The Hour got into it today with both an editorial brick brack and a story on the issue of snow and ice removal. They somehow forgot to mention the long stretches of snow in front of the empty lot on Route 7, (Elinco) on Water street in front of the former Norwalk Compressor building and countless others. DPW could probably self fund itself with the amount of fines they should be dishing out at $99 a pop.
Norwalk: Snow Removal Still An Issue
by turfgrrl
December 22nd, 2007 · 19 Comments
Tags: Norwalk
19 Responses so far ↓ “Norwalk: Snow Removal Still An Issue”
-
bottom line is we as a city need to turn things around, the mayor needs to understand attack the SoNo shops and the residents and they attack back. There is a growing need for leadership at all levels as one can see a lot of problems with the last two storms and its not going to get better unless we all as a city start running it like a city.
One has to get the facts get the records of who was on plowing and sanding during the storm and realize there were times no one was doing anything at the dpw while this last storm was setting up.We heard all kinds of praise last year on the new material that was being used to remove ice on the streets.This year we are back to sanding with salt and sand or am I wrong?
Get the records of call ins from the police fire and residents to the dpw and see what that yeilds, it was called accountability back before the election and now like everything else we are seeing the same old way things are handled in the city. When things stray and the city needs defending they pull out the lawyers (which must be costing money probably being charged as snow removal) to show how red herrings work.
Yes we have a new council but have they asked for the phone records to show what transpired?
There were reports there would be no one on for five hours or more because they went home to sleep, all well and good but the trouble with that the storm didn’t stop and neither did the city so what does residents expect?
Solutions are usually found from mistakes did amywhere the city say maybe we made one mistake or two?
No they came out defending their actions , attacking the residents and pulling out the lawyers, so what do you expect the residents were going to do, simply say ya your right sorry to bother you. Enough get off the band wagons and get some people to oversee whats going on and report facts the back to the residents The Advocate and The Hour can’t seem to find in a city this size.
How many hours how many trucks when were the workers on duty how much sand and salt how much calcium how many truckloads of salt was ordered and when did they arrive at the dpw for the storm ect you may find a sloution to our on going pissing match by being more than a armchair quaterbacks thinking you may know what actually transpired this last storm.
Overkill you say? why does the The Hour and the blog and the Advocate have so much to say when not once have we seen figures for this last storm. that might defend the actions of the dpw and the complaints of the residents and solve some problems as a city we certainly will encounter again unless change is made and accountability is brought into this subject.
We will hear now how much money was spent on the storm and the need for more money, while our police, fire and other services are gearing up to tell the city the party is over taxes need to rise to support the city while we are on the move.
I think I wrote enough for the critics to come out and attack the theory and not the problem
solutions not finger pointing works, suggestions to move forewood and not the same old same old is whats needed.
-
The question of jurisdiction comes up over and over, as Hal Alvord was quoted in the Hour article. He has no idea after how many years as director, who writes the violation tickets for sidewalk clearing. Why not? And the city doesn’t have to enforce its own rules among its own departments? Did he really say that?
A DPW truck speeds down a residential street and the driver has immunity from a speeding ticket? Is that what he is saying?
This comes up with school grounds maintenance and many other issues. Illegal dumping violations? Who knows! Police don’t want to be bothered, that falls under littering, so they say call DPW. No,call Planning and Zoning! Oh no, that’s not our department-call the police! Nobody knows what the hell they are supposed to enforce.And the mayor-clueless! Corporation Counsel-clueless!
And, TG, you say its the Public Works Committee of the Council. OK, who are they and what power would they have to tell Hal to grab a ticket book and start writing tickets? Or do we need a consultant to write a 2-year study?
-
Slip’n’slide: DPW reports the public works committee of the common council. They authorize all of DPW spending and the full council votes on it. So, my logic there is that is the place to demand data, results, action etc. If the DPW head doesn’t do what’s he supposed to do, then don’t fund his projects.
The Mayor, btw, has said in the Norwalk Citizen News, that it’s the DPW department that is in charge of enforcement of which is exactly what the ordinance says:
§ 95-3. Removal of obstructions and nuisances.
