Being forced to work for someone else. Unconstitutional?

[agamemnus]

In Boston, and some other cities, you have to clear the sidewalk in front of your house in order for pedestrians to travel through, even though the city owns the sidewalk in the vast majority of cases. If you don't, you get fined.

Our City Council is set to pass the same law in our poor inner city on Tuesday for our beaten down homeowners. Just another great incentive to move to our city, besides the crumbling parks and infrastructure, painful commute to Boston, the city's inability to plow the snow correctly itself, and high crime. Apparently it was already in force for businesses and landlords, but not homeowners.

What's more is that you must clear 42 inches of your sidewalk. Our average sidewalk here is about 48 inches.

Another great fact about this is that the city snow plowers usually do not have anywhere to put the snow except on the sidewalk... great, huh? Bright minds at our city hall.

I thought slavery was unconstitutional.

If I get a heart attack clearing and re-clearing a sidewalk, I guess that's it. No one to sue because of state tort limits that place the burden of proof squarely on the dead person, stupid old me. Just following a city ordinance, what a dead loser. No choice but to pay the fine in order to stay alive.

Discuss.

My 80 year old mother-in-law has ALWAYS gotten a ticket for snow removal, she even got one for a piece of trash which fell out of her trash barrel in her yard!!!! So ticketing is nothing new here!!! As for 4 hours that's absurd...what about those of us who actually have a real job and have to be there snow or no snow...Are you going to call my boss and tell him I'm going to be late because I have to clear my sidewalk????

[agamemnus]

Double posting.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/crim/1581fin.php

A number of provisions in the U.S. Code target trafficking in persons, also known as involuntary servitude/slavery or forced labor. These provisions are contained in Chapter 77 of Title 18 and are sometimes referred to generally as Chapter 77 offenses. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000 supplemented existing laws, primarily 18 U.S.C. § 1584 (Involuntary Servitude), and also provided new tools to combat trafficking. Key statutes are excerpted below.

Peonage

Summary: Section 1581 of Title 18 makes it unlawful to hold a person in "debt servitude," or peonage, which is closely related to involuntary servitude. Section 1581 prohibits using force, the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion to compel a person to work against his/her will. In addition, the victim's involuntary servitude must be tied to the payment of a debt.

18 U.S.C. § 1581

(a) Whoever holds or returns any person to a condition of peonage, or arrests any person with the intent of placing him in or returning him to a condition of peonage, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.

(b) Whoever obstructs, or attempts to obstruct, or in any way interferes with or prevents the enforcement of this section, shall be liable to the penalties prescribed in subsection (a).

[GGT]

We have the same type of ordinances for public sidewalks. Depends on the boro, though.

In some places we actually own the sidewalk and are responsible for its maintenance, including snow removal (and replacing cracked or heaved concrete from city-planted tree roots).

In some places the sidewalks are owned by the boro or township, and they have to pay public employees to shovel snow (and replace cracked or heaved concrete, even if it's from replacing private sewer connection).

It's a really fucked up discombobulated system. It supposedly began when everyone was walking on sidewalks to get to work or public school, or general stores. When roads were blocked by snow, people still expected to walk their way around without impediment. Musta been when horse-drawn sleighs gave way to the Model T?

On the other hand, our boros are pretty small. Everyone seems to have an esprit de corps attitude, and people just go out and shovel walkways, sidewalks, driveways, front stoops. Not much else to do anyway, but sit by the fire and sip hot chocolate? Our larger non-boro townships tend not to even HAVE sidewalks, so their only codes are about shoveling access for garbage trucks and postal service.

It's very odd, really. For a state like PA that is supposedly a snow state, to have so many different codes and requirements. I can't keep up.

[agamemnus]

But do you have cases of the abutter having to maintain the public sidewalk? It's indentured service, don't you think? -- illegal under the The Trafficking Victims Protection Act and declared illegal by the UN.

[GGT]

But do you have cases of the abutter having to maintain the public sidewalk? It's indentured service.

Besides abutter being a lol word.....yes, we do. The first small boro I lived in (having never lived in a boro before and all these things were very strange in the first place) had a code requirement that any sidewalk leading to the elementary school had to be shoveled to visible concrete within 24 hours of snow fall, as long as school was in session. That was a poorly written code, obviously.

My ex still owns that property, and has been cited and fined a few times for not shoveling the sidewalk to visible concrete during school time. He rents the building out as three separate units, and the tenants are responsible for shoveling out of their parking spaces in the back lot, and access to their mail box, so not sure why they wouldn't be responsible for 20 feet of sidewalk as well.

aggie, you're being dramatic and using words like indentured service and unconstitutional labor too loosely.

[agamemnus]

Idk about that. You only have 10 hrs after snowfall, to boot.

[GGT]

Idk about that. You only have 10 hrs after snowfall, to boot.

