It's a matter of priorities, capacity, and fairness

Last week, Ben Adler wrote an interesting take on how we sometimes misplace our priorities when it comes to addressing snow removal in major cities.  On my radio this morning, I hear that the City of Chicago will start removing miscellaneous materials used to hold parking spots on public streets that people have taken the time and effort to clear.  Two weeks ago, print and visual media carried stories about how the current City snow removal operations have exceeded the budget and have already dipped into "emergency" funds for pothole repair...and we still need to get through the end of this winter and the early part of next on this budget.  All of these point to an interesting point about who really has the responsibility when it comes to municipal services, who benefits, and what makes the most sense.

Adler's piece looks at New York City in particular, but major cities in general, and the priority of clearing the public streets, but not the public sidewalks.  Although NYC has a higher percentage of non-car-owning population, his point still applies to Chicago where a significant portion of the population lives without the use of a car.  Cities traditionally remove snow and ice from streets to facilitate vehicular traffic, but leave the sidewalks to private property owners.  Some take care of this responsibility, and some do not, but as the article questions, why should we prioritize one over the other?  Government's argue that they need to clear the streets to "keep the city moving", but it invariably only keeps a portion of the city moving.  Those who walk to school or work, or take public trains, receive no direct benefit of the service, yet they pay for it.  In the article, Adler advocates for public funding of all snow removal - both street and sidewalk - and makes a persuasive point for its efficiency.

The question of responsibility gets exacerbated in cities like Chicago when it comes to "ownership" of the public way.  Much of Chicago lives in densely packed, urban neighborhoods where street space for parking is at a premium.  In these areas, publicly financed snow plowing of the streets creates a hazard for vehicles parked on the street, blocking them in with an even higher wall of snow than Mother Nature provided.  This requires vehicle owners to expend much time and energy clearing the way for their car to get out, and creating a justified sense of ownership of that area.  Although people may wish they had a private spot in the summer, in the winter, the work provides a sense of entitlement to the area into which they put so much effort.  Through our city government, we expect these citizens not only to clear their sidewalk, but also to clear out their car, each without the promise of a direct benefit.  The questions arises as to why we just don't continue the obligation for another fifteen feet and require these property owners to clear the street as well.  In taking the opposite tack as Adler's point, instead of the City providing any snow removal, why do we not just require property owners to clear all the snow to the middle of the street?  Why have this divided responsibility in either case?  The easy answer is that requiring every one of hundreds of thousands of property owners to have the equipment to provide appropriate response would necessitate the purchase of equipment that would go largely unused.  Instead of a city maintaining a fleet of plows to cover large swaths of land over several hours, we would have hundreds of thousands of smaller pieces of equipment operating for minutes at a time.  This would be needlessly wasteful.

The current Chicago budget situation highlights this question of responsibility and waste.  The City budgets about $20 million a year to clear the snow from the streets, paying for this with funds taxed to all property owners.  Only when that fund ran out did the City tap into reserves from excess funds in the motor vehicle tax fund.  This raises the question as to why a tax on motor vehicles only kicks in when the budget cannot cover the work.  If snow removal benefits vehicular traffic, then should not only those who benefit from this benefit pay the costs.  Those who choose not to use the streets would then not subsidize those that do, and we could place the responsibility directly with those who require the service.  Also, we could then afford the suggestion that we use public resources to clear the public sidewalks as well as the streets, using the $20 million in general obligation funds to clear sidewalks, and raising the motor vehicle tax to cover the needed funds for street snow removal.

The larger issue comes in our interpretation of what municipal services provide us.  Do they provide efficient use of capital in order to maintain agreed-upon minimum services that support quality of life?  Then that would support city-sponsored removal of all snow.  Is the only goal to promote commerce and encourage personal responsibility?  Then that would support requiring individual property owners to care for their own streets.  Either way, promoting one service over the other, and requiring everyone to subsidize one they do not need, makes the least sense of all.