網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

of control of abutting buildings, lots, or parcels of land, or to require them to cover ice or hardened snow with abrasives or other appropriate substances. In the case where abrasive substances are used to make the snow or ice safe, such regulations could also require that the sidewalk be cleaned as soon as the weather permits.

Section 2 authorizes the Commissioner to provide for the removal of snow or ice from the sidewalks upon failure of the occupant of the abutting private property, within eight hours after the snow or sleet ceases to fall, to remove the accumulated snow or ice, or cause it to be removed, or to use abrasives or other appropriate substances thereon when it cannot be removed without damage to the sidewalk. This section further provides that the Commissioner may take such action without any notice to the owner of the property than would be furnished by the fall of snow or ice.

Section 3 authorizes the Commissioner or his designated agent to assess the cost of snow or ice removal as a tax against the abutting property with the same provisions for collection as are prescribed for work done by the District on unsafe or insanitary buildings.

Section 4 of the bill repeals the current snow removal law (42 Stat. 845; D. C. Code, title 7, chap. 8).

The Commissioner recommends the enactment of the bill as necessary to assure the more effective removal of snow and ice from the paved sidewalks of the District of Columbia to make such areas reasonably safe for passage in cases where snow and ice cannot be removed.

The Commissioner has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this legislation to the Congress.

Sincerely yours,

GRAHAM W. WATT, Assistant to the Commissioner.
WALTER E. WASHINGTON, Commissioner.

Senator BIBLE. Mr. Kneipp, tell us about this bill.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. KNEIPP, ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ON S. 3748

Mr. KNEIPP. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The District has had, since 1922, a law that requires the owner of property abutting a sidewalk to clear the sidewalk and if he fails to do so the District, under the law, is required to remove the snow or ice and make the sidewalk safe and then sue the property owner to recover the cost of the work, together with a penalty not exceeding $25.

The existing law, however, is just plain unworkable because, to start with, the District has never had enough money in its appropriation even to clear the roadways or the streets, let alone the 1,600 miles, more or less, of paved sidewalks of the city, and, of course, the manpower would not be available.

Then, suing to recover that cost as required by the law would have the effect of requiring more manpower in the Corporation Counsel's Office, more manpower in the courts.

So, the existing law is just not workable.

The District is proposing a change that will retain with the property owner the burden of clearing the sidewalk, but if the District has to clear it and has the manpower to do so, then the cost would be assessed against the property as a tax to be collected as other taxes are collected.

The bill would also authorize the council to make regulations to deal with the matter of snow removal.

So, in the hope that this is a better law than has been enacted so far, in the last 75 years-Congress started in 1895 with one law that

was replaced a year later by another law, and that second law was held to be unconstitutional because it discriminated between property owners. Then the District tried to do it by police regulations. That failed, and now this is the most recent effort to come up with a realistic snow removal law for the District.

Senator BIBLE. It would seem to make sense. How would other cities do it?

I can envision some problems for you in levying an assessment against my property. If I have a hundred feet abutting on a street in the District of Columbia, and then that is assessed, as I understand it would be assessed as a tax against my property-how would you arrive at that tax? What would be the mechanics of it?

Mr. KNEIPP. It would be the cost of doing the work that would be assessed against the property as a tax. In other words, there would have to be some estimate that the cost of removing this snow from your sidewalk in the District was, say, $25, so that would be assessed against the property as a tax.

Senator BIBLE. Will it turn out to be hard to compute?

Mr. KNEIPP. I would not think so.

Senator BIBLE. Will it add people to the staff of the District of Columbia to compute the amount of money that you could put on my tax bill for the purpose of removing snow in front of my home? Can they handle it with the present staff?

Mr. KNEIPP. I would be inclined to think that they could; yes. There has to be some determination made of the cost of removing snow.

Now, the variables that come in here are quite severe. You see, a few inches of snow are vastly different from many inches of snow. It would take more manpower and more equipment; so, there would be a variable there. But I feel sure that the Highway Department people can come up with some sort of man-hour figure for removal of the

snow.

Senator BIBLE. How do other cities do it?

Mr. KNEIPP. I cannot speak for other cities. I do know, in the research that I have done, that it is the majority rule that this can be done, that this burden can be imposed on the property owner, and it is a constitutional exercise of the police powers.

Senator BIBLE. I think, legally, it can be done. I do not have any legal problems in my mind.

I am just wondering what the practical workings of it would be. Mr. KNEIPP. If the chairman wishes, I will try to develop that with some of the major cities and see what can be done.

Senator BIBLE. It might be helpful, by way of a record.

If what you are doing now is not working, I am all for your having the statutory framework if that is what is needed.

Is it necessary to get an act of Congress to get this through, to give the city the authority?

Mr. KNEIPP. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BIBLE. Can't the City Council do it?

