I am curious, who owns the sidewalks? If they are owned by the city then the city should be 100% liable for the upkeep. If a resident planted a tree close to the sidewalk and the roots from that tree are causing damage to the sidewalk I can see asking the residents to pay for part of the repairs. Were the cities planted by residents or were they planted by the city? If it is a city tree doing damage to city property the residents should not be asked to pay for any of the work. I seem to recall cases in the past where Atherton billed residents for tree damage that was the cities responsibility...

Brian:

In many cities the homeowner is responsible for the sidewalk in front of their property. If a tree lifts the sidewalk, the homeowner is responsible to fix it. And if it is a large tree, they can forget about being able to remove the tree, unless it is diseased. In that case they may even make you replace the tree if you remove it. I think Menlo Park is one of those cities. Atherton doesn't have much in the way of sidewalks so this is the first I've heard Atherton requiring this. In San Jose, not only are you responsible for the sidewalk, when a housing development goes in the city requires the builder to plant trees in the park strip of front yard close to the sidewalk. Just another display of governmental over reach in our lives.

Menlo Park expects residents to pay for sidewalks in neighborhoods. In some neighborhoods with rolling curbs, the sidewalk is called a "parking strip" and the city disavows any responsibility even though we residents have no control over who parks there or over heavy construction vehicles and equipment that damage it.

Menlo Park replaced my sidewalk when my neighbor's large tree lifted two of the sections. Not sure what y'all are talking about.

Menlo Lifestyle:

Here's what the MP muni code has to say about it: Web Link

Owners are responsible for the sidewalk in front of their property.

This has to be the only time I think government is refusing to do something, but it should.

A long time ago, some wise council members wanted to charge "road impact fees" for construction activities. It was shot down by several council members who were tight with big developers in Atherton. Yet, it makes perfect sense.

By collecting this fee, and assuming responsibility for repairing the road, two common sense things are accomplished:

1. The parties most responsible for eroding the roads pay to repair them (it's not the homeowner of the adjacent house).
2. No one homeowner has to pay a large, unexpected bill, as it's like an "insurance policy" by the town.

Too bad big developers like Pacific Peninsula Group got their way on eliminating this fee. After all, they're only making $10M profit per home.