Winter Walking and Cycling

[danbrotherston]

[Bob_McBob]

I just submitted a report on Pingstreet for that address, but the app is really buggy in Android and wouldn't let me upload a photo and kept hiding the navigation bar and text entry fields.

That's 111 Weber St W for anyone else submitting a report. Let's see if we can get the city to care about this single location.

[jamincan]

[MidTowner]

I just submitted a report on Pingstreet for that address, but the app is really buggy in Android and wouldn't let me upload a photo and kept hiding the navigation bar and text entry fields.

That's 111 Weber St W for anyone else submitting a report. Let's see if we can get the city to care about this single location.

It's very possible that the City of Kitchener considers that passable.

I finally actually asked to follow up on a specific address I had called in (I don't know why I thought of this before). I called a week ago about several addresses who are chronic offenders, and noted today that one of them I passed was in the same state as it has been all winter. Today, I asked whether any action had been taken in regards to my complaint. Someone in bylaw informed me that a bylaw officer had inspected and "found it passable." Passable by whom? "Passable." The person on the phone was very smart not to elaborate as to what "passable" means.

Most important, though, is that I was told that the ice and snow left to accumulate and eventually separate the sidewalk from the crosswalk in the case of a corner lot, is an "operations issue." The property owner is not expected to clear this.

I have actually heard this from staff at the City of Waterloo before, and once from City of Kitchener two or three years ago. But, this winter, I have called bylaw to complain about this specific issue (this is the one that impacts me personally most) at corner lots, and my complaints have been accepted. I thought the reason the sidewalks remained the way they are was for the reason that staff was giving me: that there was a high volume of complaints to handle. That's not the case: staff believes that these sidewalks are "good enough." I think that could actually be the case with 111 Weber Street West.

[danbrotherston]

I just submitted a report on Pingstreet for that address, but the app is really buggy in Android and wouldn't let me upload a photo and kept hiding the navigation bar and text entry fields.

That's 111 Weber St W for anyone else submitting a report. Let's see if we can get the city to care about this single location.

It's very possible that the City of Kitchener considers that passable.

I finally actually asked to follow up on a specific address I had called in (I don't know why I thought of this before). I called a week ago about several addresses who are chronic offenders, and noted today that one of them I passed was in the same state as it has been all winter. Today, I asked whether any action had been taken in regards to my complaint. Someone in bylaw informed me that a bylaw officer had inspected and "found it passable." Passable by whom? "Passable." The person on the phone was very smart not to elaborate as to what "passable" means.

Most important, though, is that I was told that the ice and snow left to accumulate and eventually separate the sidewalk from the crosswalk in the case of a corner lot, is an "operations issue." The property owner is not expected to clear this.

I have actually heard this from staff at the City of Waterloo before, and once from City of Kitchener two or three years ago. But, this winter, I have called bylaw to complain about this specific issue (this is the one that impacts me personally most) at corner lots, and my complaints have been accepted. I thought the reason the sidewalks remained the way they are was for the reason that staff was giving me: that there was a high volume of complaints to handle. That's not the case: staff believes that these sidewalks are "good enough." I think that could actually be the case with 111 Weber Street West.

Lol, if they think 111 Weber is acceptable, that's a good joke.  I'm a fully able (relatively) young adult, and it was so icy a few weeks back that I wasn't able to walk on it.

The fact is, you could be right, but it's only the latest in a very long list of things wrong with bylaw.

I have only seen two instances where calling bylaw actually resulted in a change to conditions. The first, was an overgrown bush blocking the sidewalk on Victoria St. That took 8 weeks or so to get cut back by the city. I followed up multiple times, and was at one point told that the person who handled property standards cases was on vacation for two weeks, and that nobody was filling in for them....

The second was a sidewalk on Park St. that I called in every day, and after a month or so, the city crews came out and dumped about 10-20 kg of salt on the half-foot thick ice that had built up. The next day it snowed again, and the sidewalk remained blocked again for the remainder of the winter.

I know of no other instance where my calls have lead to any meaningful result.

You want to know why I'm not terribly patient with bullshit from our pols on this issue.

[MidTowner]

I don't know about that property. But there is one I pass most days that has not been cleared all winter. For the last weeks, I push my kid in the stroller on the street around that stretch of sidewalk. I did this week. But I was just told by the City that it was found "passable" on March 5. I agree that it's passable on foot- when I don't have a stroller, I just hop over the windrow, and barely notice the packed snow and ice. Once you try it with wheels, it's not.

It's clearly offside of the bylaw, which mandates "bare pavement." That apparently isn't being enforced. Which is bizarre, given that in answer to the question "Why doesn't the city plow sidewalks?" on the City's web site, they state "[M]unicipalities that implemented city-wide sidewalk snow-clearing identified that service levels are inconsistent, and sidewalks are maintained to snow-packed, not bare, conditions."

[MidTowner]

I did speak to a bylaw supervisor. Their test is now whether or not the sidewalk is "passable." Hard-packed snow and ice seems acceptable. A sidewalk is also more likely to pass, it seems, if the property owner has "made an attempt" to clear or treat. As for the windrows blocking crosswalks, anything left by the plow on the street is the responsibility of City operations, anything left by the plow on the sidewalk is the responsibility of the homeowner. But the property owner won't be cited for not clearing in that case, particularly again if an attempt was made to clear.