Now we're getting into what constitutes a Snow Emergency. When snow is falling at 3 inches per hour, and winds are blowing snow into 3 foot drifts, it's probably safe to say that's not a "normal" event and 10 hours is a silly metric.

[Khendraja'aro]

I don't quite see the problem here. Unless Aga wants to pay through the nose for the massive amount of people needed to be employed by the state in order to do his duty.

Does he think snow shovelers grow on trees?

[Dreadnaught]

I don't see how this is too much different as any other housing code meant to protect the safety of those around the house. Or any safety code that requires you to hire someone to fix an issue.

That said, it is pretty annoying if these kinds of fines are not handed out judiciously and are being given to people away from home during a blizzard or for old ladies.

[RandBlade]

This is stupid, but so is talk about slavery.

Having said that though, what happens if you're on holiday? At work? Away? Visiting someone else? Just generally away from home?

One can not be expected to do something if you're not there. Khen if the state expects something to be done so badly, they should pay for it or make alternative arrangements.

[EyeKhan]

Heart attack? How old are you anyway?

Also, while I don't have a sidewalk now, my last house did and whenever it snowed I made sure to shovel and salt the public walk, regarding it as my duty as a homeowner, and I didn't think much of the lazy asses who didn't. I have no idea if it was the law or not. I didn't need a law to force me to do my civic duty.

[Khendraja'aro]

This is stupid, but so is talk about slavery.

Having said that though, what happens if you're on holiday? At work? Away? Visiting someone else? Just generally away from home?

One can not be expected to do something if you're not there. Khen if the state expects something to be done so badly, they should pay for it or make alternative arrangements.

Well. Unless you're living in the outbacks, I'd expect you to have neighbours? Ever talk to them? No?

Well, that's city folk for ya. Talking about the state having to make alternative arrangements instead of making those selfsame arrangements themselves. Seems to me as if Rand is crying for a nanny state - yet when said nanny state actually does something nanny-like then it's automatically big government, inefficient, wasteful and everything under the moon.

Can't have it both way, y'know? Over here, you're not fined when you're not cleaning your part of the street. You will, however, pay the bills if someone slips and breaks his ankles.

[Nessus]

This is stupid, but so is talk about slavery.

Having said that though, what happens if you're on holiday? At work? Away? Visiting someone else? Just generally away from home?

One can not be expected to do something if you're not there. Khen if the state expects something to be done so badly, they should pay for it or make alternative arrangements.

More gummint gold-plated pensions? Did you know the head of the NYC subway maintenance crew starts out at 65 thousand dollars!!!?? Keep big government and its wasteful, grubby hands away from our public streets!!

[']['ear]

FFS, nice "slavery" hysteria. We can talk about whether this is a stupid law or not, but cut the dramatics, m'kay?

Property maintenance laws are very common in cities. The degree to which they're enforced varies, and it sounds like Boston is going way too far.

But I'll let you in on a little secret: in a lot of places people won't shovel their walks because if you've shoveled and somebody slips and falls, you can get sued because you created a dangerous environment. In contrast, if you don't shovel it is impossible to get sued, because you can't get sued for an "act of God." This is why many cities created and enforce shoveling laws; there would be little shoveling otherwise.

Oh, and granny could always hire some kid to shovel. When I was a kid I made tons of money whenever we had a big storm. I'd shovel all day, and it was a total windfall.

[RandBlade]

Well. Unless you're living in the outbacks, I'd expect you to have neighbours? Ever talk to them? No?

Well, that's city folk for ya. Talking about the state having to make alternative arrangements instead of making those selfsame arrangements themselves. Seems to me as if Rand is crying for a nanny state - yet when said nanny state actually does something nanny-like then it's automatically big government, inefficient, wasteful and everything under the moon.

Can't have it both way, y'know? Over here, you're not fined when you're not cleaning your part of the street. You will, however, pay the bills if someone slips and breaks his ankles.

No, no and no. I have no neighbours, the property next to mine hasn't been sold yet. No I don't always talk to my neighbours, I actually rather despised one of my last neighbours and would deliberate avoid talking to the crook. No I'm not OK with expecting neighbours to do something, they're independent people and have nothing to do with me, and I nothing to do with them.

No I'm not calling for the city to do something, but then I'm not calling for them to make me do it either. For a good few weeks my pavement was covered in snow, I'm OK with that. I don't care if its covered in snow - if someone else cares, let them deal with it.

[']['ear]

Don't want any health or safety inspectors either, eh? Where does one draw the line on public services. No snow plows? No sewers?

[RandBlade]

I'm happy for the above and am happy to pay a sensible amount of taxes to pay for those, I don't expect a company to inspect itself, someone to plow their own part of a public road or someone to carry their waste down the sewer.

None of what you mentioned is similar to requiring someone to plow a public pathway.

