Jackson Free Press

In response to The Clarion-Ledger's huge package of stories last weekend overwhelmingly in favor of the LeFleur Lakes development plan (including an odd pro-pro pair of columns), Monticello Mayor Dave Nichols II wrote the paper in protest, bringing up a vital point too little discussed by the developers:

At least some of the truth is finally coming out about this plan. This editorial does say that it would also be an economic boon to the Jackson area, and that is truly what this project is all about. I am not arguing that this proposed project provides flood relief for the Jackson metro area. It will all the way to the Byram area, and after that it would put up to two more inches of water downstream. Again I am not against Jackson and the metro area growing. I am against anything that is harmfully to the citizens of Monticello and Lawrence County, and this project does nothing for this area.

Previous Commentsshow

Monticello will flood regardless of what is done or not done here. Their problems should be addressed separately. To me, the point is that nothing of any merit has been done for over 25 years to address any one's flooding. The other Letter to the Editor in the C-L talks about how this is always mentioned as a flood-control project. It HAS to be a flood-control project or the Corps will not give its permission to do anything with the Pearl River. I am sure the developers will make a bundle if this ever becomes a reality. Don't know how newly created land is sold, but would be interested to see an article about it. It is all right with me if someone does make money on this as long as the tax base is enhanced and Jackson/Metro becomes more desirable for all.

ChrisCavanaugh

Jan 19 2007

Yes, I was about to link that letter. Here's what I personally want to see: A variety of anti-flooding options presented to the public with public hearings all up and down the Pearl, especially downstream. We should select the best option. I'm fed up with public relations from one group of developers. Fine, they can push for what they want, but they shouldn't get it until this thing is vetted inside and out, and the public is really engaged in understanding all the issues. And I could care less about some non-scientific poll on their Web site. That's a really goofy way to go about pushing for "flood control." It's not a damn popularity contest. We've nagged long enough on this now that I think more people are starting to question the LeFleur Lakes plan, which needs to happen—even if ultimately it checks out. Flooding must be taken very seriously, as must our environment and the various ways we can push economic development in the future. McGowan is supposed to come on our radio show, perhaps next Friday, so we look forward to asking him straightforward questions that he's just not going to get from The Clarion-Ledger and other superficial media.

DonnaLadd

Jan 19 2007

Well, I think the Mayor Nichols has "Jackson" issues period! For the lake or against the Lake, anything that may help Jackson, he will be against. Look at his reactionary letter about PILOT Taxes. He is coming across as a Jackson bigot! The Lakes may not be a bad idea. What is bad is the way the developers and Councilman Allen are going about pushing for it. It sounds no different then the way they pumped Melton to the voters. They don't want to worry about problems or see if better options are available, they just care if they "get" what they want in the short term. I still say that flooding may not be truly controlled, and that the Fed's won't be so quick to allow mortgage holder to drop Flood insurance. Then if the "already rich" developers talk the State into allowing them to set up a separate tax district to bilk those in the flood zone out of more money, so they can get richer, those land owners will be footing the bill for the elite who can afford the lake front properties. That is crap! Any plan that has the poor pay for the benefits of the rich is messed up from Go! The white middle class fled the worst of the flood zones in NE Jax, leaving the area to citizens who make it by as they can. So, what if their house suddenly gains $30,000 in value. What are they supposed to? Go get Home Equity loans that they cannot afford to pay for each month since their income doesn't go up with the value of their house! Actually, it is the developers, and those who stand to benefit the most, that should set up a system that flows a portion of their profit for grants and infrastructure improvements to those existing owners in the flood zone to improve their properties and save those areas before the sewer, water, and roads crumble away.