In my opinion, this situation is a mess. In May or whenever council hears reports from staff on the issue, the message will be that 4,700+ properties were inspected, and only x% were found not to be passable. But that's not very meaningful without a clear definition of what "passable" means in practice. The standard laid out in the bylaw no longer applies. I don't really want to question the discretion of the bylaw officers. But, with a new standard that seems ill-defined, was adopted mid-season, and is not laid out anywhere for stakeholders to see, I think the data from the proactive enforcement project will be questionable.

[danbrotherston]

I did speak to a bylaw supervisor. Their test is now whether or not the sidewalk is "passable." Hard-packed snow and ice seems acceptable. A sidewalk is also more likely to pass, it seems, if the property owner has "made an attempt" to clear or treat. As for the windrows blocking crosswalks, anything left by the plow on the street is the responsibility of City operations, anything left by the plow on the sidewalk is the responsibility of the homeowner. But the property owner won't be cited for not clearing in that case, particularly again if an attempt was made to clear.

In my opinion, this situation is a mess. In May or whenever council hears reports from staff on the issue, the message will be that 4,700+ properties were inspected, and only x% were found not to be passable. But that's not very meaningful without a clear definition of what "passable" means in practice. The standard laid out in the bylaw no longer applies. I don't really want to question the discretion of the bylaw officers. But, with a new standard that seems ill-defined, was adopted mid-season, and is not laid out anywhere for stakeholders to see, I think the data from the proactive enforcement project will be questionable.

Is this official?

Basically this means sidewalks are, as an official policy, closed for the season, windrows are impassible to many people, even someone with a stroller, if the city won't require property owners to clear it, the official policy MUST be that sidewalks are not open to the public in the winter.

Well, reason 10,001 why our bylaw is garbage.

And the "passable" metric is terrible, passible to whom?  Passable to my grandma with her walker, yeah, not likely.

Time for mass fucking protests!

By the way, can you bring this to twitter, so we can retweet it at our city councillors?

[MidTowner]

I'm not on twitter. I plan on e-mailing my city councillor to ask her what her understanding is vis a vis the test bylaw officers are applying to decide whether sidewalks are "passable." I specifically want to know what the guidance is that has been provided to bylaw officers. There has to be some.

The supervisor I talked to said "passable" meant "passable" to someone with a stroller or a wheelchair. He specifically said, packed surface, not slippery. The test of this is the officer's judgment.

The part that I was really surprised by was regarding the windrows. I had been led to believe that property owners did have to clear them. I'm really uncertain on how they're supposed to be cleared. The impression that I get is the same as yours: they really don't.

[danbrotherston]

I'm not on twitter. I plan on e-mailing my city councillor to ask her what her understanding is vis a vis the test bylaw officers are applying to decide whether sidewalks are "passable." I specifically want to know what the guidance is that has been provided to bylaw officers. There has to be some.

The supervisor I talked to said "passable" meant "passable" to someone with a stroller or a wheelchair. He specifically said, packed surface, not slippery. The test of this is the officer's judgment.

The part that I was really surprised by was regarding the windrows. I had been led to believe that property owners did have to clear them. I'm really uncertain on how they're supposed to be cleared. The impression that I get is the same as yours: they really don't.

This is a change to my understanding, I have been told by bylaw before that they do require property owners to clear them, but like the clearing standards, this could have changed as well.

I do know Waterloo has always maintained that property owners are not required to clear the snow, I asked what would be done about this, and I was told explicitly by bylaw that there is no requirement for anyone to clear that snow and if it was impeding someone (like my disabled coworker) it will never be cleared.

Of course, such a reality doesn't seem to phase city councillors...or should we say, they don't want to acknowledge this.

[MidTowner]

There was a lot said about "effort by the property owner." If a sidewalk is "passable," and, particularly, "there was an effort by the property owner to clear or treat," it is not cited to be cleared. This last part was essentially the case when it came to windrows blocking crosswalks and thrown onto curb-faced sidewalks: it's not the property owner's fault that's there, if they "made an effort" to clear it, a citation won't be received.

I was told specifically that "bare concrete" does not apply. So the standards have changed. I want to understand how, exactly. I've e-mailed my councillor to ask what guidance was given to staff in terms of where a notice is given or not. I also want to understand what the city thinks the process is to clear windrows, which I would argue are the most significant impediment to mobility.

It might be the case that there is no real process. Reading between the lines this winter, I think the City's priority has been to avoid giving notices to property owners who might be upset by them. But they are still arguing the system works, and now will argue that based in part on how few notices were given.

[danbrotherston]

[Canard]

Just a tip - put a period or other unimportant character at the beginning of your tweet - if you start your tweet with an @username it only directs the tweet to them and won't show up on anyone else's' feeds (except those that also follow the person who's name is first).

[MidTowner]

Thanks for that. I've e-mailed my councillor. I just really want to know who I should call at the city when I have to walk in the street because of a windrow. It is an "operations" issue, I am now told. I've never been told that before.

The City's "Snow removal" page contradicts what they are actually doing. It still reads "clear of snow and ice." Many, many property owners have worked hard to maintain their sidewalks to this standard. Others haven't, and it now turns out the City will change their definitions to avoid risking angering these property owners by giving them notices.

[danbrotherston]

Thanks for that. I've e-mailed my councillor. I just really want to know who I should call at the city when I have to walk in the street because of a windrow. It is an "operations" issue, I am now told. I've never been told that before.

The City's "Snow removal" page contradicts what they are actually doing. It still reads "clear of snow and ice." Many, many property owners have worked hard to maintain their sidewalks to this standard. Others haven't, and it now turns out the City will change their definitions to avoid risking angering these property owners by giving them notices.

Operations would suggest that it's the city would clear that, but that is absolutely not the case.