| ManusJustus said: Read your own source: DOT's goal is to make the City's 12,750 miles sidewalks safe for pedestrians and help prevent injuries caused by defective sidewalks. DOT replaces more than 2 million square feet of sidewalk a year, mostly on City-owned property and in residential neighborhoods. Despite the large scale of repairs, this amounts to less than 1% of the City’s total sidewalk area each year. DOT relies on property owners to maintain the rest of the sidewalks. And DOTs only replace sidewalk on state roads, in most cases local governments are responsible for sidewalk on city streets, which covers a lot more sidewalk. If the DOT in New York pays for 2 million square feet of sidewalk (about 20 million dollars), imagine how much the rest of the country pays for sidewalk. Most cities are responsible for sidewalk construction and upkeep (see ADA lawsuits vs local governments), and even in the few places where the city owns the sidewalk but requires the homeowner to maintain it, that is not the 'free market' at work but government regulation, so your point is still meaningless. I'd like to see a politician put your idea forward, "all property owners are responsible for roads and sidewalks in front of their property, they will be regulated by the government to meet engineering standards." I can't imagine a more stupid and less popular piece of legislation being proposed. Secondly, private companies bid to become the contractor to build roads. The funding comes from the government, and the funding is what we are discussing here. |
You should of KEPT reading?
The city has to fix the sidewalk infront of city buildings? This is a surprise to you?
No it doesn't. Did you bother to read that PDF I supplied? The people who own the property in fact own the roads, and are responsible for buiding 95% of roads.
As for it being unpopular... it's not unpopular in St Louis... or Sweden. Largely because it's actually ends up cheaper for them being responsible for themselves then going through layers and layers of wasteful government bueracracy.
I've said it once though and i'll say it again. Every point you've made is irrelevent, because they all rely on the fact that something is impossible... when there are plenty of examples of it all existing and happening.
Which, is generally why I imagine you've slided from "can't happen, wouldn't work" to "It'd be unpopular.'
