I noticed this sign while driving in Newton Highlands before Christmas. (It’s still there.) Not only is it a violation of Mass General Laws regarding attaching things to public shade trees, and likewise the city’s Public Tree Ordinance, it’s my understanding that you can’t just put up your own parking signs whatever you attach them to. That’s the Traffic Council, right? Or does the “Please” make it okay?
I happened to see the owner walking her dog, so stopped to tell her about the tree ordinance. She said they put up the sign because when it snows they have trouble getting out of their driveway if people park there. (Get in line, I thought. You and about 20,000 other people. And her street looked wider than mine.)
What I’m wondering is, how is the sign still there? Shouldn’t the police officers who are cruising the streets daily take notice of bootleg parking signs, whatever they’re attached to? Might taking notice of things that don’t belong, and doing something about it, help relieve the boredom that apparently leads to such mischief as egging the sergeant’s house?
Personally, I’d rather they start enforcing the parking regulations rather than worrying about signs on trees. Particularly Chapter 19 Article VII Sec 19-166 about parking within 5′ of a driveway. Including on Sunday when to my knowledge, they don’t enforce any parking regulations.
Thanks, Howard; I very much agree. People park their cars within inches of our driveway every day, and about twice a week someone decides to leave a car partway across our driveway, “just” for long enough to pick up a child from a class (often at the time I need to leave to pick up my own son). In nine years here I’ve never seen a parking ticket on a car parked on our street, even any of those that routinely park there all day despite the posted two-hour limit.
True, if I could choose I’d rather see the city enforce sidewalk snow-clearing than the existing parking code. But if it’s not going to enforce either one, there’s no point in having the rules.
Like the snow ordinance, these things are all complaint-driven, unfortunately. At least with the snow ordinance, a sweep could be made through the city after a storm, but the aldermen chose not to take the confrontational approach.
I’m surprised that’s a solely complaint driven process. I would have thought it would be akin to parking in front of a fire hydrant, or in a no parking zone. If a cop spotted it, they might just write you a ticket.
I live in a part of town where commuters park to the take the T and park in our neighborhood and walk and take the green line. Once or twice I have asked people not to park in a way that prohibits me from leaving my own driveway. However, there have been days when we get a foot of snow, and the same car is parked there ALL day, and the snow plow can’t plow our street, because this guy is parked in the street (usually because there is already a snow pile from past snowstorms).
Once I called the police to report the car since there was a snow emergency, and our street had been passed over for plowing. The police would not TICKET the car because they were giving the guy time to get back to his car. Sorry, but as a resident who pays taxes, and would eventually like to get out of my driveway, this was not an acceptable answer. I had come home early for work because driving in the snow is not fun. But if the commuter had gotten a ticket, maybe she/he would commute back to Newton when a snow emergency is issued. If a commuter doesn’t want to worry about snow emergencies, then park in the MBTA lot, and pay the fee. If not, then pay the parking penalty for not moving your car.
Sorry, but the police response was unacceptable to me.
@Adam– Let me see if I’ve got this right… You’re okay with the City sending out police officers to “sweep” the 300+ miles of Newton roadways looking for violators of the shoveling ordinance, but you’re not okay with sending out DPW workers on the exact same route to actually plow the sidewalks?
Mike, the enforcement plan did not involve police officers and it didn’t have to be complete coverage for every storm, but otherwise, yeah, that’s right. There’s a huge difference in those two operations and relative costs.
@Adam– You said… “At least with the snow ordinance, a sweep could be made through the city after a storm…”.
That comment suggests you personally favor that approach. As to why you think it’s less expensive for police officers to drive 300+ miles in patrol cars writing violations along the way, than it is for a DPW workers to drive 300+ miles in diesel powered sidewalk plows and actually clear the sidewalks, you’ll have to explain that to me, because I disagree with your premise.
I think it’s the second part of your comment that’s actually more revealing though, “…but the aldermen chose not to take the confrontational approach.”
