Why can't we get the city/state to mow ROW's?

[rcjunkie]

Who's talking about medians, the thread is about right-of-ways?

[PennyQuilts]

People, just get off your butt and mow in front of your house while you're out doing it, anyway. Geeze.

Might as well start getting used to reduced services, all over.

Comes to mind some years ago where some folks were mowing the divider along NW 19th street and got fussed at by the city (I heard). So I suppose you need to check. All the same, you'd see areas where the home owenres would keep it clean and pick up garbage from passing cars vs. other areas where the road could grow over before anyone living there would even notice. Not that they would do anything about it.

[rcjunkie]

People, just get off your butt and mow in front of your house while you're out doing it, anyway. Geeze.

Might as well start getting used to reduced services, all over.

Comes to mind some years ago where some folks were mowing the divider along NW 19th street and got fussed at by the city (I heard). So I suppose you need to check. All the same, you'd see areas where the home owenres would keep it clean and pick up garbage from passing cars vs. other areas where the road could grow over before anyone living there would even notice. Not that they would do anything about it.

The reason the city was against this was because they wantd the homeowners association to formally adopt this area for maintenance (association refused), without this formal adoption, the City would/could be held liable if anyone was injured while mowing this area.

[ronronnie1]

If you rent in Norman and get the stake with the red sign telling you about your "noxious weeds and growth" nuisance, you can ignore it and the city will come mow it and send your landlord a bill for about $250. I get them pretty much every year, but i own the place and make sure to stick the sign back in the yard after i mow.

I'm a landlord. My tenants are responsible for maintaining the lawns and bushes. If I was ever sent a notice/fine because the city cut the grass on my properties, I'd just add it to the rent.

In other words: Cut your damn lawn!

[easternobserver]

better be careful...some cities are handing out tickets along with notices to cut your high weeds.

[JayhawkTransplant]

As I stated, on the highways, ODOT issues out multi-million dollar contracts specifying the frequency along the highways and ODOT controlled roads. If we're paying for it, they need to be enforcing it. The City on the other hand, I can see them letting go some during tough times, but we should still try to get an official answer from the City.

Spartan, sorry but I live in a midrise downtown and have no need for a lawnmower nor a place to store one.



Pretty sure most of Arizona and New Mexico highway is desert and dry vegetation that requires very little water, and much of it is dirt and/or gravel with scrub brush.








Exactly, apples and oranges. Lots easier when you are almost zero scaping versus grasses that literally grow like a weed, especially since we get a good amount of rain here.

It's xeriscaping. I think Cuatrodemayo was pointing out that the City of OKC should employ xeriscaping where possible to cut down on maintenance. That does not mean we have to have desert conditions. Xeriscaping can be practiced anywhere. And it can be beautiful.

http://www.keepoklahomabeautiful.com...ng-xeriscaping

[MGE1977]

So, yes our system is facing a down year or so in funding, and cuts have to be made to projects like upkeep of ROW's.

We have this huge pool of money sucks occupying jail/prison cells, why can't we use them, make them "worth" something to us as a community?

Is there something wrong constitutionally (or otherwise) with chain gangs? Really we don't even need to put them on riders, just push mowers would suffice.

It seems to me that this would come with its own built in sort of rehabilitation. A summer of Oklahoma heat rising off the asphalt of our highways and byways might just deter future transgressions.

We could apply these chain gangs not only to ROW's but litter clean up, so on and so forth.

Surely there would be a liability issue for the government, but in comparison to what they already cost us maybe it would add up, especially those that the government practically owns,(those incarcerated for the long term). Who really cares if a ward of the state gets injured doing the work of the state to which they are indebted as it pertains to their sentences?

I'm really asking, can somebody answer this for me?

[kevinpate]

...
I'm really asking, can somebody answer this for me?

For discussion, let's completely set aside any liability issues toward the injuries of incarcerated folks compelled to ROW's and medians, and also any liability issues should a chain ganger make a break and cause further harm to free society. In a tightened economy that's already seen a reduction in free society PD and FD service, what gets cut from where to use city inmates, who will need to be transported, guarded, etc.?

If county or state incarcerated folks are used, who pays for the guards, transport, etc. for them to come into any part of the metro to do their good turn to society?

Not quibbling on whether it can or should be done, but it wouldn't exactly be a freebie.

[MGE1977]

Of course you are right, it would not be a freebie. It seems that tightened security is a nominal cost because they are already guarded, what is another hourly rate or few tacked on in the grand scheme of things. If though you are gaining something for your investment in baby sitter fees, and basically re educating a portion of society on how to live appropriately in said society, a return so to speak, isn't that better than just shelving them in a cell? I think even a time served rating to diminish the time we actually have to hold a lot of these criminals that are not headliners, just petty criminals would perhaps be motivation to do some good. We are becoming over run with people who are jailed because they have too many petty strikes, they are not law abiding, but they are not hardened miscreants either. Give them a trade, chores for a good report card and possible early parole.

Does being a ward of the state entitle one to greater injury/disablility benefits than your average city employee who would more than likely be hired part-time to do such jobs? A lot of the guys working the side of the road are not necessarily upstanding citizens in their own respects. Part-timers are just as likely to utilize injury/disability claims as any jailee might I should think.

As far as the legality and or liability issue, I guess I'm just wondering to what limits "debt to society" can be taken.

Again, sincerely asking, and thank you for your reply.

[mugofbeer]

People, just get off your butt and mow in front of your house while you're out doing it, anyway. Geeze.

Might as well start getting used to reduced services, all over.

Comes to mind some years ago where some folks were mowing the divider along NW 19th street and got fussed at by the city (I heard). So I suppose you need to check. All the same, you'd see areas where the home owenres would keep it clean and pick up garbage from passing cars vs. other areas where the road could grow over before anyone living there would even notice. Not that they would do anything about it.

They do that now in front of my dads house - the neighborhood people mow - the city seems OK with it

[kevinpate]

It's a fair amount of expense. Most of the places who house the petty strikers to the hardened are staffed at lower than desired to down right recognizably understaffed. Taking any of them out to the ROW oversight places others back at the ranch in a less desirable posture, forced guest and employee alike.

I don't disagree we tend to lock up many of those we're mad at and not just those we're afeared of. However, we do so because Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice and Bubba John and Frannie Sue all want them locked up. Those attempting to do anything less is a big ol suzzbucket of softy on crime and have strong credibility strikes on them. So lots of folks who could advocate other ideas take the path of lesser resistance to remaining in their jobs and we lock up more and more folk.

There would be a difference in a voluntary employee being injured on the job and a chain ganger being compelled to be in the near immediate path of an errant driver. One aspect to that would be the incarcerated have to volunteer and earn their way to a cahin gang, with the carrot being better bennies, time cut, etc.

Might work, but oh lawdy have mercy if one slips away somehow and takes down an innocent. Folks will want heads to be rolling since the slippery one wasn't caged up where they feel he should of been to begin with.

No easy answers, but yeah, it's good to ponder solutions to overcrowding and the expenses tied to incarcerating the stupid in beds that ought go to the scary.

[hoya]

And yes, it's unconstitutional to use chain gangs.

[easternobserver]

And yes, it's unconstitutional to use chain gangs.

No it isnt. That "interesting" guy out in Maricopa County uses them all the time.