Proposed Snow Ordinance Clarifications

[somerville311.livejournal.com]

A recent story in the Somerville Journal summarized the proposed snow ordinance in ways that may have confused DSLJ readers about the actual provisions of the new law.

Some posters in that earlier thread have expressed a preference for a fine schedule that starts low and only escalates to high levels for repeat offenders. Except for the offense of shoveling snow and ice back into a cleared street, the proposed ordinance does, in fact, have an escalating fine structure. Here is a summary of the proposed fine structure:

Offense	Fine
Snow, Slush, and Ice on Sidewalks (Section 12-8 (a) or (b)) (Residential)	15t offense: $50.00 2nd offense: $100.00 3rd & subsequent offense: $150.00
Snow, Slush and Ice on Sidewalks (Section 12-8 (a) or (b)) (Commercial or Mixed Use)	1st offense: $100.00 2nd offense: $200.00 3rd & subsequent offense: $300.00
Snow, Slush and Ice on Sidewalks (Section 12-8 (c)) (Removal from privately-owned property onto street)	$300 per offense

Some posters have expressed a concern that the new time limits might force business owners to turn out in the middle of the night to clear snow and ice from walkways. This is not the case. The actual language reads as follows:
(b) Requirements for ice. No owner or manager of a (i) commercial building, estate, or land abutting on a sidewalk, (ii) residential building containing four (4) or more units, or (iii) mixed use building, estate, or land abutting on a sidewalk shall place or suffer to remain in place any ice upon such sidewalk for more than four (4) hours, except that no violation shall be deemed to have occurred before 9 a.m. or after 5 p.m., unless the business is open to the public during those hours. Removal of any ice shall be in a manner consistent with the requirements of the preceding sub-section, except that any such owner or manager shall be deemed to be in compliance with this paragraph if such ice is made level and completely covered with sand, or other appropriate material to prevent slipping. Each consecutive day that a violation exists shall be considered a separate offense. Unless otherwise provided herein, no owner or manager of a residential building, estate, or land abutting on a sidewalk shall place or suffer to remain in place any ice upon such sidewalk for more than twelve hours if the ice forms during the daytime, or after the next succeeding 1:00 p.m., if the ice forms during the night.

In other words, the clock starts running at 9 a.m. and owners of businesses and/or multi-unit residential buildings have at least four daylight hours to deal with ice or snow before any tickets can be issued.

Some posters have expressed the hope that special arrangements are made to provide support for senior or handicapped residents. Through the Council on Aging, the City already provides shoveling assistance to shut-ins and the elderly. For more information, please call 311.

Finally, some posters have suggested that this measure is part of a larger campaign to increase local revenues in the face of massive cutbacks in state aid. While the need for additional revenue has been an element in policy-making in other areas of municipal fee and fine enforcement, the proposed changes in the snow ordinance arise entirely from complaints made in the past (in some cases by the aldermen themselves) that current fines and enforcement policies have not ensured adequate levels of compliance. Some posters here seem to echo these concerns.

We hope this additional information is helpful.

Comments

[squonk.livejournal.com]

Some posters have expressed the hope that special arrangements are made to provide support for senior or handicapped residents. Through the Council on Aging, the City already provides shoveling assistance to shut-ins and the elderly.

I am sure you meant to say "residents with disabilities," and I am ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that you did not mean to say "shut-ins" AT ALL.

God, I have never been so grateful to have moved to Cambridge.

[totient]

Not all shut-ins are disabled. Flame if you will, but the term connotes someone who is (possibly temporarily) ill, not someone disabled.

[squonk.livejournal.com]

The structure of the writing strongly implies that people with disabilities are exactly to whom they were referring. The subject of the preceding sentence is posters' concerns about providing assistance to "senior or handicapped residents." The next sentence is set up to address that concern: the city "already provides shoveling assistance to shut-ins and the elderly." If shut-ins were not the same as people with disabilities, why was this proposed as the answer to posters' concerns?

Now, this might have been a deft attempt to avoid the fact that the city really doesn't provide assistance to people with disabilities--only people who are, as you suggested, temporarily ill. If so, that makes the offense even worse: The fact that the city would duck the issue, and that they used a false and damaging parallelism to do so. There's zero excuse for such outdated and oppressive language in any form of city publication. (I don't really think that temporarily ill people would be thrilled about being referred to as "shut-ins," either.)

What's especially ironic here is that people with disabilities who live in Somerville often become stuck in their homes because the snow removal is so atrocious. An ADA complaint really needs to be organized.

[totient]

In fact all the city provides is a referral service which seems to be intended for seniors. There's no reference to anyone else being eligible, though they also don't look like they're checking IDs or anything, nor does the program appear to be subsidized. And since the city doesn't refer to people who can't shovel, they manage to avoid using a term you find offensive.

That said: referring to the class of people who can't shovel their own walks as "disabled" is incorrect. Someone attempting to reply to a question about x and y people who can't shovel by including z people who also can't shovel is trying to be inclusive, even if they got their facts wrong doing it. Howling at them for that is just going to land you in a lot of killfiles.

[squonk.livejournal.com]

The question was not framed as "assistance for people who can't shovel." It was framed as assistance for x and y, and it was repeated precisely that way. I still maintain that the writing strongly suggests that z=y. But answering for x, ignoring y, and choosing instead to use the z term "shut-in" to encompass both y and whoever else, would also be irresponsible, and certainly not properly "inclusive." It's preposterous to either suggest that it is or (as I think you were arguing) that the fact that such may have been the writer's intent means that addressing the issue is pointless. If people with disabilities only advocated for themselves in situations where intent was clearly malicious, we would be nowhere. This ostensibly small stuff is deeply, deeply important, and the links between what is casually said in a widely read, officially sanctioned text and how PWD are treated in the world in ways both large and small are very, very real. If you're employed as a communicator on behalf of the city, it is part of your job to actually convey respect for all your residents in everything you write, and to be extremely careful not to contribute to already deeply entrenched attitudes of oppression toward minority residents. It's patently obvious that no such care was taken here, and yes, it absolutely does make a difference.