Letter to the editor: Sidewalk counterpoint
To the editor:
Concerning the sidewalk editorial on June 12, I would like to offer a different view.
Example No. 1: Couple A has no children. Couple B has six kids. They both pay the same amount in taxes for public education.
This is correct, but when the school needs repairs couple B is not asked to chip in additional funds for the repairs. The repairs are paid for by all.
Example No. 2: Homeowner A lives two minutes from a fire station. Homeowner B lives 20 minutes from a fire station. They both pay the same amount in taxes for fire protection.
This is correct, but when the fire station needs repairs neither home owner is asked to pay for the repairs directly; again the cost is borne by all.
The city does have a sidewalk easement that is used for the good of the whole, and I do not disagree with that need. I maintain the area around it, shovel the snow from it and keep it clear of obstacles that would hinder the flow of foot traffic. As homeowners we do enough for the city’s easements; the least it could do is replace or repair the sidewalk when it needs it, just as it does for the roads that are on top of the easements as well as the infrastructure that is buried in the easements.