Jarrek
Active Member
Poor City design, that's what it is.
Crumbling walls threaten to take City down
Crumbling noise walls line highways throughout Mississauga. EMAIL PRINT
By: Joe Chin
June 28, 2007 - The City of Mississauga might have to borrow tens of millions of dollars or raise taxes to repair crumbling noise walls because homeowners — who bear the responsibility for walls on their property — refuse to do it themselves.
That’s the warning from City officials, who say they’re fed up with trying to persuade residents to do the right thing.
“We’re not far from debt financing,†said Martin Powell, the City’s commissioner of transportation and works. “(If the City is forced to pay the full cost of repairs), it will hasten how quickly we go into debt.â€
That day could be soon because the situation has reached a crisis point.
“We’ll be liable if a wall falls on a bunch of kids waiting for a bus,†said Ward 6 Councillor Carolyn Parrish. “And then everybody will be sorry.â€
Ward 4 Councillor Frank Dale noted one has to go only a few blocks along Burnhamthorpe Rd. E., a stone’s throw from City Hall, to see the extent of the problem. The walls, he said, are not only dangerous, but a disgrace.
“I receive complaints from visitors who say, ‘What the heck is happening here?’ †said Dale. “It’s an eyesore.â€
Noise walls, also known as noise attenuation barriers, are those at the rear of properties backing onto major roadways such as Burnhamthorpe Rd., Mavis Rd. and Dundas St. Prior to 1980, the City required the structures be erected on private property with maintenance the responsibility of homeowners. The policy was revised in 2004, so new noise walls installed by developers are to be located on municipal property.
The condition of many older noise walls has been a concern to the City for years. Trouble is, when it comes to repairs, citizens and the City are on opposite sides of the fence. No matter what City Hall tries — and it has tried — most homeowners stubbornly refuse to buy into the various rehabilitation programs.
“It’s been a career..and not a pleasant one,†said Ward 3 Councillor Maja Prentice, who first raised the issue some 25 years ago and whose ward is particularly blighted.
“It eludes our ability to solve,†said Ward 11 Councillor George Carlson.
Over the years, the City has offered to share costs, gradually upping it to the current 50 per cent. For a 50-ft. wall, the homeowner would pay about $4,875. An added bonus for them is that the new structure would be moved off their property and become the municipality’s responsibility.
“We’re offering a darn good deal because there will be no problem for them in the future,†Prentice said.
Still, there are few takers.
It appears residents object to funding a wall “that belongs to the City,†despite the fact the obligation is spelt out in the purchase-of-sale they signed when they bought the property.
“A number of residents expressed dissatisfaction with the 50/50 cost-sharing arrangement, some indicating financial hardship,†said Powell. “Some residents suggested that they would be more supportive if the cost-sharing formula was 67/33 or 75/25, with the City responsible for the larger share.â€
Powell said this approach would have a serious financial impact on the City, since in addition to an increased cost for these projects, there could be refund demands from residents who previously shelled out half the cost.
Parrish would like the City to pay the entire shot and get the problem over with. But that would cost at least $20 million. Realistically, said one councillor, it could be six times that amount.
The majority of councillors, however, object to all taxpayers chipping in, saying it’s the responsibility of homeowners, as noted in their property titles.
The City has a final weapon in its arsenal, if the carrot approach continues to fail. And that is to send in its Property Standards enforcement officers.
Crumbling walls threaten to take City down
Crumbling noise walls line highways throughout Mississauga. EMAIL PRINT
By: Joe Chin
June 28, 2007 - The City of Mississauga might have to borrow tens of millions of dollars or raise taxes to repair crumbling noise walls because homeowners — who bear the responsibility for walls on their property — refuse to do it themselves.
That’s the warning from City officials, who say they’re fed up with trying to persuade residents to do the right thing.
“We’re not far from debt financing,†said Martin Powell, the City’s commissioner of transportation and works. “(If the City is forced to pay the full cost of repairs), it will hasten how quickly we go into debt.â€
That day could be soon because the situation has reached a crisis point.
“We’ll be liable if a wall falls on a bunch of kids waiting for a bus,†said Ward 6 Councillor Carolyn Parrish. “And then everybody will be sorry.â€
Ward 4 Councillor Frank Dale noted one has to go only a few blocks along Burnhamthorpe Rd. E., a stone’s throw from City Hall, to see the extent of the problem. The walls, he said, are not only dangerous, but a disgrace.
“I receive complaints from visitors who say, ‘What the heck is happening here?’ †said Dale. “It’s an eyesore.â€
Noise walls, also known as noise attenuation barriers, are those at the rear of properties backing onto major roadways such as Burnhamthorpe Rd., Mavis Rd. and Dundas St. Prior to 1980, the City required the structures be erected on private property with maintenance the responsibility of homeowners. The policy was revised in 2004, so new noise walls installed by developers are to be located on municipal property.
The condition of many older noise walls has been a concern to the City for years. Trouble is, when it comes to repairs, citizens and the City are on opposite sides of the fence. No matter what City Hall tries — and it has tried — most homeowners stubbornly refuse to buy into the various rehabilitation programs.
“It’s been a career..and not a pleasant one,†said Ward 3 Councillor Maja Prentice, who first raised the issue some 25 years ago and whose ward is particularly blighted.
“It eludes our ability to solve,†said Ward 11 Councillor George Carlson.
Over the years, the City has offered to share costs, gradually upping it to the current 50 per cent. For a 50-ft. wall, the homeowner would pay about $4,875. An added bonus for them is that the new structure would be moved off their property and become the municipality’s responsibility.
“We’re offering a darn good deal because there will be no problem for them in the future,†Prentice said.
Still, there are few takers.
It appears residents object to funding a wall “that belongs to the City,†despite the fact the obligation is spelt out in the purchase-of-sale they signed when they bought the property.
“A number of residents expressed dissatisfaction with the 50/50 cost-sharing arrangement, some indicating financial hardship,†said Powell. “Some residents suggested that they would be more supportive if the cost-sharing formula was 67/33 or 75/25, with the City responsible for the larger share.â€
Powell said this approach would have a serious financial impact on the City, since in addition to an increased cost for these projects, there could be refund demands from residents who previously shelled out half the cost.
Parrish would like the City to pay the entire shot and get the problem over with. But that would cost at least $20 million. Realistically, said one councillor, it could be six times that amount.
The majority of councillors, however, object to all taxpayers chipping in, saying it’s the responsibility of homeowners, as noted in their property titles.
The City has a final weapon in its arsenal, if the carrot approach continues to fail. And that is to send in its Property Standards enforcement officers.