Mr. KNEIPP. No. Congress has preempted the field in this regard just like the dog-leashing law and a few other laws that we have to get back to Congress to get a law.

Senator BIBLE. Another reason why we need home rule for the District of Columbia.

Without objection, that will finish the hearing on S. 3748.

(The prepared statement submitted by Mr. Kneipp reads in full as follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. KNEIPP, ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT, ON S. 3748

Mr. Chairman, S. 3748 represents the most recent effort to provide an effective snow removal law for the District of Columbia. Beginning in 1895, Congress on four occasions has enacted bills dealing with snow removal, and the former Board of Commissioners on one occasion adopted a snow removal regulation. For one reason or another, none of these efforts has been effective. The present law, enacted by Congress in 1922, seeks to deal with the problem by requiring the owner or occupant of the property abutting a paved sidewalk to remove or make safe any snow or ice on the sidewalk. In the event any such person fails within a specified time to take the required action, then the District Government is required to remove the snow or ice or make the sidewalk safe, and must then sue to recover the cost of such work, together with a penalty not exceeding $25. Obviously, the requirements of existing law are unworkable. The District cannot be expected to have the funds or the manpower to remove the snow and ice from the sidewalks throughout the city, as well as from the roadways. And neither the District Government nor the courts can be expected to handle the large number of suits that would have to be filed if the District undertook generally to proceed in accordance with existing law.

In order, therefore, to provide a more effective snow removal law than has hitherto been available, the District Government is recommending the enactment of legislation which would

Authorize the District of Columbia Council to make regulations to require the owner or occupant of property abutting a paved sidewalk to remove any snow or ice thereon, or make it safe by spreading ashes or other abrasive material;

Authorize the District, upon the failure of the property owner or occupant so to do, to remove the snow or ice from the sidewalk on which his property abuts, without any notice to him other than that provided by the snow or sleet; and

Require the District, in any case in which it removes the snow or ice from the sidewalk abutting private property, to assess the cost of such work as a tax against the property, to be collected in like manner as other taxes are collected, by the sale of the property at a tax sale, if necessary.

The Government of the District of Columbia is of the view that the approach to the snow and ice removal problem provided by S. 3748 is a better and more workable approach than any of those which have heretofore been tried. Accordingly, the District Government recommends the enactment of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for affording me this opportunity to present the views of the District Government and I am ready to respond to any questions which you may have concerning the legislation.

S. 3749

Senator BIBLE. Now tell us about S. 3749.

Before we do that, are there any other witnesses on S. 3749?

We now place a copy of S. 3749 and the letter of transmittal in the record.

(S. 3749 and the letter of transmittal follow :)

[S. 3749, 91st Cong., second sess.]

A BILL Relating to crime in the District of Columbia

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as "The District of Columbia Criminal Activities Act of 1970."

TITLE I-DANGEROUS WEAPONS ACT AMENDMENT

SEC. 101. Section 14 of the Act approved July 8, 1932 (47 Stat. 650, 654; D.C. Code, sec. 22–3214), relating to the possession of certain dangerous weapons is amended

(a) by inserting "Molotov cocktail," immediately after "switch-blade knife," in subsection (a); and

(b) by striking out "with a blade longer than three inches," in subsection (b) and inserting in lieu thereof ", an incendiary device such as a firebomb, fire torch, flare gun, or flare gun cartridge."

TITLE II-PROHIBIT ASSAULTS ON FIREMEN AND REDUCE PENALTY FOR RESISTING ARREST

SEC. 201. Section 432 of the Revised Statutes relating to the District of Columbia, as amended (D.C. Code, sec. 22-505), is amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 432. (a) Whoever assaults any officer or member of any police force operating in the District of Columbia, or any officer or member of any fire department operating in the District of Columbia, or any officer or employee of any penal or correctional institution of the District of Columbia, or any officer or employee of the government of the District of Columbia charged with the supervision of juveniles being confined pursuant to law in any facility of the District of Columbia, whether such institution or facility is located within the District of Columbia or elsewhere, while engaged in or on account of the performance of his official duties, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.

"(b) Whoever in the commission of any of the acts referred to in subsection (a) uses a deadly or dangerous weapon shall be imprisoned not more than ten years."

TITLE III-FORFEITURE OF CONVEYANCES USED IN NARCOTIC

VIOLATIONS

SEC. 301. Section 17 of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act approved June 30, 1968 (D.C. Code, sec. 33-423) is amended by inserting the subsection designation “(a)” immediately before the first word of such section and by adding the following new subsection:

“(b) Any conveyance, including an aircraft, vehicle, or vessel, which is used, or intended for use, in violating any provision of this Act shall be subject to seizure by any member of the Metropolitan Police force or the United States Park Police, or by the United States marshal for the District of Columbia or any of his deputies, and any such conveyance so seized, regardless of its value, shall be proceeded against in the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions by libel

« 上一頁繼續 »