The Pearl District’s sidewalks—like its people—are getting older. That’s purely anecdotal, but it’s pretty obvious to anyone walking around.
Carole Morse was doing so on a stretch on Northwest Irving Street between 19th and 20th last month. A frequent walker, Morse uses a cane. On her way to an eye appointment in the district, she decided to take a new route from her home in the Pearl.
When she looked up to glance around and get her bearings, Morse tripped over a rise in the sidewalk and fell and hit her head. A good walk spoiled.
“It was a new environment,” said Morse, standing near the spot where she fell. “I also hurt my knee and ankle. We elders fall hard,” explaining how she prefers the term elder because of the respect and wisdom it imparts.
Two week later, Morse is feeling better and the bruising she hides under a natty hat and sunglasses has gone down. But her confidence to walk everywhere is shaken, and her awareness of how sidewalks can be tripping hazards is heightened.
“But there’s something about the Good Samaritans in this, too,” she says. “A young man walking his dog across the street called out, ‘Are you OK?’ and came right over, and a woman who lives right here at the Addison Condominiums came out and brought me a chair, and gave me water and an icepack.” After the two helpers got her into the chair, Morse called her son who works nearby and he took her to the ER.
Studying the sidewalk that took her down, we agree it appears as if someone had tried to file it down to make it level.
In other areas in the Pearl, DIYers have painted sidewalk buckles in safety orange or yellow to alert walkers. A particularly nasty one on Northwest Northrup between 13th and 14th provides at least four ways to wipe out.
Who is responsible for maintaining our sidewalks? And when did they become so unloved? These are the types of questions we and our friends ask as we walk down the sidewalk sloshing coffee and tripping on dog leashes.
No one is actively inspecting the sidewalks, it appears. According to the city of Portland’s website, property owners may receive a repair notice if they receive a complaint about a particular sidewalk or driveway.
If you would like to voluntarily fix a sidewalk yourself, you or your contractor must have a Minor Improvement Permit (MIP) for the Bureau of Transportation, costing $75-$248, depending on scope. Repairs done undercover of darkness are free.
Minor improvement permit. Quelle surprise!
The system is completely arbitrary and complaint driven only, at least 10 years ago. I had a minor, truly inconsequential crack in my sidewalk then and received a letter from the City informing me I had 60 days to repair it (by a city-approved contractor) or the city would fix it and send me the bill. No appeals process, no nothing. Meanwhile, within a couple of blocks of my house were egregious sidewalk uplifts and cracks caused by tree roots, which were apparently unconcerning. They had me over a barrel because (of course), the City would have charged me substantially more than a private contractor.
Ah, Portlandia.
Let's be a bit specific. Yes, Realtors are fully aware that nearly all property buyer/owners do not understand the precise lay of their holdings or how they relate to City right of way. As well-cited here already, municipal law puts the onus of certain repairs on the adjacent property owner. Adjacent, you say? Yep.
One's real property ownership ceases where the property line meets the City right of way. And in most cases, that line is somewhere in the lawn (or yard area) inside (house-side) of the sidewalk. But, most home owners make assumption that their property line and rights extend to the curb. They simply do not. In most every case, the City right of way extends beyond the curb, the parking strip and the sidewalk - sometimes even into a portion of the front yard. None of that property is owned by the adjacent property owner - curb, strip and sidewalk are all part of the platted City right of way. So naturally, they take nuisance complaints and act on unsafe conditions by demanding that the adjacent property owner make needed repairs. And that is as proscribed by law. Ignorance of the law does not make it any less enforceable.
Now a couple of related anecdotes - a result of prior experience. We were solicited by a sidewalk contractor who wished to give us a bid to make repairs for us - prior to our receiving any word of a nuisance complaint from the City. Oh, yes, it did come 5-7 days later. So how did he know this, before we did? Simple: the guy was repairing a sidewalk nearby, took a walk around the neighborhood noting unsafe conditions adjacent other homes and reported them as a nuisance in order to create more repair work for himself. It was a great scam and he did well by it.
This second story is possibly more rumor than reality. On several occasions I have seen my very large institutional neighbor bring in a sidewalk cutting contractor to shave down offending lifts that caused trip hazards on the sidewalks adjacent their property. I once asked him for his card and he was reluctant to give it out because, as he explained, the "shaving" of those trip hazards, was frowned upon, the City much preferring a complete removal and rebuild of sections affected by roots and resulting in ledges one might trip on. Still I see this done all over town, so the practice continues and certainly assures the adjacent owner less chance of receiving a nuisance complaint. And shaving costs much less than wholesale sidewalk replacement. The lesson here is that it is better to eliminate the hazard (by concrete shaving) long before someone reports a trip hazard as a nuisance and the city requires replacement. Ergo, all property owners need to know: 1) they do not own the curb, strip or sidewalk but, 2) are legally responsible for safety, care and appearance of same. Failure to maintain and repair it becomes the adjacent property owners added liability - whether damage is made to pedestrian or automobile.
Now don't get me started on why the City has no inspection and citation team on this. But, they don't really have them protecting the adjacent homeowner's interest in the curb cut-out leading to their driveway either. Parking patrol ignores all unlawful parking at these cutouts and never cites offenders unless the adjacent property owner calls in a complaint - demanding towing removal. So, naturally, the City makes no attempt to protect property owners by policing their own ordinances - even with an existing staff hired to do so. And clearly, the City, failing to perform this work, fails to cite and fine offending parties - thus failing to bring in extra revenue that might actually help balance their deficit budget.