A.It shall be the duty of the Director to keep all public grounds, streets, highways, sidewalks and thoroughfares clear of obstructions and nuisances and free from danger to persons or property.
B.The Director shall see that all filth, encroachments, encumbrances and obstructions upon the streets, sidewalks, public grounds and thoroughfares are promptly removed and shall enforce from all persons strict conformance with and obedience to the provisions of this Code and other rules and regulations relative to the use of the streets, thoroughfares, highways, sidewalks and public grounds in the city.
C.No owner or occupant of land shall drain or pump any water from such land onto any public highway, or into the gutter thereof which may cause damage to the highway or create an unsafe condition, specifically, but not limited to, an icing condition, as determined by the Director of Public Works or his or her authorized representative. [Added 8-12-1997]
D.No owner or occupant of land shall drain or pump any water from such land onto any private highway or into the gutter thereof which may cause damage on a public highway or create an unsafe condition, specifically, but not limited to, an icing condition, as determined by the Director of Public Works or his or her authorized representative. [Added 8-12-1997]
E.Any owner or occupant found in violation of this section shall immediately be ordered to cease and desist such action by the Director of Public Works or his authorized representative or be subject to a fine not to exceed $99 per day. [Added 8-12-1997]
F.If the violation continues for more than 48 hours after being notified by the Director of Public Works, the Director will order work done to terminate the violation and ask the Corporation Counsel to place a lien on the property for the amount incurred to correct the violation. [Added 8-12-1997] -
Slip’n’slide: Also, as to why why its the Common Council:
§ 95-8. Sidewalk inspections.
The Director shall inspect all sidewalks within the limits of the city on a periodic basis and report to the Common Council all sidewalks which he finds not to be in good order and repair.Isn’t it time to hold Common Council Members accountable for reading the City Code Book?
-
Slip’n’slide: Oops I didn’t see the specific ordinance on Snow, but it just reinforces the overall chapter.
§ 95-10. Snow and ice removal from sidewalks.
A.The provisions of Section 7-163a of the Connecticut General Statutes are hereby adopted and are set forth in Subsections B, C, D and E hereof.
B.Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 13a-149 of the Connecticut General Statutes or any other general or special act, the city shall not be liable to any person for injury to person or property due to the presence of ice or snow on a public sidewalk unless the city is the owner or person in possession and control of land abutting such sidewalk, other than land used as a highway or street, provided that the city shall be liable for its affirmative acts with respect to any such sidewalk under its possession and control.
C.The owner or person in possession and control of land abutting a public sidewalk shall have the same duty of care with respect to the presence of ice or snow on such sidewalk toward the portion of the sidewalk abutting his property as the city had prior to the effective date of this chapter and shall be liable to persons injured in person or property where a breach of said duty is the proximate cause of said injury.
D.No action to recover damages for injury to person or property caused by the presence of ice or snow on a public sidewalk against a person who owns or is in possession and control of land abutting a public sidewalk shall be brought but within two years from the date when the injury is first sustained.
E.Whenever the public sidewalk shall be wholly or partially covered by snow or ice, it shall be the duty of the owner or person in possession and control of land abutting a public sidewalk to cause such sidewalk to be made safe and convenient by removing the snow therefrom within the first six hours of daylight immediately following the accumulation of such snow thereon or, in the case of ice, by covering the same with sand or other suitable material within the first six hours of daylight following the accumulation of such ice, and then renewing such treatment as often as may be necessary to keep such sidewalk safe and convenient. In case of the failure or neglect of the owner or person in possession and control of land abutting the public sidewalk to comply with this subsection, the Director may cause the same to be done, and the expense thereof shall be collectible from the person so failing or neglecting, in an action of debt brought in the name of the city under this section. Any person who fails or neglects to comply with this subsection shall also be liable for a penalty or fine of $99, provided that no such expense, penalty or fine may be collected from any person whose violation of this provision is caused by snow deposited on his sidewalks by city snow-removal activities. -
Thank you, Turf. You are amazing!
There it is, plain as day. So why does Hal Alvord not know what his jurisdiction is?