pikersam

Jan 19 2007

I'm not getting that impression, Pike. I don't agree with his PILT position, per se, but I can understand why he has it, I think. But even if he's dead wrong on that one, that doesn't mean he's wrong on this one. There are serious downstream concerns to Two Lake. Otherwise, you have never spoken truer words that these: The Lakes may not be a bad idea. What is bad is the way the developers and Councilman Allen are going about pushing for it. It sounds no different then the way they pumped Melton to the voters. They don't want to worry about problems or see if better options are available, they just care if they "get" what they want in the short term. You nailed it, Pike. I feel like we're being sold a bill of goods, and a huge problem in Jackson is the lack of true due diligence ahead of time. You don't sell one "flood control" plan because you stand to benefit; the community needs a variety of plans, and then pick the smartest, regardless of who would get the richest from it. We need a new attitude on this—and if the Two Lake plan ultimately wins on *that* front, fine; then we'll know that it deserves to. As it is, it feels like it could be snake oil. Or, put another way, it feels like we're being sold the Iraqi War, with the negatives and facts that don't fit the plan hidden from view. That is not good enough.

DonnaLadd

Jan 19 2007

The LeFleur Lakes plan is a 1990's plan based on 1970's thinking, and doesn't address any of the major concerns in today's world. We need a plan that preserves urban green space, not one that destroys it. Almost every other major urban river project being contemplated today incorporates a profound respect for new science and development practices that embrace the need to remove structures from flood plains and allow the river to function as naturally as possible. All over the nation, cities and states are attempting to reclaim and restore urban wetlands and green spaces, not destroy them. No one remembers the flood of 1961 and the 'flood control' plan that was implemented in its aftermath. The new levee system was completed in 1968-69 and developers rushed in to build in the floodplain that was now supposedly safe from flooding. The majority of residences that were flooded in 1979 had been built in the flood plain after 1968-69. The developers took their money and ran and the homeowners bore the brunt of the flood of 1979. This cockamamie plan is more of the same. When the next record flood rolls into Jackson from the swollen upstream tributaries of the Pearl, this plan will put even more homes and businesses underwater than were in 1979. True flood control for Jackson would require upstream solutions, like the Corps of Engineers has historically preferred every time they have done a comprehensive study of the problem. Jackson is the choke point for all that flood water that comes down from the northern Pearl River basin and any 'solution' that is attempted in isolation from upstream issues is doomed to catastrophic failure. Maybe five, maybe twenty-five years from now, but it will happen and it will be much much worse because of the shortsightedness of allowing expanded development in the floodplain. Any way you look at it, the destruction of approximately 10,000 acres of urban wetlands and forest will degrade the quality of life for large numbers of citizens in a wide area around the Pearl River in Jackson and downstream. And it's not a 'developers against environmentalists and turtle lovers' issue. It's a quality of human life issue. We need a plan that will preserve our precious inner city green spaces and open them up to outdoor recreation opportunities for more citizens. When you are able to convince people who live in New York City to plow under Central Park for the sake of raising the tax base, I'll listen to arguments about plowing under our green spaces for economic purposes. If we had a plan that incorporated incentivized flood control measures upstream, with some improvements and extensions of the levees in Jackson, and a commitment to buy out existing structures in the flood plain in and around Jackson, with emphasis on opening up access to the green spaces in the flood plain for recreational access to the public, we would have a 21st century plan based on 21st century science and 21st century lifestyles. And there is a media blackout on these issues. The JFP is the only publication that has allowed any discussion whatsoever of the down sides of this plan. Dissenting views are being pushed out of the discussion, frozen out from meaningful public forums, ignored by the mainstream media outlets, and ridiculed as 'turtle loving environmentalism'. If any of the mainstream media outlets in Jackson had one iota of journalistic integrity they would at least make one or two phone calls and find out about the real, fact-based, dissent on this issue. For example, this past weekend the Clarion-Ledger ignored local citizens groups who are against the LeFleur Lakes plan and called someone on the Gulf coast and gave one single quote to the opposition and dozens of column-inches to a 'debate' between proponents for the airport road and the LeFleur Lakes plan. ( And for what it's worth, I think the airport road is the better of the alternatives. I am NOT anti-development. We need those roads and no one is going to stop some sort of development from happening. The issue is what KIND of development.) If you who read this really care about Jackson's future, you will raise the volume on requests for all options to be put on the table, not just some seriously flawed 1990's plan backed by big moneyed interests based on destroying the river to 'save it'.

