The SacBee published an article in January entitled ‘$20k? Homeowners in some Sacramento neighborhoods are billed more for sidewalk repair‘. The article is about the charges the City of Sacramento has made to homeowners, primarily in low income areas.

City code specifies that property owners are completely responsible for repair of sidewalks adjacent to their property. State streets and highways code seems to allow the city to claim this. The two relevant sections within Chapter 22: Maintenance of Sidewalks are: Article 2. Repairs and Article 3. Collection of Cost of Repair. I have previously made the claim that both state code and city code are unconstitutional, because they make persons responsible for maintenance of property that belongs to the city, not the person. In almost all cases, sidewalks and the land on which they lie is city property, not private property. This is particularly egregious when the sidewalk damage is due to city-owned trees in the sidewalk buffer (which the city calls planting strips).

Therefore, I believe that it is illegal for the city to charge property owners for sidewalk repair.

The major focus of the article is that low income communities are being unfairly targeted for sidewalk repair, with a graph that indicates that. That is one interpretation of the data, and it would not be surprising. The city has always and continues to treat lower income communities and people of color with bias. There is another explanation however. Sidewalks in lower income communities were very likely built to lower standards than in others, and it is likely that the city has never maintained any of them, except in some locations placing ADA ramps at corners. I notice in the central city that many sidewalk cracks are covered with asphalt patches, which were placed by the city. I have not noticed these patches in lower income neighborhoods. It is likely that the city is doing work in moderate and high income areas that they are not doing in lower income areas. The central city has more construction projects than other areas, which often result in the sidewalks being repaired or replaced. The central city has also seen a lot more installation of new corners with ADA ramps that other areas of the city. This makes some sense because much of the central city has higher pedestrian (walker) levels, but this fact does not overcome the fact that there are walkers in disinvested neighborhoods, and in particular, children walking to and from school deserve good sidewalks more than anyone else.

I have been in the habit of reporting sidewalk issues through the city’s 311 app. This article has made me rethink reporting. Am I causing unaffordable repair bills for people who can’t afford it? Is the sidewalk flaw really that bad? I’ve decided to stop reporting sidewalk locations, until these issues are resolved.

My next steps are to make a suggestion for how the city can mitigate these repair costs, and for the city to inventory its sidewalks so that it knows what the situation is throughout the city, rather than a complaint-driven system that is almost certain to have bias. Coming up!