that exist as a result of their breach of a duty established by the city ordinance. We do not think this case can be shoehorned into our taxation doctrine. Like the majority of cases from other jurisdictions, we regard the ordinance as a police regulation not unlike building or housing codes or protections against public and private nuisances. We therefore reject the State’s challenge to the Iowa City ordinance on the ground that it imposes an unauthorized tax. VII. Whether the City’s Cause of Action Against the State is a “Claim” Under the ITCA. A. Positions of the Parties. 1. The State. The State maintains that at common law, an injured party could not seek to recover for damages due to a sidewalk defect from an abutting landowner. City of Keokuk, 53 Iowa at 355-57, 5 N.W. at 506-07 (<HOLDING>). The State next maintains that when the ITCA
holding that regulatory restrictions on abutting landowners right of ingress and egress are not compensable when landowner has adequate alternative means to access property holding that city may by ordinance require abutting landowner to repair sidewalk but that the abutting landowner is not liable in an action in tort for injuries holding the department liable for the fall of a tree that stood on private property abutting a highway holding in case where railroad grant was an easement and not a right of way that title vested in abutting landowner once railroad abandoned land holding that a subsequent abandonment of a public rightofway over such a road has no effect on a private easement owned by an abutting landowner