PaulC

Jan 19 2007

The problem is they are selling everyone on the "vision", and not on the engineering. This is a huge Civil Engineering effort. I personally need to hear more than "well, McGowan built in Eastover, and that worked really well, so of course this will be fine, too." From what I've seen, the 2 lakes people are consistently answering legitimate engineering questions with a wave of the hand, which damages their credibility. Also, when they say they are being blocked by "environmentalists", my perception is that they didn't bother to learn the environmental laws for a project like this, and now the Corps and others are simply explaining to them what the existing laws on the books are, that they must comply with. Even Visions are not above the law. Whole thing smacks of a combination of ignorance and arrogance.

kate

Jan 19 2007

I do hope I am wrong about the good mayor of Monticello. Yet, he is walking a fine line, I think, between true criticism and just Jackson hating.

pikersam

Jan 19 2007

there is a media blackout on these issues. The JFP is the only publication that has allowed any discussion whatsoever of the down sides of this plan. Dissenting views are being pushed out of the discussion, frozen out from meaningful public forums, ignored by the mainstream media outlets, and ridiculed as 'turtle loving environmentalism'. If any of the mainstream media outlets in Jackson had one iota of journalistic integrity they would at least make one or two phone calls and find out about the real, fact-based, dissent on this issue. For example, this past weekend the Clarion-Ledger ignored local citizens groups who are against the LeFleur Lakes plan and called someone on the Gulf coast and gave one single quote to the opposition and dozens of column-inches to a 'debate' between proponents for the airport road and the LeFleur Lakes plan. ( And for what it's worth, I think the airport road is the better of the alternatives. I am NOT anti-development. We need those roads and no one is going to stop some sort of development from happening. The issue is what KIND of development.) Thank you, and I agree with you, Paul. The media coverage of this issue has been appalling, and there has been no balance whatsoever. We will continue to do everything we can to get the full story, and all the considerations out there, including the pro-Two Lake side. We'll happily give Mr. McGowan a forum as well, but you will hear many more voices on this. With any other luck, the rest of the media will wake up and start following and give us some real journalism on this topic. It's too important to glad-hand as they're doing. None of us are anti-development, and being in favor of the environment (and 21st century economic development) is not about being anti-economic development. In fact, exactly the opposite. Only a fool who thinks Jacksonians are stupid would try to cast it as that. I suggest that the Two Lake folks mothball the environmentalist-bashing excuse. We're just not going to let that one fly. If you're going to talk about this issue, you need to move right on by sound bites and dismissive labels and get into intelligent dialogue.

DonnaLadd

Jan 19 2007

I hate to say it--I'm not a very good environmentalist, I'll say this up front--but environmental issues were never a concern for me re: Two Lakes, pro or con. I just haven't seen anyone make a good argument why it would help the city, and why the land and money would not be better put to use on an infrastructure-building, revenue-generating project. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jan 19 2007

the Pearl is beautiful, whether low or water heavy as it is now. The solutions need to be smart for 1) engineering and flood control 2) economic development and 3) smart environmentalism. We need to learn the lessons of global warming and be creative and pro-active---learn to think of development incentives that are also smart for the environment -- a holistic economy

Izzy

Jan 19 2007

I think alot of people just need to shut up. If Jackson hasn't gotten any help with the crime by NOW after years of crime problems we are going to have to get out of this by ourself. If the citizens in the possible tax zone agree to it then that's them and they will benefit much more than the "developers". The island will obviously be sold an revenue given to the surrounding government entities or used to pay off the construction costs. If the developers on land in that district then they'll be paying taxes also. This would help the poor in that area more than hurt them. They could always move to cheaper land on the reservoir. If the tax district pays for it then no problem, because it wouldn't have to follow such strict enviornment guidelines. I care about the enviornment my ass... There is nothing saying that some of this land can't be set aside in both counties for park space. I read the mayor of Monticello's letter and it seems he is jealous that Monticello's chance at being the capitol was stolen by Jackon. If there is already flooding downstream then fix the problem and don't blame it on your neighbors. He even proposed that Two Lakes be moved to Monticello. This man cares about flooding? That's a load of bullshit. How much more wood would be used to extend current levees and won't that also be destruction of the enviornment? We don't need a big swamp in the middle of a state (with many forests and undeveloped land) to preserve conservation. Don't fool yourself. www.twolake.com They have alot of information that may answer some of our questions. Am I saying something isn't fishy? No. Something is being hidden on both sides. We need to openly and honestly look at both before making a judgement. I will say one thing: Why can't they(Airport Parkway) just build three bridges and get over it?

