I’m not any sort of constitutional expert, but IIRC this was one of the big arguments against the ACA individual mandate.
Anyway, it seems to make sense, at any rate. Not saying the distinction definitely exists, but I don’t think you can prove one from the other.
Not very feasible.
Minneapolis has something like 3,000-4,000 miles of sidewalks to be shoveled. (More than the distance from your home in California to New York city!) Snow blowers don’t go that fast – how long would it take to clear all the sidewalks? Or how many crews would you need to do it in 24 hours or so?
And even then, tht would only clear the sidewalks – people would still have to clear the walks from their front door out to the sidewalk, and from their back door out to the garage, and clear their own driveway to the alley. It’s easier to just make each homeowner responsible for clearing the portion on their land.
I doubt most places have laws requiring private homeowners to clear more than the public sidewalks. Any issues about responsibility for the other places you cite are between the homeowner, their insurance company and anybody who sues due to falling on their uncleared property.
Anyway: There are a lot of laws mandating that homeowners have to maintain certain things about their property: removing trash, keeping pipes and drain lines in working order, cutting down dead trees, etc. In our area, you can’t have weeds over a foot tall. None of these are interpreted as forced labor. As mentioned, the homeowner is not physically required to do the work, they just have to make sure it’s done.
Except if you need to get out the shovel and put on your mittens to clear the way for your car anyway, then it’s hardly any more work to do your sidewalk too. The economy of scale favors the individual doing it, not the city.
In my condo in Brooklyn, the association pays someone who shows up very early in the a.m. No idea what the time constraints are. This guy has a snow blower that he uses if the snow is deep enough and a shovel if it isn’t deep or heavy. He’s sort of a general handyman for several of the brownstone condo conversions in my neighborhood.
In my SO’s home in NJ (in a city), he has 8 hours after a snowfall to clear a path on the sidewalk large enough for a stroller. His business has until 4 hours after sunrise, and it has to be the full sidewalk. One of his employees takes care of that. Some towns have fines that are over $1,000.00, but I believe his is $200.00.
We usually shovel the sidewalk in front of his house together, but if we have something else to do, it usually isn’t a long wait until some teenagers or a few assorted men will come by looking to make some fast cash.
The obligation is on the owner in NJ unless the tenant has agreed otherwise in their lease. If it’s unoccupied, it’s still your responsibilty. If you’re away when it snows, call someone. My SO’s neighbor called us and we did their sidewalk while they were away. We know they would do the same for us.
I thought I had made it clear, or at least I tried to, that this is because the ACA mandate was Federal law. The Federal government has different powers than State governments, under our constitution the Federal government DOES have to show specifically, in its list of enumerated powers, that it has the power that it is exercising in a given law. Since there was no enumerated power that says “the Federal government can compel you to purchase certain services as it deems fit” then the only argument you can make is one built on say, the Commerce Clause (which is vague enough that it’s let a lot of things fall under Federal purview), or the taxing power (Roberts chose that tack in declining to strike it down.)
States don’t necessarily have enumerated powers. There’s nothing that says “for a State to pass a law compelling someone to act in a given way, it must say so specifically in the State constitution.” Now, maybe the State constitution was written to limit the power of the State government, I’m not very familiar with State constitutions. But in general the reason people argued the government couldn’t compel you to buy insurance is nowhere in the text of the Constitution does it say the Federal government has that power. It’s not really about the issue of “making you buy something” or “making you take a certain action”, but about the issue that the specific thing it’s trying to make you do isn’t provided for in the enumerated powers. There’s no general context in our constitution that the government can’t ‘compel you to act’, but it is very limited in how it can do so at the Federal level because the Federal government is one of enumerated powers. Since States are not, they can compel things across a far broader spectrum.
I had the Brinkman case in my head and it cites;
Agreed!
Ohio Constitution:
§ 18.03 Powers
Municipalities shall have authority to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general laws.
It is up to a Court to determine if such enacment is an UNreasonable exercise of the PP and violates Substantive Due Process.
In Ohio you cannot be held legally liable if you don’t do it and someone slips. But municipalities can require you to do it.
By legally, if you mean civily, the Tiffin case outlines a Negligence standard of a sort if the condition is more than natural (?).
Legally, you have to do it, but most I checked it was a MM if you do not.
Yes, you cannot be held liable for the damages. You’re still required to do it if there are local laws.