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.
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.
Portland’s uneven, buckled, and damaged sidewalks—especially in older areas like the Pearl District—stem from a combination of age, responsibility gaps, legal policies, and limited public investment.
Legal Responsibility Lies with Property Owners, Not the City Under Portland City Code Chapter 17.28,
Adjacent property owners are legally responsible for maintaining sidewalks, curbs, and driveways. This includes:
• Repairing sidewalk cracks, uplifts, and buckling
• Clearing snow and vegetation
• Paying for replacement when tree roots or age cause hazards
This "adjacent-owner responsibility" model dates back over a century. It shifts the financial and legal burden onto individual homeowners, HOAs, or building managers.
Furthering this problem is that property owners either don’t know of this law, can’t afford repairs, or ignore issues until someone gets hurt or files a complaint.
Aging Infrastructure and Tree Root Damage
Most sidewalks in central Portland, especially in the Pearl, were installed 50–100 years ago. Over time:
• Tree roots from large street trees (e.g., maples, elms) push up concrete slabs
• Soil movement and poor original construction make slabs uneven
• Repeated patch jobs worsen the situation or create new hazards
The city encourages street trees but offers little support for mitigating root-related sidewalk damage unless it poses an immediate safety issue.
There Are No Routine City Inspections. Enforcement Is The Result Of Citizen Complaints.
According to the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT):
• There is no regular sidewalk inspection program
• Enforcement is complaint-based
• If someone reports a dangerous sidewalk, PBOT may inspect and issue a repair notice to the property owner
• If the owner doesn’t comply, the city can perform the repair and bill the owner, often adding a lien to the property
This system leads to major inequities: repairs happen mostly in areas where people are aware, report, and follow up—while low-income or overlooked areas fall further into disrepair.
Permitting and Cost Discourages DIY Repairs
Even if a property owner wants to repair a sidewalk, they must:
• Obtain a Minor Improvement Permit from PBOT ($75–$248)
• Hire a licensed contractor
• Comply with city guidelines on slope, finish, and ADA compliance
Some residents take matters into their own hands—painting trip hazards or filing down raised concrete at night without permits—but these efforts are unofficial and can create legal risk.
Limited City Involvement and Funding
Portland has a few small programs (like the Safe Routes to School Sidewalk Program) to build new sidewalks near schools—but there’s no citywide sidewalk repair fund.
By comparison, cities like:
• San Francisco have dedicated sidewalk inspection programs
• Seattle has funded sidewalk repair grants for low-income residents
• New York City has shifted more repair cost back onto the city
•
Portland hasn’t followed suit, leaving a patchwork system where:
• Older areas like the Pearl or Irvington are riddled with trip hazards
• ADA compliance is inconsistent
• Pedestrians (especially seniors and people with disabilities) are at serious risk
Legal Liability and Inaction
Property owners can be sued if someone is injured on a sidewalk they failed to maintain. However:
• Lawsuits are rare and hard to prove
• Many residents don’t know they’re liable
• Insurance coverage may or may not apply
The city’s position—“We’re not responsible unless we’re the adjacent owner”—limits its motivation to fix sidewalks unless there's a lawsuit or political outcry.
Most of the problems are caused by tree roots lifting the sidewalks. I'd kinda be sad to see a tree be taken down just to even out the sidewalk. In other countries people walk on uneven sidewalks of cobblestone or super-slippery stones, and just consider it's a part of life. (And yes, I have face-planted here in Portland myself . . .)
The sidewalks in NW are a system. However the responsibility for their maintenance is on a owner by owner basis, with some taking better care than others. It would be far better if the maintenance were done by a single entity on a regular basis. Perhaps a local maintenance district funded by the NW Parking fund and local property owners would solve the problem
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.
Portland’s uneven, buckled, and damaged sidewalks—especially in older areas like the Pearl District—stem from a combination of age, responsibility gaps, legal policies, and limited public investment.
Legal Responsibility Lies with Property Owners, Not the City Under Portland City Code Chapter 17.28,
Adjacent property owners are legally responsible for maintaining sidewalks, curbs, and driveways. This includes:
• Repairing sidewalk cracks, uplifts, and buckling
• Clearing snow and vegetation
• Paying for replacement when tree roots or age cause hazards
This "adjacent-owner responsibility" model dates back over a century. It shifts the financial and legal burden onto individual homeowners, HOAs, or building managers.
Furthering this problem is that property owners either don’t know of this law, can’t afford repairs, or ignore issues until someone gets hurt or files a complaint.
Aging Infrastructure and Tree Root Damage
Most sidewalks in central Portland, especially in the Pearl, were installed 50–100 years ago. Over time:
• Tree roots from large street trees (e.g., maples, elms) push up concrete slabs
• Soil movement and poor original construction make slabs uneven
• Repeated patch jobs worsen the situation or create new hazards
The city encourages street trees but offers little support for mitigating root-related sidewalk damage unless it poses an immediate safety issue.
There Are No Routine City Inspections. Enforcement Is The Result Of Citizen Complaints.
According to the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT):
• There is no regular sidewalk inspection program
• Enforcement is complaint-based
• If someone reports a dangerous sidewalk, PBOT may inspect and issue a repair notice to the property owner
• If the owner doesn’t comply, the city can perform the repair and bill the owner, often adding a lien to the property
This system leads to major inequities: repairs happen mostly in areas where people are aware, report, and follow up—while low-income or overlooked areas fall further into disrepair.
Permitting and Cost Discourages DIY Repairs
Even if a property owner wants to repair a sidewalk, they must:
• Obtain a Minor Improvement Permit from PBOT ($75–$248)
• Hire a licensed contractor
• Comply with city guidelines on slope, finish, and ADA compliance
Some residents take matters into their own hands—painting trip hazards or filing down raised concrete at night without permits—but these efforts are unofficial and can create legal risk.
Limited City Involvement and Funding
Portland has a few small programs (like the Safe Routes to School Sidewalk Program) to build new sidewalks near schools—but there’s no citywide sidewalk repair fund.
By comparison, cities like:
• San Francisco have dedicated sidewalk inspection programs
• Seattle has funded sidewalk repair grants for low-income residents
• New York City has shifted more repair cost back onto the city
•
Portland hasn’t followed suit, leaving a patchwork system where:
• Older areas like the Pearl or Irvington are riddled with trip hazards
• ADA compliance is inconsistent
• Pedestrians (especially seniors and people with disabilities) are at serious risk
Legal Liability and Inaction
Property owners can be sued if someone is injured on a sidewalk they failed to maintain. However:
• Lawsuits are rare and hard to prove
• Many residents don’t know they’re liable
• Insurance coverage may or may not apply
The city’s position—“We’re not responsible unless we’re the adjacent owner”—limits its motivation to fix sidewalks unless there's a lawsuit or political outcry.
Most of the problems are caused by tree roots lifting the sidewalks. I'd kinda be sad to see a tree be taken down just to even out the sidewalk. In other countries people walk on uneven sidewalks of cobblestone or super-slippery stones, and just consider it's a part of life. (And yes, I have face-planted here in Portland myself . . .)
The sidewalks in NW are a system. However the responsibility for their maintenance is on a owner by owner basis, with some taking better care than others. It would be far better if the maintenance were done by a single entity on a regular basis. Perhaps a local maintenance district funded by the NW Parking fund and local property owners would solve the problem