Imagine for a minute that you are in your dorm room, apartment or house and there is a knock at the door. When you open it, I'm standing there with a puppy. I tell you that you must buy it from me, care for it and pay its expenses, though it will still belong to me. I provide you with a list of rules that you must obey. If you do not comply, I will fine you. If I determine the dog is too sick and must be put down, you must buy a new one and if you can't find a new one that is cheaper or just don't have the time to look, I will sell you another one.
By now you are probably extremely angry with me. How dare I enter your home, force you to buy the dog and take care of it, while I have all the benefits of ownership without the costs. You may be saying this story is bizarre and could never happen, but this is exactly what the City of Madison is doing to homeowners on Capitol Avenue by forcing them to accept sidewalks on their property.
Although homeowners do not really own the sidewalks, they are forced to compensate them. In Susan Smith's Feb. 15 article in the Wisconsin State Journal, \Neighbors Hopping Mad about City Plan,"" she explains the plan will cost homeowner's ""$46 a foot, or about $4,600 for a 100-foot lot frontage, for their new sidewalks.""
Furthermore, they will be required to reimburse the city for the removal of any trees that are in the path of the sidewalk. Not surprisingly, many residents are irate over this new proposal.
The installation cost of the sidewalk is the beginning of a pricey road for Capitol Avenue residents. Residents will now need to either spend time shoveling the snow or pay someone to remove it within 24 hours of the end of each snowfall. Additionally, they will be forced to keep the sidewalks clear of debris. Later on, as the sidewalk ages, they will have to pay for some parts of it to be kept up.
If a sidewalk truly belonged to the homeowner they would be able to decide who was allowed to walk on it, have the choice of whether to clear it from snow and choose if they even wanted to have one. However, since the city is making all of these decisions for the homeowner, they should also be forced to pay the bill.
Several years ago the city went through my grandma's far west-side neighborhood and looked for squares that needed to be replaced and then sent the landowners the bill. She had to pay the city approximately $850. Some of the pieces that ""needed"" to be replaced were questionable and the high cost was ridiculous. Why should owners be forced to absorb the costs?
Truthfully, the city owns the sidewalks. So they should be the ones to pay for it and the maintenance costs associated with it. The burden of the installation, snow removal, debris removal and replacement fees associated with them should be handed over to the city.
I am not opposed to the sidewalks, but I believe the city benefits far more from them than the homeowner and thus should be financially responsible for them.
Steve Holtzman, the area alderman, should have stood up for his neighbors instead proposing the construction in the first place. An alderman is supposed to watch out for their residents rather than act as an agent of the city and sit by while the city bullies them. If the sidewalk is so important, the city should pay for it, rather than forcing unwilling homeowner's to pay for their agenda.
