Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 3.25 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Winter Walking and Cycling
I thought it was the opposite, that virtually no one can achieve Bylaw’s ridiculously strict requirement of every square millimetre dry down to the concrete, which leads (likely) to Bylaw waffling and just not enforcing.

If the requirement was relaxed to be realistic and match the efforts of the majority of good-standing citizens who make an honest attempt, and only ticketed those who haven’t made any effort at all, this could actually work.

I’ve had a bit of ice on ours for the past several days that I just absolutely can’t get rid of no matter how hard I try, and we have no salt and I’ve kind of had to give up, knowing that if they come by, because I have a ~20x20 cm patch with about 1 mm thick of ice, I might get a fine.
Reply


For what it's worth, although road salt seems to be scarce, water softener salt seems to function in a pinch and be available. I'm not an expert in deicing, though, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
Reply
(03-04-2019, 07:49 AM)Canard Wrote: I thought it was the opposite, that virtually no one can achieve Bylaw’s ridiculously strict requirement of every square millimetre dry down to the concrete, which leads (likely) to Bylaw waffling and just not enforcing.

The problem is, it’s both. On the one hand, the way the bylaw is written/interpreted (I’m not totally clear on which it is), frequent snowfalls completely eliminate the requirement to clear, until the snowfalls stop for 24 hours. On the other, once they actually take a look at a specific property, it is apparently OK for them to ticket for even tiny patches of remaining ice, which is clearly unreasonable.

This is why these sorts of questions require actual analysis. I am neither in favour of stricter or less snow clearing policies — I want the policies to be better, which in this case can’t be captured by either of those simplistic words. I’m ignoring for the moment that I think the City should take on the job itself. So assuming we’re going to stick with the ridiculous approach of using bylaw to enforce that each house does its bit, we need to change the actual clearing standard to reflect what is actually feasible; while simultaneously changing the rules to actually require clearing during winter.

I think part of this needs to be an attitude change, whether on the part of the enforcement regime or in the bylaw itself I can’t say, to take reasonable inferences from evidence. With serious crimes we don’t require them to be caught in flagrante — if a dead body shows up with no witnesses to the murder, we don’t give up and say we’ll never know who did it. If we’re willing to send people to prison for decades on the basis of evidence, why can’t we fine people for not clearing the sidewalk on the basis of obvious evidence, such as their portion of the sidewalk having a 3cm layer of solid ice while the neighbours have only today’s 1cm of snow?

More generally, this is why I am opposed to “zero tolerance” policies. They’re really just an excuse for enforcement authorities to avoid thinking, no matter how many people are harmed or how badly by such behaviour. The only area on which zero tolerance is appropriate is zero tolerance: anybody who proposes, enacts, supports, or implements a zero tolerance policy should be [insert your choice of excessive satirical punishment here].
Reply
(03-04-2019, 10:50 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: ...
This is why these sorts of questions require actual analysis. I am neither in favour of stricter or less snow clearing policies — I want the policies to be better, which in this case can’t be captured by either of those simplistic words. I’m ignoring for the moment that I think the City should take on the job itself. So assuming we’re going to stick with the ridiculous approach of using bylaw to enforce that each house does its bit, we need to change the actual clearing standard to reflect what is actually feasible; while simultaneously changing the rules to actually require clearing during winter.

I think part of this needs to be an attitude change, whether on the part of the enforcement regime or in the bylaw itself I can’t say, to take reasonable inferences from evidence. With serious crimes we don’t require them to be caught in flagrante — if a dead body shows up with no witnesses to the murder, we don’t give up and say we’ll never know who did it. If we’re willing to send people to prison for decades on the basis of evidence, why can’t we fine people for not clearing the sidewalk on the basis of obvious evidence, such as their portion of the sidewalk having a 3cm layer of solid ice while the neighbours have only today’s 1cm of snow?...

I think this is all very well said. We don't know that this isn't happening, though, when enforcement is happening. We've been told by city officials here and on the City of Kitchener web site that officers are indeed applying discretion (not for the sake of mobility, of course, but rather because of complaints by property owners). I think it's safe to assume that, in judging whether "an effort" has been made to clear a sidewalk, any officer would compare that sidewalk to the adjacent. At least as a part of his decision-making process.