Adam, I’m not going to pull any punches here. I think your primary interest is penalizing people who don’t shovel the sidewalk in front of their house, because you personally find that to be offensive. A lot of the ordinance supporters seem to think the same way. Yet, I never read any comments from ordinance supporters, critical of local government for failing to perform what used to be a basic city service. So I’m curious, Adam. Since the city used to plow the sidewalks, but no longer effectively does, why are you letting them off the hook so easily? Is it because you believe the hogwash that the city can’t afford to clear the sidewalks? If that were the case,, the mayor would have included it in his override proposal.
My only interest is an unbroken path of clear sidewalks throughout the city after a snowfall. It’s not interested in blaming my neighbors, or punishing residents for some perceived socially offensive behavior. I just want the damn sidewalks to be cleared. It’s a public safety issue! So I’m going to support the most effective means for accomplishing the objective. City government is the only entity capable of doing that job effectively. That’s the point shoveling ordinance supporters completely miss. I think they miss it for two reasons. First, they [including you] are clueless as to the actual magnitude and scope of the job. Second, because ordinance supporters are more interested in punishing people, than actually having clear sidewalks.
@Mike Striar – I’m a supporter of the ordinance but I don’t quite fit your profile. Like you, “My only interest is an unbroken path of clear sidewalks throughout the city after a snowfall”. Would I support the expenditure of tax dollars to restart a city program to plow the sidewalk again? Yes, I would. I’d love to see it happen.
At the moment though there is no evidence of any wide spread support or effort to make that happen. So long as the city isn’t plowing the sidewalks, we can’t possibly have an “unbroken path of clear sidewalks” without the ordinance.
If, at least for the time being, we are leaving the responsibility to clear sidewalks in the hands of the property owners, then there needs to be some mechanism to deal with those that shirk that responsibility.
If you’re going to lead the charge to re-instate city wide sidewalk plowing, I’m all for that too.
What Jerry said.
Mike, it’s unfortunate that you feel the need to twist my words and make this personal. I don’t take personal offense if someone does not clear their sidewalks, I just think all sidewalks should be accessible and I think it’s perfectly reasonable to put that responsibility on the homeowner rather than leave the task to the city. We can disagree on how that’s best done or how it’s paid for, but you’ve misrepresented what I said. Please re-read: I suggested that the city did not clear all the sidewalks, at least in my lifetime, just more than they do today. I suggested that other city personnel, NOT police officers, could check for violations. This would not involve a complete pass of each sidewalk each storm to accomplish this. I don’t remember the details of the proposal, but it was possible that there were some synergies (e.g. DPW workers already “chase” plows to inspect, metermaids can’t do their normal jobs during a storm) That’s a very big difference from adding a burden to police officers who already have jobs to do, or the logistics of owning, operating, and managing expensive equipment with a complete pass for each storm, I’m guessing to the tune of millions of dollars (such figures were discussed) I’m not willing to put that on par with our kids’ education, especially not this year.
Also, please note the “spoiler” argument which would make it nearly impossible for the city to render these services. As I recall, the city would have to let residents opt out of the sidewalk plowing service (again, don’t remember the details or why this is different from other services in the tax base, but I think someone said it was a provision in state law that applied only to cities, not towns? Anyone remember?) And, another concern is that the city just doesn’t do an adequate job with their equipment, so simply multiplying the mileage to cover all streets would result in an inadequate job city-wide. Some other multiple is required.
@Jerry– I think it’s the Mayor’s responsibility to “lead the charge to re-instate city wide sidewalk plowing.” Unfortunately, [or perhaps fortunately], I’m not the mayor. But if I were, I can assure you the sidewalks in this city would be cleared of snow after every snow event. And if I went to the community asking for three overrides, you’d best believe I’d include any additional funds needed for that purpose.
Jerry, when you say. “At the moment though there is no evidence of any wide spread support or effort to make that [municipal plowing] happen,” I have to disagree with you. There is obviously wide spread support among residents for clearing snow from sidewalks, as evidenced in part by the volume of blog comments associated with this issue. Unfortunately, the lack of support you sense, is coming from the Board of Aldermen.
