break a hip or have a heart attack.

Richard Heckler 1 year, 11 months ago

Surely some landscape maintenance operators would love to clean walks for their customers.

shanep 1 year, 11 months ago

If I have to shovel it in the winter, I should be able to drink beer on it during football season!

Katara 1 year, 11 months ago

It is strange to see people complain about this. Sidewalk snow removal ordinances are pretty common in cities that get snow in the U.S. This isn't something that Lawrence just made up on a whim.

http://tinyurl.com/b4ly9y4

Katara 1 year, 11 months ago

What a silly question! You chose to purchase the property with a sidewalk. If you don't want to be responsible for the requirements of that purchase, you should sell and find a residence that takes care of all the maintenance for you, such as a condo.

No one forced you to buy property that has a sidewalk and you get the benefit of a higher value of property with one. Generally, houses with a sidewalk sell for more than those without. It is called curb appeal and a well maintained sidewalk increases the sales value of that property. So, if you want to force everyone to take care of your property for you, then I'd expect a cut of the proceeds of the sale.

This is a common city ordinance. The property owner is responsible for the upkeep of the sidewalk if it is on their property. This not only includes snow and ice removal but also replacement/or repair if the sidewalk breaks down.

Katara 1 year, 11 months ago

And those people forced to buy sidewalks still obtain financial benefit from them. It increases the curb appeal and people despite their complaints pay more for a house with a sidewalk than one without. The fines have nothing to do with it. That is similar to saying because you are fined for speeding, cars lose their value.

The majority of cities and towns have ordinances addressing sidewalks. Many have snow/ice removal ordinances along with ordinances addressing maintenance and repair. Of course, towns that don't get snow/ice will not have them. If you happen to note, I made the distinction that snow removal ordinances are common in cities that get snow.

The case law you cite applies to public works (streets and bridges). Sidewalk maintenance is not part of a public works program. Sidewalks are on private property with a right of way granted to the city. It is no different than a utility easement. You are required to keep that up for utilities to do work on their facilities. It is still your property but you are restricted as how it can be used due to the easement.

You also don't seem to understand what equal application of the law means. "The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. " http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection

All homeowners with sidewalks are being treated equally under the ordinance. The ordinance does not apply to homeowners who do not have a sidewalk. They are not in similar conditions and circumstances as a homeowner with a sidewalk.

But if you really felt it to be unconstitutional and judging from your outrage about being forced to maintain your own property, I am sure you have already obtained legal counsel and started the process to fight this horrible violation of your rights. In fact, we probably should be reading about your noble fight against tyranny now as you complained about the same exact thing last winter.

I am in favor of homeowners taking personal responsibility and maintaining their property. It benefits not only the homeowner but the neighbors and the neighborhood.

And, of course, since property ownership is voluntary, you can always choose to change your living arrangements to ones that don't include a sidewalk. There are quite a few options out there and if you don't wish to move, then I guess shoveling some snow 2-3 times a year really isn't that big of a deal as you are making it on a newspaper forum.

Katara 1 year, 11 months ago

You'll have to cite the code that makes sidewalks under the same code as streets and bridges.

And just because it doesn't fall under public works doesn't make the ordinance unconstitutional.

You must have missed this part in my comment about equal protection under the law. " In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. "

We treat homeowners differently in all sorts of ways and it is not unconstitutional to do so. Multi-family homeowners are subject to different rules than single-family homeowners. Owner-occupied homeowners can be subject to different rules than non-owner occupied homeowners. Rural homeowners can be subject to different rules than urban homeowners. Owner of homes on the historic registry are subject to different rules than owners of modern homes.

Each of those classes have different ordinances that apply to them that don't apply to the other groups.

Additionally, homeowners with sidewalks are only responsible for snow removal for the sidewalk on their property, not all snow removal on sidewalks as you claim. Homeowners with sidewalks are not required to clear anything that is not on property that they own. Forcing them to clear the snow on other people's property would be involuntary servitude but being required to maintain property that you own (by your choice) is not.

Good luck with your court case. The only one I could find regarding that was in Washington and ruled in the defendents' (the city's) favor. And that city just cleared the snow themselves for out of compliance homeowners and slapped a tax lien on the property for the cost.

I am glad that you agree property ownership is voluntary. It also means that if you choose to purchase a property with certain features, you are responsible for them. You also have a choice about what happens. Involuntary servitude means you have no choice. Your choice regarding the sidewalks is to keep them up by removing the snow or accepting the consequence of your inaction and paying the fine. The are benefits and consequences of choices. Isn't it great that we live in a country in which we have those choices?

Katara 1 year, 11 months ago

Your link is for Lawrence, MA. Have you forgotten what state you live in?

I don't think you understand what involuntary servitude is. "The term involuntary servitude is used in reference to any type of slavery, peonage, or compulsory labor for the satisfaction of debts. Two essential elements of involuntary servitude are involuntariness, which is compulsion to act against one's will, and servitude, which is some form of labor for another. Imprisonment without forced labor is not involuntary servitude, nor is unpleasant labor when the only direct penalty for not performing it is the withholding of money or the loss of a job." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Involuntary+Servitude

and it certainly does not involve labor on your property that you own. If the city starts requiring you to remove snow from other people's property, then you might have an issue with involuntary servitude.

I don't think you understand what an easement is as well.

"A right of use over the property of another. Traditionally the permitted kinds of uses were limited, the most important being rights of way and rights concerning flowing waters. The easement was normally for the benefit of adjoining lands, no matter who the owner was (an easement appurtenant), rather than for the benefit of a specific individual (easement in gross)." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/easement

The homeowner owns the property and an easement is granted to the city. Easements are also granted to utilities. This is information that is on the deed and information that a prospective buyer can get prior to purchase.

