I never had any intention of baiting anyone into looking up the rules in the places I've lived. I was just stating what the rules (as they were applied) were in the places I've lived as a counterpoint to a claim that the "North American way" was to make the homeowner pay for sidewalk repairs. I understand skepticism when reading claims on the interwebs, but really why would someone lie about such a trivial observation in a small sample of places? It seemed awfully unusual to me for such a minor point to argued so heavily.

No, it's how far you're going to disprove my point. My point was always about SIDEWALK REPAIR as practically enforced in the USA in my experience (as said multiple times above). And yet you try to "dispute" my point by changing what I'm saying. Just keep right on justifying yourself, because someone with your outsized ego must surely realize that an outsized ego is a negative quality and must therefore argue that they don't have one. Have a nice day.

No, I don't have a problem with random people on the Internet disagreeing. However, your zealousness does seem to indicate that your ego is well engaged on the topic.

I have long hair and was pulled over in WV for having no lights on my trailer. The officer was genuinely concerned that someone could rear-end me. He did not cite or warn me. He recommended me using my hazard lights (one brake light was working) until I got home (non-WV plates on car and trailer). Granted, I was with my white daughter, but still the long hair evoked nothing.

If you look back to the top of the thread (poster: Trepidity), his claim was that the "North American" approach was that "the property owner is responsible for maintaining a sidewalk in front of their house." That was what I was responding to. "Anything" meant "anything in maintaining." And please don't respond and say that shoveling snow is maintaining unless your ego requires you to always be right.

Perhaps it is state law in CA, but in practice the cities I've lived in there (Anaheim, Santa Ana, Orange) have always done the repair work and have never asked me for compensation (other than the same tax rate all property owners pay). I think the state law is purely for liability purposes when someone trips and falls in front of your house.

I'm impressed. Every city I've ever lived in required the homeowners to clear their own walks. I guess in a town of only 500 yards of sidewalk, the town can easily do the job.

As I have said previously, I was referring to sidewalk repairs, not snow removal.

My point is that you consider my account to be unreliable and yet your account is illustrating a general rule. You can't even see your own bias.

You fail to understand my point. Interpretation of the Constitution happens through the courts. Court rulings are legal OPINIONS. The only legal OPINION that matters (in terms of its effects) is that of the courts, and ultimately SCOTUS. Anyone can say something is unconstitutional IN THEIR OPINION. But that doesn't make it so. Only a ruling by the courts actually makes it unconstitutional.

Oh, pedantic much? Effectively, only the courts' opinions matter, because random Internet guy cannot do anything about the fact that his opinion is that a law is unconstitutional.

Perhaps you'd care to explain why my data is an anecdote, while yours is an example.

I did no such thing. Re-read and comprehend. The sidewalk repair (where I've lived) is not the homeowner's responsibility. The city takes care of it. All city homeowners pay taxes that fund the sidewalk repair. It is not the homeowner's individual responsibility or sole cost.

Of course I can. It is effectively how it works. Whether or not something is constitutional is a matter of opinion, not fact. And only the courts' opinion matters.

Oh, so mine is an anecdote, and yours is an example. Got it!