I oppose the ordinance for two primary reasons. A citizen shovel brigade is not an effective way to clear hundreds of miles of sidewalks. And the ordinance lets those truly responsible for this failure of local government, completely off the hook. If this trial ordinance becomes permanent and includes fines, there is no going back. The sidewalks will look exactly as they do now after a snow storm, an obstacle course for pedestrians. The City’s response will be to step up enforcement. Fines will force cooperation from some residents, but many others will continue doing exactly what they do now, and simply pay the fine. The City will spend it’s money on enforcement, rather than plowing. The ordinance will have some affect, but it will not result in anything approaching the desired objective, a city-wide networks of cleared sidewalks.
This point is worth repeating. People who truly understand the scope of this task, the equipment and manpower required to do an effective job city-wide, realize this is not something that can be adequately or efficiently addressed by homeowners with shovels. If you truly want clear sidewalks, the only entity that can effectively accomplish that is our municipal government. If all the people pushing for this shoveling ordinance, were to direct their efforts [and anger] toward getting City Hall to live up to their responsibility, the sidewalks would be cleared just like the roadways.
@Adam– I believe clear sidewalks are as important as clear roads. There’s a reason the City takes responsibility for clearing the roads. Because if they didn’t, the roads would not be cleared. The same concept applies to the sidewalks. There, the City has shirked its responsibility, so we don’t have cleared sidewalks. I know you don’t want to hear this, but shoveling ordinance supporters are part of the problem. They are advocates for an ordinance, rather than advocates for clear sidewalks. Seriously, Adam, do you feel that hand shoveling is the most effective way to clear hundreds of miles of sidewalks?
Mike, yes, I do think resident sidewalk clearing is the most effective option today, if people take on the responsibility. We disagree. I gave you my opinion and provided my justification. I presented several challenges if the city were to take this job on. If they really did all the sidewalks in, say, the 1940’s — I’d hardly say that makes it an entitlement in today’s budget.
@Adam– First, you’re misapplying what you refer to as the “spoiler” argument. My recollection is that the opt-out only applies if the City charges a separate fee for sidewalk plowing. There is no opt-out if the City plows the sidewalks as they plow the roads. However, IF a resident clears the sidewalk in front of their home, they are liable in case of injury. The ordinance makes no provision to protect homeowners from that liability. More significantly, I’m afraid we’re going to have to disagree on the best way to accomplish the job. I do not believe that hand shoveling hundreds of miles of sidewalk is an effective option.
Mike, you may very well be right about the opt-out applying only with a fee (makes sense to me) I’m not so sure you’re right about liability. First of all, the liability now applies whether the sidewalk is shoveled or not (that’s new from the SJC) Whom it applies to and the level of negligence required to be liable, I do not recall.
Also in support of your argument, a fee would be difficult to apply, since if the city took on the task, the financial burden would be impossible to predict. As with the present plowing services, it’s all going to depend on how much snowfall there is. However, the city seems to be managing its finances by factoring out services and not adding more risk to the bottom line. I choose not to believe that the amount is negligible or could be squeezed out of the existing budget. The alternative is an override, again with additional financial risk each year.
As for the “best” way to achieve clear sidewalks, “best” is going to depend on priorities which we will most likely disagree on. If money is not an issue, of course, contracted services will scale better if we all go in together and achieve the most complete results, noting again that the current equipment doesn’t do nearly as good a job as hand shoveling. For those who already shovel, like me, that will mean paying more (and subsidizing folks who might prefer not to)
The rhythm of the seasons is a wonderful thing. All the seasons of the year have their various markers – goblins and ghosts in October, Christmas decorations in December, bunting and flags in July. Budding flowers in the spring, falling leaves in the autumn.
Here on the blog, we’re talking about the snow shoveling ordinance but dreaming of the time that we can start talking about swim-at-your-own risk in Crystal Lake 😉
I agree with Howard that enforcement of the 5′ idea driveway rule would be a good idea as well. And it’s not like they’d have to choose or the other.
Maybe the general topic of enforcing these types of ordinances without waiting for complaints would be something for the search committee for the new police chief to get the candidates’ views on.
Well I can understand how annoying it is when some jerks and neighbors park near your driveway, blocking all ways and making it difficult to park or move your own vehicle. And when repeated personal warnings, too, fall on deaf ears, there is a strong desire to put such signs. But, sadly that can’t be done beyond your yard (or private property). No parking signs can be installed only under city or county traffic authority usually after an ordinance is passed.