STORYLINE Community

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

1 of 4
close

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

1 of 4
Loading images
Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image

Marshall Park neighborhood resident Alfred Alvarez was notified by the city of Sacramento’s Department of Transportation that he would be required to make repairs to sidewalks bordering two of his lots on F and 28th streets.

Since 2005, Alvarez and city inspectors have disagreed about what can be labelled as a defective or hazardous sidewalk.

Alvarez’ sidewalks have been assessed as needing repairs costing nearly $10,000, which under Sacramento’s city code would require him, the owner, to pay for the cost of all repairs as well as administrative and inspection costs required by the city. In response to these estimates, Alvarez stated that repairs would be made “over my dead body.”

This issue goes back to December 2005, when Alvarez was given his first notice to repair his sidewalks. He repaired them himself by grinding down uneven spots and resurfaced them for the sake of visual continuity. However, after reinspection, the city deemed his repairs unsuitable and required that complete removal of defective squares in his sidewalks would be necessary.

Department of Transportation spokeswoman Linda Tucker said sidewalk repairs are made on a complaint basis and are done to protect the public as well as the homeowner.

“It’s a liability issue to the homeowner,” Tucker said.

In attempt to resolve issues with Alvarez, Tucker said the city has met with him “multiple times over the last five years.”

Alvarez’ said his refusal to repair his sidewalks is not based on a lack of concern for the general public. Rather, he is bothered by the way in which the city requires many residents to pay for the costs of these repairs on credit.

“When I have the money to repair the sidewalks, I’ll complete them in the correct manner,” Alvarez said.

In some cases, homeowners have liens put on their properties in order to ensure repayment of services provided by the city.

“Citizens should not be demanded to pay for things on credit,” Alvarez said. “That’s what got us in this financial crisis in the first place.”

In an e-mailed response, Tucker stated that the city has “about 1,800 sidewalk repair jobs every year.” And of those jobs, only “five to eight bills per year go to a lien against the property.”

Tucker also said owners’ properties go to a lien when, after meeting with them personally, they remain resistant to make payments that will work things out.

Alvarez said he thought the 2005 issue had been dropped until new notices were placed on his door, even after he had repaired the sidewalks up to standards he thought would be code-worthy.

“Everything is cosmetic,” Alvarez said as he assessed the conditions of newly replaced sidewalks in his neighborhood, some of which already show signs of cracking and deterioration.

Tucker said that out of the thousands of repairs made every year, the best way to make sure the job is done correctly, and to code, is to hire a city contractor to do the work.

“We typically give homeowners 60, sometimes 90 days, before we start work,” Tucker said.

In Alvarez’ case, he was given his first notice five years ago and has yet to meet the requirements of the city. His delay in making city-approved repairs comes in part because of his difference in opinion of what the city’s priorities should be.

“It’s more important that the city fixes sidewalks where children and senior citizens walk, like around Marshall School and senior care homes,” Alvarez said.

Under city code, if Alvarez fails to make the repairs required by the notice or fails to respond and execute the agreement, the city will make the required repairs, and the cost would be a lien on the lot or lots of the owner fronting the defective sidewalk.

Tucker expressed the city’s desire to see the issue peacefully resolved.

Alvarez, on the other hand, remains determined to make a statement and said he hopes his protest will cause bureaucratic changes to be made in the city.

“I’m only fighting cosmetic and safety issues,” Alvarez said. “There should be a distinct division.”

 

 

 

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.RSS Feed

September 17, 2010 | 8:04 AM
Prop 13?
0 1
REPLY
September 17, 2010 | 9:38 AM
If someone is injured by Mr. Alvarez' sidewalk, the victim will have pretty solid evidence of Mr. Alvarez' gross negligence over the last 5 years.
0 1
REPLY
September 17, 2010 | 4:05 PM
I say if the city has funds to lend out for sidewalk repair. These funds should be allocated to the most dangerous sidewalks in the most trafficked areas. As I walk around town It appears the sleepiest neighborhoods are the primary target of this so called complaint driven work. With a lack of resourses on all parts both public and private our leaders need to rise up and be accountable for wise decision making. If our leaders come from the school of easy money perhaps they should be removed and replaced. The next time you walk down a sidewalk slated for repair pay note to the condition of the portion crossing the alleyway (City Responsibility). Quite often they are more hazardous then the rest of the sidewalk, but I have never seen these tagged for repairs, with the exception of the Old Soul/ Ernesto alley taxpayer funded stimulus plan.
2 0
REPLY
September 17, 2010 | 6:08 PM
Yeah, I agree. if it was really a safety issue, then the city would focus on the worst sidewalks in the city first.

And apparently the city has no publicly available specification outlining when a sidewalk needs to be repaired. Would seem pretty simple (open crack larger than X, section raised more than Y amount above adjoining section) etc. This simple act would make Mr. Alvarez's case a simple open and shut case... either he conforms to the policy or he doesn't.

It is pretty silly for the city to get hung up discussing a sidewalk crack for 5 years with a homeowner.
1 0
REPLY
September 17, 2010 | 6:14 PM
In all the time Mr Alvarez has spent sparring with the city...he could have had the work done for a quarter the cost and done right...not where it requires cosmetic shaving???? In case Mr Alvarez has not had time to notice, construction is in the dumps and there are plenty of companies that would have done the job years ago.
1 0
REPLY
September 17, 2010 | 9:09 PM
Fix the sidewalks ya bum!
1 0
REPLY
September 17, 2010 | 10:30 PM
For this same story in visual format, check out CBS13's coverage of this sidewalk issue:

http://www.cbs13.com/video/?id=77876@kovr.dayport.com

0 0
REPLY
September 20, 2010 | 2:44 PM
I live a few blocks from this guy and his two lots. Both of his homes are in disrepair and he's had quite a number of run-in's with the city. His neighbors have grown tired of his antics and lack of respect for the people who live around him. I wouldn't be surprised if it was his neighbors who are pushing the city to do something.

Goes to show, be nice and respectful to those who live around you. You never know when they will bite back.
0 0
REPLY
March 21, 2012 | 11:21 AM
The City is now gouging some of our neighbors in Hollywood Park.
0 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
User icon
Type your comment in the box below Edit your comment in the box below

Type tags into the box below. Use commas to separate your tags.

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Progress bar Forgot Password?

New Users Create an Account Here
Progress bar
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com
Progress bar Login background Tag cloud top Tag cloud background Tag cloud bottom Login manager background