[']['ear]

1) Just wanted to see where your notion of investing in the commons stopped.
2) Dunno about you, but in many communities the yard containing the sidewalk still belongs to the homeowner. It's called the right of way.

[RandBlade]

If there is sufficient public demand for the public footbath then the public should pay for it. Right of way shouldn't include clearing the path of snowfall if the homeowner has anything better to do - I'd count reading a good book, sleeping, going out, PlayStation etc as something better.

[Khendraja'aro]

1) Just wanted to see where your notion of investing in the commons stopped.
2) Dunno about you, but in many communities the yard containing the sidewalk still belongs to the homeowner. It's called the right of way.

Works that way in Germany as well. If the road your house belongs to has to be renovated (due to potholes and all that), you also have to pay for that.

But I think Rand is just an egotistical jerk who'd just love to see someone break their hip because he can't be arsed to move his ass to do some good. It's always about "me, me, me!" for those guys. In Germany he'd have to pay for that hip operation and some additional punitive damages to the tune of several thousand pounds...

... but nooo, he'd rather have a big workforce he then can whine about because his taxes have to be raised accordingly instead of spending 15 minutes shovelling snow.

[']['ear]

If there is sufficient public demand for the public footbath then the public should pay for it. Right of way shouldn't include clearing the path of snowfall if the homeowner has anything better to do - I'd count reading a good book, sleeping, going out, PlayStation etc as something better.

Color me surprised, coming from the man who lives solely by self interest.

[agamemnus]

If your argument is predicated on the hope that the sidewalk is owned by the property owner next to it, that's different. You own it, so there's a certain level of responsibility there to passing mailmen. In Massachusetts, no one owns their sidewalks as far as I know. Even if you owned it, this law would be excessive. 42 inches out of a 48 inch sidewalk is too much, especially when the snow-plowers just push the street snow right back.

[RandBlade]

You know nothing about me if you think I'd rather see someone hurt or live solely by self interest. If the road I'm on gets a pothole it's the Councils duty to repair it, not mine. I'm not opposed to genuine public needs being paid for, but is this a genuine public need? If it's not safe outside, don't walk there.

[']['ear]

If your argument is predicated on the hope that the sidewalk is owned by the property owner next to it, that's different. You own it, so there's a certain level of responsibility there to passing mailmen.

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate, if you check post #14.

But there is this liability issue I talked about, and thus no shoveling. But for the common good and common safety, if you mandate shoveling then you can't be sued. My hometown balances this nicely by not citing people. Therefore those who are civic-minded and have a good work ethic will shovel their walks, those who are lazy will not, nobody is legally liable. I actually like that solution.

In Massachusetts, no one owns their sidewalks as far as I know. Even if you owned it, this law would be excessive. 42 inches out of a 48 inch sidewalk is too much, especially when the snow-plowers just push the street snow right back.

You might be surprised. While not universal, in the US lot owners often own right up to the curb, but the city maintains the right to put in a sidewalk if necessary in that right of way. This is true for many communities, though obviously different if it is a general property with no yard. But you may find that homeowners in Boston actually own the land that includes that sidewalk. I wouldn't assume otherwise unless you know it outright.

[RandBlade]

That's a ridiculous liability solution. Surely if you mandate shovelling you create more risk by people saying it wasn't shovelled to the right standard. How about a simple law that you can't sue over shovelling - done.

[Dreadnaught]

And, once again, we get to the issue of the elderly being compelled to plow their sidewalks.

[RandBlade]

Indeed. If the elderly want to spend their time in the comfort of their own home, good luck to them! I visited my grandparents on Christmas Eve and at one of their streets every house is a bungalow and I suspect everyone who lives there is retired. The pavements are not plowed and nobody objected.

The idea all these geriatrics should plow their homes everyday is ludicrous, insensitive and selfish.

[Lewkowski]

And this is why I love living in a rural area even if it is a bit of a commute to work. Requiring people to maintain property they don't even own? Nonsense. Sidewalks if I understand correctly are public property, ie you can't shoot people for using them, therefore the maintenance should not be required to be done by the person who happens to live close to the public property.

[RandBlade]

To further my point above, my grandfather is 81. My nanna is in her seventies and has a bad back. Everyone I know on their street is retired. Yet I'm the selfish one for not thinking they should risk their health in the cold plowing snow? Why should they, they should enjoy their retirement however they see fit and stay indoors where it's warm if that's what they prefer.

If anyone has an urgent desire to get anywhere they should make their own arrangements. I made my own plans to get to work. I don't expect old people to clear the street for me.

[littlelolligagged]

I'm not sure why anyone in suburbia would even see a need to shovel a sidewalk. A driveway, possibly, to get to work, but a sidewalk? Who goes out for walks in the snow besides small children, anyway?


Also, that shit about rain, sleet snow etc. and the postal service is a total lie.