And the funny part is....she claims to be a lawyer. Gives the legal profession a bad name.
I guess that's an oxymoron, isn't it?

"Don't like it - find somewhere else to live."

I always get a kick out of people who don't live here telling us who do....what to do.

Unlike nicksmom...many of us believe in the democratic process to change things.

Ok all you libs times to chip in on improvements for all. Forget the past and start new.

georgethedog
Aug 19, 2012 at 11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal

What kind of a burden is the city setting itself up for if they take over control of sidewalk installation and maintenance as well as street tree installation and maintenance? If they set this precedence are they setting themselves up for being legally bound to trim and maintain all street trees, mowing of all terraces, as well as removing snow from the sidewalks after a snowfall?
I think the city might become short-sighted and bend to a vocal contingent. But, what future liabilities are they setting themselves up for by going down this path?

Well said. I was thinking this too. Emerald ash bore today, what about beetles. Going to make the city then pay for this treatment as well. It would be opening a can or worms(or beetles)

Sorry if I am wrong here, but cities throughout the country (and I would assume this one too) planted Ash trees for their longevity and their tolerance to invasive species to make their cities more appealing. The homeowners may not have been the ones that planted those trees. The city should try to curb the Ash Borer from killing all of these trees. There is a product they can put on the trees (as long as they are already not dying) to treat and prevent future issues. We have started using this and we will see if it will work, but what is the harm in trying. The city has already made it perfectly clear that it will be the homeowners responsibility to remove the tree if it dies. As for the sidewalk, there is really no sense in even discussing it, I believe their minds are already made up. There seems to be better ways to deal with this issue. IMO put a 5 year plan out that all homeowners within the city of Janesville, MUST have a sidewalk. At the 5 year end force them to do it just like they are now. This would give homeowners 5 years to plan their finances accordingly and put it in when they are able, not when the city tells you that you are ready.

Isn't the tree removal governed by chapter 12 of the city ordinances? Should be responsibility of the property owner as is snow removal. It's part of home ownership. Don't like it - find somewhere else to live.

What does the city council and administration think of unfunded mandates from the state?

Probably the same as I think of unfunded sidewalk mandates from the city!

What kind of a burden is the city setting itself up for if they take over control of sidewalk installation and maintenance as well as street tree installation and maintenance? If they set this precedence are they setting themselves up for being legally bound to trim and maintain all street trees, mowing of all terraces, as well as removing snow from the sidewalks after a snowfall?
I think the city might become short-sighted and bend to a vocal contingent. But, what future liabilities are they setting themselves up for by going down this path?

Sidewalks are generally for other pedestrians' ability to walk past a property. They are a part of a transportation plan. They are mandated by the city as result. The cost for new mandates, where the system did not originally have them, should be funded just as street updates/ repairs are, by the general population, not isolated property owners.
The city mandates a sidewalk, which the property owner nearest is forced to take all responsibility & liability for, even though the property owner does not necessarily benefit from its existence. In fact, some potential property owners may view sidewalks as an undesirable deterrent to owning property. If the reason is to provide a path for public foot commute, then it should be treated just as the public streets are for vehicle traffic. Public tax dollars should be used, not fines, to clear where volunteers do not do the work. If the citizens do not want tax dollars used in this way, then pressure should be given to not add, or even eliminate, sidewalks. There is no difference between city streets/ road right-of-way and rural Sate/County/Town roads in my opinion. Any road right-of-way (an area dedicated for public highway) should ultimately be maintained by the general public, not a select group of property owners.
A more detailed comparison would be rural road ditch maintenance (brush, mowing, trees). I would gladly challenge any invoice or fine for the maintenance. In fact, I am concerned about my ability to work in the road right-of-way without permission from the municipality & the liability that I assume, as anyone should, even though I do it.
Again, I say if the purpose of sidewalks is to benefit the general public, then the general pubic (as a whole) should pay for it. If the general public's cost can be reduced by the maintenance assistance of a nearby property owner, then it should be welcomed, not required.
For those that would like to argue that sidewalks are not in the road right-of-way, I say to you that I do not want a mandated sidewalk on my property (yes I do also own property in the City of Janesville with sidewalks along it and I do not feel the asset is greater than the burden).

When did taxes last go down?

Frogger, there is nothing stating we can't or shouldn't plant terrace trees. In fact, it is encouraged. However, the homeowner/contractor/city, whomever is doing the planting, needs to make an intelligent planting decision when picking out which species to plant. There are many different trees that will grow to a mature height lower than power lines, eliminating the need for the awful hack jobs to keep them safely away from the power lines.
Just like everything else, common sense needs to prevail.

frogger: when Milwaukee St was widened the city planted all sorts of new trees in the now much narrower terrace. My parents at the time told them they were crazy and did not want any trees there, but were told too bad... Only thing was they did have a choice of 2 types of trees they could have. City planted 3 trees which now mom has to take care of trimming.
*
I am glad I live in the country...not yet annexed in :)

I think so. A sidewalk is more of a public thing. And also... where do our tax dollars go? They certainly dont go towards maintaining streets as much as they should. Our Police dept is a self sustained corporation, they shouldnt suck as much taxes.

