Tuesday, January 06, 2009

GREEN STREET TREE REMOVAL


A few months ago, while walking around the uptown district, I stumbled across a sidewalk that just screamed lawsuit. The trees had shifted the cheap bluestone and brick walkway in such a way, that I had to get some pictures and send them to DPW.

Although the city is not responsible for the repair and/or maintenance of the private sidewalks, I figured I would document the neglect.

The location is on Green Street, not far from N Front St. The sidewalk is at the edge of the "Hoffman house" restaurant owned by the Bradley family.

This Monday, while cashing a check at the M&T Bank [at the same location] I found Daves Tree Service removing what was left of the tree stumps along this walk.

With delight, I decided to ask around to see who prompted this action. I only heard that, at the urging of the Water Department and as a favor of the Mayor, that the service and perhaps the sidewalk repair, will be on the city tab. I refuse to believe this.

I know that this is in no way typical of our good Mayor, and thus, when the sidewalk is refurbished and all parties are paid, the receipts will show the city, in no way, contributed to this overdue project.

I just know it.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Even if the Water Department wanted the trees removed, is it up to the tax paters to cover the cost of a tree service taking them down?

Those trees are hard wood, where did the potential fire wood go?

and finally, who will install the fresh sidewalk? will it have to go out to bid or is the property owner responsible, even if youre a friend of the Mayor?

Anonymous said...

your last paragraph is pure sarcasm.

UCP Blog said...

I like the new curved CUTS.

Anonymous said...

No one trust you Michael. Your pure sarcasm has hit an all time high. Your talking about a tree, but your not doing anything about whats going on in city hall.

Mike Madsen said...

9:11...thanks for the interest, but the Aldermen are not supposed to comment on a continuing lawsuit. You know that.

So long as Rich Cahill keeps the subject of his Blog on City Hall and the alleged wrong doing, those who wish to throw anonymous causations will have a place to do so, but we cannot.

The point of the posting, was to question the possibility that we may still be doing favors for friends with taxpayer funds.

Thanks for stopping in.

Anonymous said...

Mike, your point about the Aldermen not injecting their opinion in a pending case is correct.
I am shocked that someone hasn't offered any opinions lately. I guess theres a little common sense out there.

As for Rich's blog. Yes it serves a purpose for those who wish to vent, but the stagnant nature of the topic causes me to skip days between viewings. At least yours jumps around a bit.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of other Blogs, why are there so few daily Bloggers? Some of this stuff sits out there for weeks.

Anonymous said...

Mike - are you kidding - the City takes care of some people all the time - the taxpayer's get stuck time and again.

Anonymous said...

Who paid for the Millard Building's sidewalks?