Councilors want smokers to butt out at parks, beaches

law reform in Boston that levies fines on the landowner if they haven't completed snow removal within (what is it?) 3 or 6 hours after snowfall ends?

The law levies the fine IF A NEIGHBOR drops a dime, otherwise there appears to be no consequence for non-compliance. As you have seen for yourself, results are inconsistent. You can walk on a clean walk for half a block, then skate on an icy one before climbing over a snowbank and walking through he snow in front of a home that doesn't shovel. If the city is not going to enforce (or enforce haphazardly) the law, it is not going to be met with compliance and thus, it will (has) fail(ed).

While we shovel our sidewalks for ourselves and our neighbors under penalty of fine for non-compliance, we also pay as taxpayers for shoddy, incomplete snow removal from the streets we live on and drive on.

One can call and request improved snow removal from your street but why are these contractors (who are getting paid by us) not subject to fines for inadequate shoddy work?

For example, they usually plow just the middle of the street and leave large snowbanks 6-8 feet from the curb. Even when you remove all cars from the road before the storm they do not plow to the curb without 3 or 4 phone calls to the Mayor's office.

Why is it considered a good solution that landowners are subject to fine for shoddy work (that they don't get paid for) when contractors are not subject to fines for shoddy work (they do get paid for)?

My point is that Felix Arroyo is big on ideas and small on solutions. And his big ideas are a pain in the ass for everyone who lives here.

Arroyo is not alone. He, Consalvo and Menino are all in favor of levying big fines on residents for non-compliance without one hint of concern for equal enforcement.

Consalvo wants to put a lein on your home for non-payment of citations for improper restraint of pit bulls (to do this the state legislature had to approve) and Menino wants to put a lien on your home for unpaid citations for improper lawn or shrub care, never mind that enforcement is neighbor-driven and not equal.

So now Arroyo wants to fine smokers in public parks and he feels its justified because of secondhand smoke. Just let that sink in. Smoking is not illegal. Is he really proposing this out of concern for people afflicted by second hand smoke in public parks?

As a former smoker, I do find it irritating when someone is smoking cigarettes upwind from me. So I move if I can and if I can't I ask them if they could be more considerate with their smoke.

Our city has to realize that their "FINE UNTIL IT HURTS" strategy suffers from unequal and therefore inequitable enforcement. Until they figure that out their efforts to instigate behaviour change as part of a social contract will continue to fail. I can't tell you how far away they are right now from understanding that.

Back to snow removal. Universal Hub has done a great job highlighting all the places in the city that need shoveling to accommodate safe foot traffic but which are not adjacent to a resident-owned property and therefore not covered under the Felix Arroyo law. These unshoveled walks only demonstrate the ineffectiveness of city government. When they cant do what they require of citizens, they lose their credibility.

I myself got fined for not shoveling my front walk after a .5 - 1" snowfall last winter. I shoveled after I returned from work instead of before so the snow was matted but I shoveled what was loose and got a ticket the next day regardless. I can't tell you how pissed off I was to get a fine over nothing and at other times walk to and from the commuter rail station over unshoveled walks with 6-12" inches of snow.

There are problems with enforcement, equal enforcement and negative reinforcement.

What should City Council be working on instead of thinking up new ways to fine residents for social behaviors?

Never realized that until I followed your link.

But like all laws stuff rolls down hill. States cannot make laws which conflict with federal laws, and cities cannot make laws which conflict with state laws. I do not believe cities or towns have the right to regulate private alcohol consumption at private residences.

And as you mention, the use of drugs is illegal anywhere and this is outlined in the statute. Smoking, drinking and other public order offenses are decided by cities and towns.

I just find they're better at holding more milk than the rest.

.

...is that the BRA is full of dicks...I think someone is sartorially dyslexic.

FOUL! That had to be a set-up. Too good to just get lobbed out there unintentionally.

Was the vote unanimous, or do you know which state rep the car actually belonged to?

Preventing people from shopping in another state is called "restraint of interstate trade", explicitly forbidden in the US constitution.