And now …Tah-Dah…Here is a second scintillating post on the subject of snow removal from the Village Trustees meeting earlier this week. (Woodstock Early Bird GJH -aka Gareth — was working as quickly as humanly possible to get this one posted, at the end of a very busy week!). Since Woodstock Early Bird JEC -aka Julia — has a certain affinity for Alaska, we wonder if the citizens of Cordova might be able to help?!)
The four snow removal items on the Annual Village Meeting Ballot that stemmed from the Village Sidewalk Committee aren’t the only Ballot questions related to this thorny (?!) get-rid-of-the-snow issue.
Article number 13 stems from a petition circulated by Village resident Peter Saman. He asks Village voters if they would support a Village Trustee repeal of the Village ordinance that requires owners of sidewalk-abutting homes to shovel clear those snow-clogged sidewalks (Village ordinance number 7402, A-D). With 43 signatures backing it up, the Village Trustees this week voted to place this petitioned item on the Village Ballot that will be voted on March 20.
At the Tuesday meeting, Village Trustee Chris Miller noted that Article 13 — if approved on March 20 — would show whether or not the voters support the repeal of 7402 A-D.
The actual repeal would require a favorable vote of the Trustees. Miller also pointed out that if the voters turned down the Sidewalk Committee’s four recommendations (also on the ballot) and passed the petition-related Article 13 (assuming the repeal went forward), the Trustees would still have to come up with some kind of official system for keeping the sidewalks clear and passable in the winter – as is required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Also on Tuesday, Saman described the sidewalk snow removal situation as an “inequality issue.” He noted that the current system requires a minority of Village residents to clear public sidewalks – and paying to have the job done in some cases – while all other village residents don’t share the expense.
Village Ordinance number 7402 A-D can be viewed on the Woodstock Municipal Web site: www.townofwoodstock.org.
Julia Carlisle
Woodstock Early Bird 
Posted by Gordon Taylor on March 19, 2012 at 16:14
As a resident of the Village of Woodstock, I would like to offer up the following thoughts regarding the sidewalk snow removal issue that is to be voted on at tomorrow’s Village Meeting:
1. No one who owns a property in the Village with a sidewalk is likely to have purchased that property in ignorance of the requirement to shovel his or her sidewalk in the wintertime. To argue otherwise is disingenuous;
2. Property owners with sidewalks are already compensated – albeit indirectly – for the cost of shoveling their sidewalks. In real estate valuation, it is axiomatic that a property with higher operating costs (in this case, the cost of sidewalk snow removal) has a lower market value than an identical property that does not have such higher operating costs. Accordingly, the owners of Village properties with sidewalks arguably paid some amount less for their properties – whether residential or commercial – than they would have paid for an identical property without a sidewalk. Similarly, because valuations for real estate tax purposes are market value-based, the owners of Village properties with sidewalks have enjoyed lower valuations – and have paid somewhat lower real estate taxes – than they would have if their properties did not have sidewalks. This situation has prevailed for as long as Woodstock Village Ordinance 7402 a –d requiring property owners to keep sidewalks adjacent to their properties free of snow and ice has been in place;
3. If the Village assumes the cost of shoveling all of its sidewalks, the owners of properties with sidewalks will benefit disproportionately – and the owners of properties without sidewalks will become disproportionately burdened. The reason that this is true is because (a) the operating cost of a property with a sidewalk will fall by an amount that is considerably greater than the amount of such property’s real estate taxes will increase to fund the cost to the Village of sidewalk snow removal, and (b) the operating costs of all properties without sidewalks (which currently have no sidewalk shoveling costs) will increase by the amount by which each such property’s real estate taxes increase to fund the Village’s sidewalk shoveling costs. Arguably, this will result in an increase in the market value of Village properties with sidewalks and a decrease in the market value of Village properties without sidewalks – both for transaction purposes and for property tax purposes. Unless these changes in market value for property tax purposes are reflected in a revision to the Village’s grand list, property owners with sidewalks will be paying lower taxes – and property owners without sidewalks will be paying higher taxes – than they should;
4. If the Village assumes the cost of shoveling all of its sidewalks, just who will benefit, and just who will pay? Although the writer has not done extensive research on the topic, it appears that the majority of the Village’s sidewalks by linear distance pass in front of some of the most valuable real estate in the Village, whereas the majority of the Village’s properties without sidewalks are of lesser value. Similarly, the writer has observed that a substantial amount of the Village’s sidewalks pass in front of commercial properties, municipal buildings, state and federal government owned properties, houses of worship, a cemetery, and a national park. If the Village were to assume the cost of snow removal for all of its sidewalks, wouldn’t this be a bit like taking from the poor to give to the rich? Or providing taxpayer-financed benefits to owners of tax-exempt properties? Or giving additional profits to privately owned businesses? What about the fact that we have all paid – to the Village, to the State, and to the Federal Government – in our taxes some amount to fund their costs of sidewalk snow removal in the Village of Woodstock already? And is anyone or any entity going to give us a refund of our taxes or pay an amount in lieu of Village property taxes if the Village assumes the cost of shoveling all of its sidewalks?
5. The ADA compliance risk argument needs more research. The Americans with Disabilities Act, which is administered by the Department of Justice, is a very complicated piece of legislation with significant implementation issues for even the most sophisticated property owner or employer. If there are Village residents who are concerned about the Village’s compliance with the requirements of the ADA in connection with the shoveling of its sidewalks, it would appear to this writer to be reasonable for such residents to petition the Village to engage an ADA- experienced facilities consultant and law firm to render to the Village an assessment and an opinion on which the Village would be able to rely in an ADA-related legal proceeding brought against it. The opinions of well-meaning and well-intentioned amateurs are simply not sufficient in ADA-related matters;
6. The liability risk argument is a smokescreen. The writer understands that some property owners with sidewalks have asserted that, unless the Village assumes the cost and obligation of shoveling their sidewalks, they are unreasonably exposed to liability for “slip and fall” litigation claims. In the writer’s experience, personal injury attorneys are indiscriminate in asserting liability claims, routinely sue everyone even remotely connected with the particular incident regardless of actual responsibility, and let the courts sort out the mess and decide who ultimately takes the blame. Accordingly, even if the Village assumes the cost of snow removal, a property owner with a sidewalk is not likely to avoid becoming entangled in the stress – and expense – of a personal injury lawsuit simply because the Village has done so.
Respectfully,
Gordon Taylor
LikeLike