A clarification/correction about my sidewalk post earlier.... After the neighbourhood meeting, I had the opportunity to ask Larry Nelson about his post and what I interpreted as a 1957 "cutoff" between changes in city policy and I understand it a little better now. I didn't follow the entire history of it exactly, about what city ordinances required at what times, when developers were required to put sidewalks in, when sidewalks were done by the city rather than the developer and assessed to homeowners, and what parts of the city were annexed when, but the significance of 1957 is apparently that there were a lot of new subdivisions then and they were done without sidewalks. So, the streets in my neighbourhood that don't have sidewalks don't have sidewalks precisely because they were built at that time.
(I still disagree with the idea that the responsibility for PUBLIC infrastructure such as a sidewalk is treated as an individual rather than a shared expense.) _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
