My opinion: New Albany's city council should address the fundamental problems with drainage, and ditch the Kris Kringle garb.

Yesterday’s Tribune article previewing tonight’s 2009 city council finale cannot be found on-line at this time, so forgive me for not linking to reporter Daniel Suddeath’s article.

His coverage begins with a rhetorical question: A council that typically refuses to approve stormwater and sewer fees commensurate with the cost of their governing bodies being able to do their jobs correctly is being asked to spend $400,000 in the form of a bailout, with monies to be given to people who suffered damages from the year’s floods.

As such, is the money better spent as one-time compensation for damages, or as part of a properly funded effort to fix the problem so it (perhaps) doesn’t happen again?

We know the tale: It rained quite a lot at various times in 2009. On more than one occasion, the sheer volume of water pouring from the skies led to flooding in certain New Albanian neighborhoods. Some of the damage resulted from run-off, and some of it from overwhelmed storm water drainage and sewage systems.

Subsequently, in a process that is ongoing, those suffering damages from flooding have sought numerous forms of redress, ranging from claims against their own insurance policies to tort claims filed with the city’s carrier, and including applications to federal and state agencies for relief and assistance. Without assembling an actual scorecard, it would seem that these efforts have resulted in mixed success, if even that much.

Perhaps there is a reason for that, and perhaps not.

Particularly after storms in early August, the city council chamber became the chosen venue for citizen gatherings and petitions, and that’s fitting, proper and perfectly understandable. What is less understandable to me is the council’s apparent eagerness to accept the city’s responsibility for a state of affairs that is far more complex than pointing pudgy fingers at various elected and appointed officials.

Not that I don't feel badly for the waterlogged. As previously stated, I’ve been there and done that. When my ex-wife and I bought our house off Castlewood in 1997, there were foot-high water marks on the concrete walls in the unfinished basement. The message was fairly clear to us, and within weeks of moving in, these marks were exceeded in height. Rest assured that we had not laid carpet or put up drywall in the interim.

But: Does the act of distributing “one-time” (until the next time?) checks in the form of a transparently and politically expedient bailout really do anything at all to address root causes of the issue, especially the eternal preference of the grandstanders on the council to exclusively blame developers and zoning conspiracies for the drainage problems rather than realizing that each and every one of us has acquiesced in the way this city has been developed and redeveloped over the years?

Citywide involvement and input might be helpful in advancing responsible development, but it must occur during the boring times when anger isn't dominating the discussion.

More importantly, isn’t it true that the same politicians who have loudly decrying storm water damage have also habitually voted against equitable funding solutions for stormwater and sewers?

As such, are they prepared to blame themselves along with favored targets in City Hall?

That would be refreshing, and it’s as likely as Miller Lite somehow developing flavor.

In Suddeath’s article, John Gonder seems to be the councilman who is taking these points most rationally. Let’s hope his viewpoint resonates among the others, because the precedent of the bailout is not a very good one. If the money is to be spent at all, it should be spent on addressing and repairing the cause, and accompanied by a rate increase that’s enough to assist in the effort. Masquerading as Santa Claus is not the correct response, but if you walk into the meeting room tonight and see Jeff Gahan dressed in red …