Sidewalk issue driven by liability

I am confused by the current effort by the Town of Amherst to bring all "public sidewalks" up to code. So much of the process makes very little sense, for numerous reasons.

First, I was told by a town official that repairs are required because of complaints by pedestrians who use the sidewalks and consider many of them unsafe. However, my wife and I have walked for miles every day, year-round, for more than 40 years around Amherst. Never have we felt endangered by the condition of the sidewalks. They do not pose a danger to us as pedestrians, certainly not enough to set in motion the wheels of government.

Second, I consider this quest for pedestrian safety ironic, since private plowing contractors pile snow on the sidewalks on either side of a driveway. So in the winter, pedestrians must walk in the street. So much for the benefits of smooth sidewalks.

Third, if these are "public sidewalks" abutting the homeowner's property," why is the homeowner responsible for their mainte- nance? Should the homeowner also fill potholes in the street? I'm not sure what "public" means anymore.

Fourth, the almost whimsical manner in which sidewalk blocks were appraised negates any standard for determining which blocks are in violation. A simple walk around the area reveals an amazing inconsistency.

Clearly, liability is the prime mover in this whole process. In short, the town wants to pass the potential for liability on to the homeowner. Perhaps the problem could be more simply resolved: deport the personal injury lawyers and suggest to pedestrians that they be responsible for their own actions. In addition, homeowners might erect signs telling folks to "walk here at your own risk."

Isn't it grand that the Town of Amherst has so few serious problems that it devotes time and effort to sidewalks?

Richard J. Mitchell

Huxley Drive

Snyder