optimisticaboutNewJackCity

Jan 19 2007

No one needs to shut up. In fact, just the opposite. You don't help your case by starting it that way.

DonnaLadd

Jan 19 2007

Well, there's a good campaign slogan for Melton '09: "I think a lot of people just need to shut up." Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jan 19 2007

"And I could care less about some non-scientific poll on their Web site. That's a really goofy way to go about pushing for "flood control." It's not a damn popularity contest." ladd... remember it's a democracy. Public opinion always counts FIRST AND FOREMOST. For the people by the people... I want to make it known to all that I strongly hope the Lefleur's Lakes are a viable project.

optimisticaboutNewJackCity

Jan 19 2007

Dude, I "hope" for alot of things. but, in the case of Two Lakes, *hope* is not enough. It takes some serious civil engineering smarts. And that's NOT what anyone has seen coming from McGowan and Co. And, do NOT tell me to shut up. EVER. It's bad manners. And just plain stupid. And, makes me think you're a jackass.

kate

Jan 19 2007

First of all 'optimistic'aboutNewJackCity you sound awfully pessimistic to me. Your call for "a lot of people" to shut up would best start with you if that's your attitude. You sound like a five-year-old who is losing his argument. And first you say shut up, then you say people are hiding stuff and that something is fishy. So, what is it? Do you think we should shut up and just let whatever happens happen without knowing the whole story? You are contradicting yourself, which casts a huge shadow of doubt over your whole weak 'argument'. It is not just a matter of who lives in some arbitrary zone, it is a matter of using and altering a public resource that by law belongs to all the people. If any plan using a shared public resource screws everybody outside the immediate zone in order to benefit those who live inside the zone, the whole public has a right to say something about it. It's called the United States of America, 'optimistic', it's not a dictatorship of the few over the many. And, by the way, no development can ignore the law no matter who pays for it. Crime would still be crime, whether paid for with public money or private. Also, nobody here is arguing for "undeveloped land", that's one of those talking points the 2 lakes people want you to use. (You sound a lot like John McGowan to me.) It's about developing the land appropriately, for the benefit of the largest number of people. If anyone visits that website that 'optimistic' pointed to, make sure to put on your full propaganda-detecting gear, because it's full of it.

PaulC

Jan 19 2007

Please go to www.twolake.com . Read it. READ IT. Then please attend the (4) two hour hearings we will be sponsoring in February. Discuss this issue with the Pearl River Basin Coalition. Await the report from the Corps. (Not the inexcusably flawed original report that cost the Director her job...'scuse me...I forgot...she was "re-assigned" to D.C.) Then make your OWN mind up. If this works, it will dwarf Nissan and address flooding. Our government has NO PLAN AT ALL to address flooding, other than to require flood insurance from those in the 100 year flood plain, make them pay the premiums and suffer through it. Again, please read the plan. Then compare it to what your government proposes, which is nada. Yes. It will create wealth and opportunities. Good. The taxes and growth to our area are incalculable. Please get involved.

Ben Allen

Jan 19 2007

Ben, my February looks pretty busy, but I'll try to attend at least one of the hearings. Good to see your name on a post byline again. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jan 19 2007

The other Letter to the Editor in the C-L talks about how this is always mentioned as a flood-control project. It HAS to be a flood-control project or the Corps will not give its permission to do anything with the Pearl River. Personally, given its record, I don't trust the Corps to make this determination.