Does his staff have ticket books to issue fines?
And who enforces the city’s responsibilities?
I suggest Hal Alvord be fined. Watch how fast the sidewalks get cleared! OK, that’s extreme, but what pressure is there to get DPW to do their job? Looks like none right now.
And DPW is supposed to write littering tickets-that’s a new one. How many have they ever written? Does the Council PW Committee ever ask? Sounds like he needs a a couple of enforcement officers. They could sit undercover at any ramp off of 95 and write tickets all day long for coffee cups and McDonalds bags tossed out of car windows. Combine that with the icy sidewalk fines, and the uncovered trashbag fines, and I bet they could write on average 6 tix per hour between the 2 of them. At $99 each, that’s $4200 per 7-hour day, or $21,000 per week, or $84,000 a month, or over 1 million per year! And they might cost what, 50k each a year with benefits? Let’s assume an 80 percent collection rate, and that still nets the city about $700,000 a year.
Cool.I did this in 5 minutes-imagine what a Common Council member could come up with!
Oh, I forgot, the police union would object. They only want cops to write tickets. Oh well, scratch that idea.
Well we can dream, can’t we? Clean streets and ice-free sidewalks? Guess I’ll have to move to NYC for that luxury!
Happy New Year, and God Bless us All!
-
what happens when someone falls on city property and the people we hire to maintain said property refuses to anything about it?
-
Isn’t it time to hold Common Council Members accountable for reading the City Code Book?
That would be a start.
-
Great point Turffie.
-
Most of the foot paths on Strawberry Hill Avenue haven’t been done.
Tragic if a kid walking to school gets hit by a car because they are walking in the street because they can’t walk on the walk.
-
So the common council should hold DPW accountable, but not the mayor? I guess we pay the mayor $100k a year (plus a free hybrid car) to look pretty?
-
Weak Mayor, Strong Council. Read the charter.
-
Previous posters stated the idea of using video to record our public meetings. The legality of video recording is fully covered under the Sunshine Laws.
Leaders have to know about these problems in the public works, police, fire and schools. Not to act is liable. Leaders do not pay for lawsuits. Taxpayers pay for lawsuits and so I believe we should as a civic liability hold leaders responsible through a more effective means. Video is far more effective than reading plain text.
-
How is it that DPW dosen’t clear “Footpaths” these are not sidewalks. The clearing of snow and upkeep of “Footpaths” is the Cities responsibilty. So why are they still full of snow and ice? Alvord needs to take a look at our footpaths.
-
I don’t think Alvord knows where the footpaths are - they run the length of Strawberry Hill Avenue and on County Street from Andrews Field to the High School. I know there are other footpaths around other schools, but these are the ones I am familiar with and they certainly don’t get cleared unless the residents go out and shovel.
-
the broken cement planter on water street has been there a week, who takes care of that?
-
Ask Alvord why there was only half staff on during the snow storms. That is why the streets were not plowed. Saving money at what price.
Ask the DPW Director why Norwalk doesn’t have the plow trucks ready and where they were. Do you think he can get his act together for the rest of the winter? -
we all received a number to call the air pollution dept of the state, interesting how we all were assured from the dpw things would be done.
I wonder if the fine they would impose on Norwalk had anything to do with it?
No the news had no clue what was going on they were too busy being spoon fed the rest of the news.
-
DPW dodged a New Year’s eve bullet this year with the rain only event last night, instead of the ice-snow mix predicted. Hal Alvord can rest tonight and enjoy his sparkling wine.
However, next snowstorm, he better be warned. Dated photos of city sidewalks and footpaths not cleared by the required 6 hours of daylight after the storm is finished will be taken and presented to the Common Council Public Works Committee.
Violations by the city will be counted (perhaps every 1,000 feet of sidewalk counted as one violation, to be generous). It will be up to the Common Council to decide if DPW should be fined, the mayor blamed for not forcing the issue, or whose heads should roll in DPW for non-compliance with city ordinance. No more nonsense, and no more children in the streets on their way to school because the city failed its responsibilities. The threat of lawsuits with this evidence will be the only way to get action apparently.