In practice, though, it's not happening. I've complained about properties that have been chronically uncleared for months now. By any measure (the bylaw's standards, or common sense), they have not been cleared.

I don't think this is because bylaw officers lack common sense and are giving notices to the wrong properties. I think the source of the problem is that there are too few of them, working too few hours, to get sidewalks cleared in anything approaching a reasonable time frame.
Reply
I'm still not really sure where the "bare pavement" and "any snow resets the clock" standards came from. The bylaw simply says snow and ice must be removed within 24 hours after a snowfall ends. It also specifically says a 24 hour warning will only be issued for the first violation of the season, so chronic violators should be receiving fines after their one and only warning.

Quote:687.1.2 Sidewalk - removal of snow - within 24 hours
Every owner or occupant of a building on premises adjoining a highway in the City shall clear away and remove the snow and ice from the sidewalks on such highway in front of, alongside or at the rear of such building within twenty-four hours after the cessation of a snowfall. By-law 87-171, 17 August, 1987.
Reply
(03-04-2019, 11:12 AM)MidTowner Wrote:
(03-04-2019, 10:50 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: ...
This is why these sorts of questions require actual analysis. I am neither in favour of stricter or less snow clearing policies — I want the policies to be better, which in this case can’t be captured by either of those simplistic words. I’m ignoring for the moment that I think the City should take on the job itself. So assuming we’re going to stick with the ridiculous approach of using bylaw to enforce that each house does its bit, we need to change the actual clearing standard to reflect what is actually feasible; while simultaneously changing the rules to actually require clearing during winter.

I think part of this needs to be an attitude change, whether on the part of the enforcement regime or in the bylaw itself I can’t say, to take reasonable inferences from evidence. With serious crimes we don’t require them to be caught in flagrante — if a dead body shows up with no witnesses to the murder, we don’t give up and say we’ll never know who did it. If we’re willing to send people to prison for decades on the basis of evidence, why can’t we fine people for not clearing the sidewalk on the basis of obvious evidence, such as their portion of the sidewalk having a 3cm layer of solid ice while the neighbours have only today’s 1cm of snow?...

I think this is all very well said. We don't know that this isn't happening, though, when enforcement is happening. We've been told by city officials here and on the City of Kitchener web site that officers are indeed applying discretion (not for the sake of mobility, of course, but rather because of complaints by property owners). I think it's safe to assume that, in judging whether "an effort" has been made to clear a sidewalk, any officer would compare that sidewalk to the adjacent. At least as a part of his decision-making process.

In practice, though, it's not happening. I've complained about properties that have been chronically uncleared for months now. By any measure (the bylaw's standards, or common sense), they have not been cleared.

I don't think this is because bylaw officers lack common sense and are giving notices to the wrong properties. I think the source of the problem is that there are too few of them, working too few hours, to get sidewalks cleared in anything approaching a reasonable time frame.

The list of reasons why bylaw enforcement is ineffective is very very long.

I have no idea why bylaw is entirely .... impotent ... in the face of habitually uncleared sidewalks.  The sidewalk outside the train station in DTK has never been cleared this winter, once, I don't know how that can be.

But making the bylaw more effective will only exasperate the issues MidTowner brings up, by making it take longer with more documentation, and more likely that there will be a homeowner objection, which requires an expensive court proceeding (which we're willing to pay for in the case of a murder, but maybe not an uncleared sidewalk).  This increases the cost, which is contrary to the whole point of pretending to save money.  In fact, probably bylaw would discover if they've already sent someone to clear, it isn't worth it to pursue the fine, and then homeowners would learn that someone would eventually plow the sidewalks.  Basically, you get to a situation where punishment is less punitive than following the law.

Most of my coworkers have learned at this point that the parking fines are cheaper than paying for parking.

In fact, the only place that we seem to have a policy where fines might be more punitive than following the law is apparently fare evasion...go figure.

</rant over>
Reply
I was going to comment on the "improvement" mentioned earlier about making the fines only enough to recover costs. That seems bananas to me. The cost should be whatever is reasonable to enforce the behaviour you're saying you want to prevent. And if there is no reasonable way to do that - then you should just admit failure at the start and find a different option.