Regarding the lawn mowing, being billed for services that you did not request but you are required to do is very much a fine. Just because there is no court appearance does not somehow magically not make it a penalty. A fine is a financial penalty for not complying with an ordinance. Being billed for work the city performs because you did not comply with an ordinance is the same thing as a fine.

I have no worry about the authority granted to the county for labor on roads and bridges. Please re-read the quote you posted about it. As Eówyn said, "I am no man."

Katara 1 year, 11 months ago

BTW, the burden of proof is on your shoulders. I have no obligation to prove it is constitutional. The presumption is automatically that a law is constitutional until challenged. Then it is the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to show how it is unconstitutional. You've not met that burden.

Katara 1 year, 11 months ago

You can capitalize pavement all you want but that does not mean it includes sidewalks.

I posted the relevant part of involuntary servitude. "Two essential elements of involuntary servitude are involuntariness, which is compulsion to act against one's will, and servitude, which is some form of labor for another. Imprisonment without forced labor is not involuntary servitude, nor is unpleasant labor when the only direct penalty for not performing it is the withholding of money or the loss of a job."

A fine is not considered to met the definition of involuntary servitude. You have a choice. You can clear the sidewalk on your property of snow or you can just pay the fine for not doing so. The loss of money (a fine) is not considered to meet the definition. You also don't seem to understand that it is also not involuntary servitude when it is property that you own.

Additionally, you don't understand what an easement or a right of way is. The quote you pulled from the city site doesn't include your last sentence "In short the owners property does not start until the right of way ends." Please don't be dishonest and add things to a quote that does not exist.

And that answer does not state that the right of way is not your property. That statement does is clarify that your property may not go to the street curb and that there may be an easement (right of way is another type for an easement) that exists there for sidewalks and utilities.

"An Easement, a privilege to pass over the land of another, whereby the holder of the easement acquires only a reasonable and usual enjoyment of the property, and the owner of the land retains the benefits and privileges of ownership consistent with the easement."

"right of way n. ...1) a pathway or road with a specific description (e.g. "right to access and egress 20 feet wide along the northern line of Lot 7 of the Cobb subdivision in page 75 of maps"). 2) the right to cross property to go to and from another parcel. The right of way may be a specific grant of land or an "easement," which is a right to pass across another's land. The mere right to cross without a specific description is a "floating" easement." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/right+of+way

Yes, being billed for services that you did not request but are a result of your non-compliance is the same as a fine. It is a financial penalty. And in some cities, you can have a tax lien placed on your property for the work done. The purpose of that is to get you to comply with the ordinance. If you don't, you are penalized financially for not doing so.

As for women to be conscripted for county labor, I doubt with today's bunch of social conservatives that it would happen. In Kansas, we aren't even allowed to make decisions concerning our own bodies and health.

And 6-10 hour days out of the year? Pfft. I call that a nice break from my regular schedule.

Katara 1 year, 11 months ago

Anyhow, I'm done with this conversation. You clearly don;t understand what equal application of the law means or how it works. You clearly don't understand how a right of way works or what it means. You clearly don't understand that involuntary servitude does not include the maintenance of your own property nor is a fine as a penalty considered part of it. I simply don't have the patience to keep explaining it to you.

Good luck with your lawsuit.

Katara 1 year, 11 months ago

Yet another link fail on your part. The link you provide for the Lawrence DPW is not the one you quote from. I am not sure if you are just too worked up about this or if it is yet another attempt at dishonesty - posting links that you hope people won't actually read.

You should probably read what the info the website has before you post it. Pavement maintenance refers to street conditions here. http://www.lawrenceks.org/public_works/streetmaintenance

I encourage you to check out the pavement condition map. I hope you notice that it refers to street conditions and nothing about sidewalks. It is a Google satellite map so you can see what they are referring to and unfortunately for you, it is not the sidewalks.

I've given you the legal definition of involuntary servitude. That is the one the court uses. Your claim of involuntary servitude for being required to maintain your own property does not meet the the 2 essential conditions of it.

Are you serious? You aren't going to jail if you don't pay your fine. You probably won't even if you rack up a whole bunch of fines. You can kill someone while drunk driving in this town and not go to jail so I doubt they are going to throw away the lock and key because you are too lazy to scoop some snow. At most, you might have a tax lien placed on your property for non-compliance.

You can insult me all you want but it does not change the fact that you haven't a clue what you are talking about. So keep on with your ignorance and good luck finding an attorney that won't laugh you out of their office.

bearded_gnome 1 year, 11 months ago

^^biggunz wrote: Before that, someone actualy feels the need to break down what someone said to complain about their bad Enlgish.

Gotta love it.

---yes I did, because we're paying for this city official and ours is a university community. also, you can't actually understand his meaning. we're paying for that.

bearded_gnome 1 year, 11 months ago

oh, did I interrupt Kat and Gandalf having a pissing match? sorry.

I see without prompting Kat is using the fake "war on womyn" lies as some kinda strawman, or in this case, strawwoman, lol.

indeed.

carry on you two, don't let me distract you.

LadyJ 1 year, 11 months ago

This is from the LJW Jan.18 1912 "The Journal-World is still receiving many complaints about the sidewalks not being cleared off. In West Lawrence some residents say that the walks are in a bad condition." That would of course be Old West Lawrence. 101 yrs later, it is still being debated.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.