Mark Hayward's City Matters: Dig deep in NH history to find reason for slippery sidewalks
Manchester resident Myra Guzman walks on Clay Street in mid-December, three days after the city’s first big snowstorm. (MARK HAYWARD / UNION LEADER)
'... Extortion and inequality, pure and simple ...'Following are excerpts from State v Jackman, the 1898 ruling that found a sidewalk-shovel law unconstitutional. The ruling was an appeal of a $5 fine upon the defendant for not shoveling his sidewalk, as required by a Concord city ordinance. The ruling gives first the legal argument on behalf of the state, then Jackman's attorney, Samuel C. Eastman, then the court's ruling.
For the state: Sargent, Hollis & Niles
"A statue or an ordinance requiring the owner of a dog to go to labor or expense in procuring and putting on a collar for the protection of people generally is just as much an exercise of the taxing power as a statute or an ordinance which requires the owner of land to remove snow from the sidewalk in front of his premises for the benefit of himself and the traveling public. ...
"It requires no argument to demonstrate that it is of the greatest importance both for the comfort and convenience of the traveling public and the abutting landowners that the snow and ice should be removed from the sidewalks of a populous city. In the spring of the year, when the rains fall and then snow is melting, it is of the greatest inconvenience and sometimes almost impossible to go over a sidewalk from which the snow has not been removed, without danger of injury to health and limbs."
For the defendant: Eastman
"If the real object of the ordinance is, as just claimed, to relieve the city of the expense of caring for the highways and place the burden upon individuals, it is none the less a tax because it demands the duty in labor and not in money. ...
"The owner of land worth $500 a front foot pays no more per lineal foot of sidewalk than does the owner of land worth only $50 per front foot. There is even a gross inequality between the owners of corner lots and the owners of lots of equal size with only one front on the street."
Ruling: written by Justice Isaac Blodgett
"True, the ordinance is not strictly a law levying a tax, the direct or principal object of which is the raising of revenue; but it is such a law practically both in substance and in effect, and should fairly be so regarded. The amount of expense from which the city is relieved by the operation of the ordinance is equivalent to so much revenue derived from taxation; the additional burden to which the lot owners are subjected is none the less a tax because it is exacted in labor and not in money. ...
"It undeniably imposes a duty and operates as a law creating a burden which does not bear upon all citizens alike, and which makes an unequal division of public expense among taxpayers, in direction violation of the principal of equality which pervades the entire constitution and to which all other purposes and incidental and subordinate. ...
"It is simply an unequal division, for economy and convenience only, of public expense and public burdens, among a class of taxpayers who have not only once contributed and borne their full share agreeably to their constitutional duty, but are are again required to make contribution, not proportionately and according to the value of their property or the benefits they receive, but disproportionately and solely according to the length of the street line of the respective lots. ...
"This is extortion and inequality, pure and simple -- and it is nothing else. ...
"If one public burden may be shifted from the public and cast upon a certain class of property owners, upon consideration of economy, convenience, or peculiar interest, actual or supposed, others may and doubtless will be, for "it is a familiar fact that the corporate conscience is ever inferior to the individual conscience, -- that a body of men will commit as a joint act that which every individual of them would shrink from did he feel personally responsible"; but it cannot be done in this jurisdiction until the constitutional reservations and guarantees intended "as a protection of the subject against the government, and of the weak subject against the powerful subject," are regarded as "glittering generalities" merely, and the reported decisions of three generations of courts are reversed. That time may come, but is has not yet arrived."
City sidewalks, slippery sidewalks
Kinda think you're atop Cannon Mountain.
Ankles achin', hips are breakin',
When you hit a slick patch,
And above all your cussing you hear ...
Not my job; Get someone else.
It's winter-time in New Hampshire.
Means I won't try
To clear my 'walk of ice.
Once winter snows hit Manchester, as well as most other New Hampshire cities, sidewalks become treacherous for pedestrians. If you walk, you're forced to make a lose-lose choice.
"It's for sh—," said Bryan Hunt-Campbell as he trod along Wilson Street two weeks ago. He spoke three days after the first big storm of the winter. "There's nowhere to walk without getting covered in snow," he said.
In Beantown, a property owner is required to clear his sidewalks three hours after a snowfall ends. The city requires a minimum width — 42 inches. The city website has a page to report sidewalk scofflaws. And fines can be $50 to $200, depending on the property.
It's a silly ruling, made by silly judges who were probably mad they had to shovel their sidewalks. And the ruling was made 116 years ago, back when women couldn't vote, birth control was illegal, and anything short of killing a child was called parental discipline.
Of the four cities I contacted, only Keene — a college town with a citizenry of health-oriented walkers and bikers — treats sidewalks like roads. City Manager John MacLean said seasonal workers begin on sidewalks immediately after a storm ends.
Kind of ironic, isn't it. That when it comes to sidewalks, New Hampshire law forces higher taxes and relies on government to clear sidewalks. Where in Michael-Dukakis, liberal-Democratic Massachusetts, people are expected to be responsible and take care of their property.
Mark Hayward's City Matters runs Thursdays in the New Hampshire Union Leader and UnionLeader.com. When not slipping on city sidewalks, he can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- George Will: Understanding our divisions - 0
- Jonah Goldberg: Attorney General Eric Holder's race card - 0
- Another View -- Bobby Jindal: NH should trust parents to choose schools - 13
- Charles Arlinghaus: A $400 million hole was just blown in the state budget - 5
- Thomas Sowell: Fraudulent stats behind 'equal pay' claims - 1
- Jonah Goldberg: The left's arrogant groupthink - 0
- Rep. Adam Schroadter: Penalties for marijuana use in NH should fit the crime - 10
- Pat Buchanan: What would Reagan do with Russia, Syria, etc.? - 6
- Barbara Couch: Why NH students need Common Core's higher standards - 1
Another View -- Jeff Goley and Will Infantine: Time for an increase in weekly benefits for NH unemployedREADER COMMENTS: 3
READER COMMENTS: 2
- Two crashes reported on I-93 in Canterbury, Londonderry - 0
- Man killed in Seabrook fire identified - 0
- Student brings knife into Nashua school - 0
- Ex-director jailed for theft from Londonderry nursery school - 1
- UPDATE: Search suspended for Northfield man a second day - 0
- Anonymous email was 'malicious,' says Auburn police commissioner - 0
- Senate votes to ban hand-held cellphone use in cars; bill heads back to House - 10
- Auburn town administrator under fire - 0
- Belmont High likely will keep Red Raider mascot - 3
Manchester mayor: 'It's the tax cap budget'
Derry woman accused of burglaries
Decency displayed: Havenstein's nice start