Jackson Free Press

The Northside Sun has two intriguing pieces this week for John McGowan's next plan on how to get his LeFleur Lakes development to move ahead, one a slight news piece about a positive (and unscientific) poll on his Web site, and more interesting, a publisher's note by Wyatt Emmerich. He says that McGowan now wants to go around the federal government—and is worried that the new bill to restrict eminent domain in the Legislature will hurt his chances:

Here's how it would work: $60 million would come from property owners who would no longer be required to buy federal flood insurance. Instead of paying the feds for flood insurance, property owners would pay pro rata on a Pearl levy board bond. For them, it would be an out-of-pocket wash, plus their property would increase in value because it would no longer be in the flood plain.

Another $80 million would come from the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) for the downtown-airport highway they have been planning for decades. And the final $90 million would come from developers who could borrow against their much-more-valuable land.

With LeFleur Lakes, 13,000 new acres of undeveloped land would become available. The value of this acreage could be in the billions of dollars -much greater than the $230 million it would take to build LeFleur Lakes.

That leaves only the environmentalists with which to deal. John McGowan, organizer of the project, believes the project can meet the concerns of environmentalists through mitigation, once the corps is out of the picture.

Unfortunately, McGowan sees a new bump in the road. Politicians are falling all over themselves to back a new state law restricting eminent domain to only public projects.

"If this new law is passed, somebody could buy one acre and stop the entire project," McGowan said. "The Legislature needs to allow some wiggle room so reason can prevail. Judges need some room for judgment."

Dozens of state legislatures have restricted eminent domain since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 last year that private property could be leased for private development projects that had a public benefit, such as economic development.

Previous Comments

ID

90773

Comment

Is it just me, or is it hard to understand what Emmerich is trying to say that McGowan wants to do? I get the feeling that he is tiptoeing through a minefield on McGowan's behalf here. Maybe someone else can translate.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-11T11:56:00-06:00

ID

90774

Comment

For instance: First, he says, "That leaves only the environmentalists with which to deal." The way to mitigate those frack tree-huggers' concerns, it seems, is get the Corps of the picture. Then, though, we learn that McGowan "sees a new bump in the road"—the eminent-domain legislation. OK, I thought the environmentalists were the last hurdle. I hate to tell these guys, but there are a lot of folks out there worried about private companies taking land who aren't exactly green-tea drinkers, if you know what I mean. This is weird stuff. Translators?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-11T11:59:17-06:00

ID

90775

Comment

Oh, oh, look at this, further down in Emmerich's thing: McGowan has tried for several years to work with the corps, but it was a constant battle. The corps finally agreed the project was technically feasible, but it took a long time. Basically, the environmentalists have hamstrung the corps. “It is practically impossible to pursue any flood control project that does not create new land for development. You cannot cost justify a flood control project without new land. So basically, the corps has no reason to exist.” Not only did the corps take forever with its studies, they changed the project in a manner that tripled the cost, according to McGowan. So its the environmentalists' (a dirty word, in the Sun) fault that the plan is environmentally unfriendly at best? Uh, that's kinda illogical blaming-the-messenger. Maybe it's just a bad plan all around. One wonders if Emmerich has talked to anyone other than McGowan? Maybe that's why this column makes so little sense.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-11T12:01:57-06:00

ID

90776

Comment

Did the Corps ever release their revised Environmental Impact Statement? I'll look into this and see if I can find anything about it. Also, are there any eminent domain issues right now? That is, are there any property owners who would be forced to sell as things stand today? Anyone know?

Author

GLB

Date

2007-01-11T12:21:50-06:00

ID

90777

Comment

This is the first I've heard of a possible eminent-domain dispute, which is disturbing to say the least. But I'm not the resident LeFleur Lakes expert, so we'll look into this further and report back. But this certainly raises questions.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-11T12:23:31-06:00

ID

90778

Comment

Thanks Ladd. You guys have been the best by FAR at reporting on this issue. I'm looking forward to what you find out. I am pretty busy these days, but I'll try to spend some time understanding the engineering aspects of this, and if I have anything I can contribute I will.

Author

GLB

Date

2007-01-11T12:25:56-06:00

ID

90779

Comment

Please do, GLB. You know we rely on our citizen journalists to help us put the pieces of the puzzle together. Bring it on.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-11T12:30:14-06:00

ID

90780

Comment

I'm actually for the lakes in a way. However, I can tell you right now that if they think they will have the property owners in the flood zone start paying some Levy board in lieu of Flood Insurance, they are out of their farking mind! What if the lower lying areas of Jackson still flood after a rain event like in '79 (or worse)? Is Mr. McGowen ready to field the lawsuits or will he seek some type of special exemption through the legislator protecting his investor's investment? Who is responsible once the project is done? Right now, as they keep changing the plan on financing and the parkway, they sound like snake-oil salesmen. "Monorail, monorail...."

Author

pikersam

Date

2007-01-11T13:47:55-06:00