Ordinance That Would Shift Sidewalk Liability from Town to All Homeowners Killed

Several controversial ordinances bit the dust at Monday night’s Ordinance Committee meeting at Town Hall, including one that would have shifted the liability from the town to homeowners for damages and accidents occurring on sidewalks in residential neighborhoods.

The ordinance has met with stiff disproval at several Town Council and Ordinance Committee meetings since it was first proposed.

Monday night was no exception. 

See attached PDF file for proposed ordinances language changes.

Speaking against the ordinance change first was Tom Gwilliam of Wakelee Avenue, who noted he was no lawyer, but nevertheless objected to “shifting the liability form the town of Stratford to the homeowner,” and “I respectfully urge you to reject” it. 

Gwilliam added, “This would add additional powers to the town of Stratford and transfer costs to landowners,” noting, too, that the proposed ordinance erred in a reference to state law. “The wrong state statute is being referenced in your ordinance. 

“And nowhere [in the state statute] does it state that municipalities should waive liability,” he said. “In my opinion, it should be the town of Stratford’s responsibility to maintain public sidewalks."

Conversely, if the town of Stratford refused to take on the responsibility of sidewalks, then ownership should switch to the landowner or possessor, thus making it a private sidewalk, who then should have the option of removing the sidewalk or restricting access to reduce liability.

“I understanding the reasoning is to reduce liability,” he said. But townspeople will still pay for it whether it’s out of the town’s pocket or the homeowner’s. 

Walter Rinkunas of Second Avenue also objected to the town’s attempt to shirk its legal responsibility onto beleaguered taxpayers. “Don’t try to shovel everything on the property owner,” he said. “Why are we paying taxes if you don’t want to do anything? What are we getting for it? If that’s your tree, you pay for it – we don’t want that bill.” 

Apparently the comments Monday were persuasive, as Councilman Matthew Catalano motioned to “strike the ordinance from the agenda” and did so in no uncertain terms that even surprised some fellow committee members. 

“No way would I vote for something that transfers this cost to the taxpayers, no friggin’ way,” Catalano said, prompting some chuckles and raised eyebrows from some members. 

David Fuller then chimed in, “This is another unfunded mandate on the taxpayer,” and thus he could not support it either. 

Then in deference to and paraphrasing Town Council Chair Thomas Malloy, who is noted for his objection to “useless,” “unnecessary” and “frivolous” ordinances that do not address the most pressing “10% of critical issues facing the town,” Catalano added, “I would sooner cut out my liver with a dirty spoon than vote for this.”

And with that the final words on the matter, the measure was stricken from the agenda unanimously.