---
The discussion continues: Is John Gonder's proposed moratorium on building permits the best way to address drainage problems, or in this effort to mollify flooded homeowners, is he unwittingly providing Dan Coffey and Coffey's obstructionist council faction the opportunity to usurp the roles of the various boards and commissions, and try to bring all economic development decision-making "into" an underachieving council woefully unequipped to make such judgments?
I encourage readers to visit CM Gonder's blog and read the comments made yesterday, including one excerpted here by Dan Chandler that addresses a different, but similar ongoing issue:
Dry Out Time Out (comments section)
I’m not taking a position on whether a moratorium is the best way to address permitting issues. I do want to note that problems with permits are not limited to sewer issues.
For example, two weeks ago the city issued a demolition permit for a building on E. Market St. The problem is that the building is a contributing structure in a local historic district, or was, until it was demolished several days later. The Historic Preservation Commission neither received an application for, nor approved a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the century-old structure.
18 comments:
I don't know what's right, what's wrong here, I'm no engineer. All I'm saying is Friday it rained for all of five minutes and there was puddled water everywhere, including Spring and the interchange to I 64. That can't be normal. If it is normal, than normal needs to change. I think if I was going to develop something...house or business....I would want to make sure I wasn't going to flood my neighbors or even my own establishment first.
There's no question that a comprehensive and PROPERLY funded stormwater plan should be in place.
The same council that won't fund a stormwater rate increase will consider an ordinance to enable Coffey's oft-repeated pet plan, namely, to bring all movement forward to a halt and to place it under his/council's thumbprint, until such a time (never?). That's madness.
So, Steve Price says it's a depression, not a reciession, and if so, how much sense does it make to freeze building and hurt those workers even further, especially when nine months from now the council, having done as much as it could to prevent a stormwater plan form being put into places, decides to renew the moratorium?
Then, with the local economy damaged, who'll be the first ones to stand up and say it's proof that we need to retract our heads into our shells even further? Coffey, Price and Denhart.
And all of it will have been enabled by good intentions that unfortunately pander to the loudest complaints, not do anything to resolve the problem.
That's our council, Daniel (and Jamison/RemCha). That's the reality of it, not the panacea for Dave Matthews' political gain or the newspaper's vaunted neutrality.
www.newsandtribune.com
Coffey said he doesn't even know if he'll vote yes for it. Don't be so paranoid Roger, your high life ways have already been exposed...
I'm not going to be here Thursday, going away on vaca for a few days, but I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't several amendments brought to this measure before it gets passed, if it gets passed. I don't want to see unemployment and I don't want to see more flooding. Hopefully the leaders that have been elected can figure out a way to satisfy both ends adequately. Give them a chance first before calling foul.
If you believe anything Mr. Coffey tells you, well maybe it's better that all you have time for is to report what he/she said.
I'm far from perfect but you can trust my word. I even would go so far as to say that I would trust Mr. Price's word. I may not agree with him but I do think he speaks what he "thinks". There are 3 members of the current council that I wouldn't believe if they told me it was raining and I was standing in a downpour.
Perhaps, D, but the past knowledge of foulness on the part of some of them makes this one highly suspect.
Have fun.
If I'm not mistaken, initial bids for the Shrader Stables and Tabernacle properties are due in relatively soon.
This ordinance could go into effect around or just before their closings if sold. Both properties contain or are adjacent to unpaved, unused lots that could easily be incorporated into projects at those sites.
If someone were to step forward with development plans and cash in hand, they wouldn't be able to so much as pour a footer under the new ordinance. The time frame of the moratorium (and I, too, question how temporary it would actually be given past behavior) would sideline buyers for a substantial portion of the seasonal weather that allows for construction work both this year and next.
John Gonder mentions his doubts that projects could be completed within nine months but the proposal would keep them from starting and potentially even from happening. If you knew you couldn't touch a property until well into next year, would you buy it now and cost yourself months of payments for nothing?
I understand your concerns bluegill, and those are questions John would have to answer. On the flip side, the people with a foot of sewage in their basements would say they don't care if a developer has to wait three years to build if that's how long it takes to get to the bottom of the problem. Development is great, but I'd like to think our residents that have invested here for several years would come first, at least until a good plan comes forth. Plus, as has already been suggested, this kind of ordinance could get Stantec to finish the plan ahead of schedule.
I think those bids are due in this week, actually.
Daniel,
That's why I asked John to be more specific (probably geographically) in describing what's allowed or not under his proposed moratorium. The redevelopment of lots downtown won't affect a majority of the flooding problems, particularly in the neighborhoods to which the council seems to be responding.
Dealing with problem areas doesn't necessarily require a city-wide building ban.
True.
The lawyers might have to figure that out. Not sure you could do it that way.
Ok, here is the thing that bothers me most about this.
Councilman Gonder and Councilman Coffey have both served on the Plan Commission and both should understand there are many steps in place to combate this issue. One of the very first things the Plan Commission looks at is the run-off of any new development. A new development can not run-off more water than the area does before it's developed. If it is possible that the development will produce more run-off then the developer is made to use drainage or retention to reduce this run-off to at or below pre-development levels.
Two things have to be looked at here in my opinion... One - The rains we have gotten this year have come hard and fast. It is almost impossible of any drainage system to handle this type of rain no matter how good it is engineered. Two - One thing we have been spending alot of our tax mony on the last few years is the sewer system. One of the issues the EPA had through the years was the amount of rain water that was seeping into the sewer system. Well maybe, just maybe we have actually done a good job of reducing the amount of this infiltration water and now it is looking for another place to go instead of the sewer system.
All of this being said, yes we do have issues with drainage however, proposing to stop progress is not the answer to this issue.
One other thing to remember. Councilman Coffey once voted against the Wright Woods Development which is at the top of Kenzig Rd. because the area around Home Depot flooded so much. Both of these areas are seperated by I-265. I'm quite sure one would not have affected the other at all.
Just my 2 cents worth!
Good to see you wading in, Steve.
"Well maybe, just maybe we have actually done a good job of reducing the amount of this infiltration water and now it is looking for another place to go instead of the sewer system. "
Never thought of that before, interesting point. Hoosier, it's your turn to try and make one.
Actually, I come here to learn the good points from the intelligentsia.
You are diluting the pool.
It's true that there are already checks and balances within the system as sladuke states.
My question: When was the last time the plan commission rejected a development request? All I can recall is the group continually recommending developments before the council.
Evan, I can't give you an exact date as to when we turned down a development but we have turned down developments within the last year.
One more point to the "Checks and Balances" already in place and the additional work being done to try and help or solve this problem. I was not present at the Plan Commission two months ago but, a development was presented that is being built on less than one acre of land. By ordinance, on a lot less than one acre drainage retention is not required. The Plan Commission required the developer to use a plan including retention as if the lot was over one acre even though it was not required by ordinance.
Something else that I found very interesting. I was speaking with someone helping to do inspections this morning. He stated alot of the areas where the flooding problems are occuring are in older parts of the city where downspouts drain on the homeowners or neighbors lots. In some of these areas, drainage basins are dry a day or two after the rains while areas are still flooded so, alot of this water is never making it to the basins. In newer developments where it is required to have downspouts tie directly into storm drains that lead to basins, the problem is much less severe.
Still a problem non the less.
Another question: How many times has the Council overridden the Plan Commission's recommendation? And did those instances help with or contribute to the problem?
Post a Comment