Ok, suppose the city shouldered the financial burdens of sidewalks and trees from now on and "the not too distant past" (however long that might be). Where does it get the money to pay for all this new largess? By law, they can't raise property taxes enough to foot the bill.

That means cutting spending elsewhere. do we cut some or all of the following:
The new firehouse.
A new water tower.
Replacing aging sewer and water lines. Stray animal control which it already can't afford at its present costs as it is.

And remember, it needs to tear down the parking structure over the river. It still has streets to maintain, Police and Fire Dept. to fund with equipment to buy.

Of all those city services, how many do we jettison so that we can save a relatively small number of residents an expense that most of us have already born, since we can't just jack up taxes on all for their convenience?

Why would the city let trees be planted along rotamer rd. in the terrace? They were planted when the road was re-done. The section between townhall rd and wright rd on the north side has power and cable lines running overhead and those trees were planted directly under them. Stupidity is the gift that keeps on giving.

BTW- WHO planted the tree on the terrace. SOME HOMEOWNER along the way. Technically trees are not supposed to be planted on the terrace anyway. So homeowner must care for them!

I think we(tax payer) already take care of enough people and feed, teach,roof over their heads, health. To add taking care of the sidewalk that the city owns(so what) is stupid!

imjustsaying- palmer park is not one my sidewalk therefore it would be very had for ME to care for it. Is it that hard to grasp this concept???

Property owners pay taxes on terraces and sidewalks.

The city does not pay for anything....the taxpayer does.

How would I go about getting reimbursed for my over 40 years of mowing, edging, fertilizing and watering the city owned terrace in front of my property each time i was out doing my yard work all these years? What about all those winters shoveling the city owned sidewalk? Have I actually been considered a part time city worker all these years when I took care of the city property out front? Should I receive a pension and benefits? And back pay. It has been a lot of time and effort out there. Oh how we love to get all stirred up here in Janesville. But that's how they know we are from Janesville.

And...for all that had to pay for sidewalks in the not too distant past, I am confident that a fair process for pro rating your cost can be found.

Nelle....Exactly... well said. It is time for the city to draw the line between city property and private property. ANYTHING on city property should be on the general tax roll. Anything on private property should be just that.

I've followed this debate for some time. I've changed my thinking on the issue of sidewalks. I'm for sidewalks, but the city should pay for installation and repair of sidewalks just as they typically would for streets. It's unreasonable to expect the homeowner to pay for sidewalks, which are a benefit to all, but are not on the homeowner's property.
I'd likewise say the city should pay for removal of any terrace trees for the same reason.

I can't be bothered to look up the costs of the ice arena, sidewalks, new garbage cans and trucks. But I do believe we as a community, should pay for tree removal and sidewalks. As far as people complaining about paying for their sidewalks, I'm torn. Either suck it up since the city council approved it and you didn't have the votes, or else give those people a propert tax deduction over a few years.

The homeowner should be responsible for the sidewalks, maintenance of the sidewalks, shoveling of the sidewalks, as well as the maintenance, installation, and removal of any street trees they may have. It's your civic responsibility. No, I didn't like having to pay for my sidewalks. Nor do I like to shovel my sidewalks. But, it is for the good of my community. One way or another I am going to be paying for them. Whether it is through my taxes or directly from my wallet.
It's just part of owning a home in Janesville. If you didn't like it, then you shouldn't have bought a property in Janesville.

How about this question though: If I paid for the sidewalks to be installed... What if I take them with me when I go? Never mind, legal contracts with the seller, blah, blah, blah. Just a pure hypothetical question.

frogger - The terrace and sidewalks are legally owned by the city. What do you mean by "the property owner must tske care of their property."? How is a public terrace and sidewalk different than a public park?
I'm just wonderin'...

Yes, the property owner must tske care of their property. STOP thinking eveybody else should pay for YOUR stuff.
Yes the parks ARE different. They are not on a persons property.

City sidewalks (installation and upkeep) as well as the terrace upkeep should be paid by the city...
No different than the Parks idea..(In my mind anyway)

BBB - Are you saying the city should not pay for sidewalks and tree removal, that it should be the property owner?
I'm just askin'...

No! The city needs to get there business out of the peoples business. The city can not manage things now whithout losing money.