While I find most of it agreeable (or as I have told advocates, it won’t change what it is in my boulevard). (Item #46, DOC; PS_O) The section regarding mailboxes, especially ones that are more permanent (like brickwork) may be a little concerned. As I understand it as I read it below (I think) if a utility company, or the city destroys your structure, you are responsible for the loss, and it also looks like you won’t be able to replace it like it was.
I totally understand in an emergency situation, but if it is scheduled work, there is no reason these cannot be preserved.
I have no problem with the city not being responsible for the damage or replacement of the monster brick mailboxes placed in the city’s right of way. There are grandiose mailboxes and permanent structures in the right of way the nearby property owners should never had built. These are a danger to the public and the public’s equipment along with being a determent to winter snow removal.
Drive the streets of south Sioux Falls and see for yourself.
Something’s wrong. This language can be understood. How about try this concept with election language? However, the city cannot use the court for enforcement. There’s gonna be lots of non compliant mailboxes knocked out with snow plows. Also, any mailbox if you disagree with the mayor.
We (the Gadflys) know to not have a mailbox. We need federal protection with a post office box. Some of us must also loan out and keep our money out of state. First Premier would have more accounts if they’d prevent city attacks on personnal assets.