At the very least there should always be escalating fines. Maybe cost recovery makes sense for strike 1. But after that (especially with a previous warning) the fines should escalate.
Reply


(03-04-2019, 02:23 PM)SammyOES Wrote: I was going to comment on the "improvement" mentioned earlier about making the fines only enough to recover costs.  That seems bananas to me.  The cost should be whatever is reasonable to enforce the behaviour you're saying you want to prevent.  And if there is no reasonable way to do that - then you should just admit failure at the start and find a different option.

At the very least there should always be escalating fines.  Maybe cost recovery makes sense for strike 1.  But after that (especially with a previous warning) the fines should escalate.

The ironic thing is a certain city councillor, who is on this forum, has repeatedly stated he feels the fines are too high and too punitive and should only cover costs, which, again, shows he hasn't listened to (or doesn't believe) staff who say the fines are already cost recovery, but also shows the disconnect here, the fines are actually quite high already--at least 10x a parking ticket, and as much as two fare evasion fines, but still ineffective. And I think there is a resistance to upsetting homeowners.

The problem is, there are many many different ways in which these fines manifest. How high does the fine need to be to convince a numbered corporation to maintain their derelict building which already owes half a million in back taxes? Vs. How likely does one need to be caught for a homeowner who's on vacation for 5 days and hopes there is no snowfall vs., a homeowner who clears one shovel width of snow from the walk and believes they've done a good job clearing.
Reply
(03-04-2019, 03:17 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: The problem is, there are many many different ways in which these fines manifest. How high does the fine need to be to convince a numbered corporation to maintain their derelict building which already owes half a million in back taxes? Vs. How likely does one need to be caught for a homeowner who's on vacation for 5 days and hopes there is no snowfall vs., a homeowner who clears one shovel width of snow from the walk and believes they've done a good job clearing.

I definitely agree that there are some properties where fines won't cut it. I suspect that's the minority or problems though? It's sort of built into everything that the city supports these properties and then relies on other means to be made whole [or attempt to be made whole].

I think an initial warning + steadily increasing fines cover the poor clearing job situations fairly well. Over time there will be feedback mechanisms that bring these people up to standard (or they'll be paying the city enough that the city won't care).

The vacation thing is never really going to be solved well by the by-law approach, imo. But I think you can charge enough that the people you do catch and fine can cover the costs of dealing with all of the people that you never catch and fine. You don't even need a large amount of by-law enforcement for this. The city does however need enough sidewalk clearing equipment that they can respond to all complaints quickly. So after a storm you won't be able to fine (and collect) everybody that isn't in compliance - but you can fine enough of them to pay for the city to just go around and clear any problem areas.
Reply
The sidewalk at 111 Weber St. continues to be uncleared as it has been all winter.

Bylaw is incapable of clearing even a single sidewalk at this point it seems, never mind a city.
Reply
(03-04-2019, 12:38 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I have no idea why bylaw is entirely .... impotent ... in the face of habitually uncleared sidewalks.  The sidewalk outside the train station in DTK has never been cleared this winter, once, I don't know how that can be.
...

This is a good example. I simply don't understand, either. I've called about this specific stretch, twice, back in January. I'm confident I can't be the only one. Under any system, it's just unthinkable to me that, eventually, that would not be cleared. But, as far as I can tell, only the weather has accomplished that this winter.

It might be the case that the City of Kitchener cares so little about mobility that they will find a way to fail to achieve clear sidewalks no matter the regime. I worry about that.

I think they should be able to clear sidewalks. That seems easy, especially compared to clearing all of our roadways. But I also feel that they should be able to receive a call identifying a sidewalk as not being adequately cleared, send a property standards officer to investigate, and get that sidewalk cleared, eventually. But the municipal government can't handle that process, for some reason, and it's boggling and doesn't inspire much confidence.
Reply
Who would be responsible for that stretch of sidewalk?
Reply
(03-05-2019, 08:32 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Who would be responsible for that stretch of sidewalk?

The property owner, but given it's an abandoned auto garage....nobody.
Reply


Can you share a picture Dan? Can’t quite picture where this is.
Reply
(03-05-2019, 11:11 AM)Canard Wrote: Can you share a picture Dan? Can’t quite picture where this is.

Especially considering there are four 111 Weber Sts  Big Grin
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links