Tim Kynerd

Jan 20 2007

Like I said alot of people need to shut up. Many haven't seen the studies on these projects. Therefore shut up. Be informed before you speak is all I am asking. It wasn't directed to anyone other than the mayor of Monticello whom I believed also posted another letter that was way over the line and seemed to amount to opinionated facts and Jackson bashing.

optimisticaboutNewJackCity

Jan 20 2007

In our law public and private entities go buy some different rules. If you wanted to build a lake on your property the Corps and Enviornmental groups couldn't stop you as long as you paid for it. That is the beauty of this country.

optimisticaboutNewJackCity

Jan 20 2007

Like I said alot of people need to shut up. Many haven't seen the studies on these projects. Therefore shut up. Be informed before you speak is all I am asking. Okay, now you're pissing me off. I am informed. More informed than McGowan and Co. on what the engineering requirements and environmental laws actually are. Two Lakes may be a good idea, but from what I've seen it's NOT good engineering. This is an insanely expensive, very very high risk project. What will the costs be for mistakes? Excuse me for not believing everything McGowan says, and just "trusting" him to do this right. This isn't some development in Eastover. This is an attempt to dramatically change a major river. Historically, river management plans have failed spectacularly when not done right. Personally, I'd like to see McGowan making an attempt to work *with* the people asking questions, rather than villifying them. Because, from what I've seen, questions need to be asked, and answered, in full engineering detail, if this thing has a hope in hell of working. This whole process needs to be more open, and more full of dialogue. This thread is a prime example. The issue of downstream flooding is real and important in this debate. Instead of *anyone* adressing that concern, we're hit with "you're a bunch of anti-development freaks" and "this is the ONLY plan we can tryl, so shut up." Um, what is the plan for mitigating downstream flooding?

kate

Jan 20 2007

In our law public and private entities go buy some different rules. If you wanted to build a lake on your property the Corps and Enviornmental groups couldn't stop you as long as you paid for it. That is the beauty of this country. Opti Well, if you are an example of the types of engineers or contractors that are working with McGowan and gang, than this lake may not even hold water. Dude, before you go build a lake on your land, you better hire a good engineer, and you will have to go through the red tape of your county or city code enforcement. You will probably have to have a meeting with one of there engineers who will decide if they like the lake your engineer designed. Even then, they may say nope. Maybe you should shut up before you talk over your pay grade. Secondly, there webpage is not very good. You can't blow up the map to see the red and blue lines. They have way outdated building cost. $98 million!!! Last we read it was $200+ million. Update the page, make it more interactive, and if you want to impress, have it overlayed into Google Earth so we can really see the fine details.

pikersam

Jan 20 2007

Ben Allen, first of all thanks for finally holding some public hearings on this. I'll wait for the agendas before I believe they're fair, though. How about funding some alternative research before signing on whole hog to the 2 lakes plan? The opposition to this scheme has been on a shoestring budget and shouldn't be expected to have revealed all the potential problems or be able to compete fairly with the well-funded slick PR and mainstream media monopoly that seems to be working so well for the proponents of the plan. The so-called "NO PLAN AT ALL" problem results from the fact that our elected officials are doing nothing about it whatsoever, and haven't done anything for years and years, and are ignoring the plans that the Corps already has as a result of comprehensive studies of the entire Pearl River basin. The Corps has at least three plans on the shelf gathering dust, not including the current plan, so to say that there is no alternate plan is just plain wrong. What Jackson needs is a few elected officials who will get off their behinds and get going, and not wait on somebody else to do it. Assuming a passive stance and blaming it on some other governmental body is just buck-passing, plain and simple. So, it's not as if there aren't any good plans available or that developing a better one is some sort of magic that couldn't be done in a relatively short period of time. The reason the 2 lakes plan has taken so long is because the idea has big problems that can't (or won't) be solved effectively and fairly. As far as Nissan goes, the public STILL doesn't know what all it cost us to get that plant here. I suppose the 2 lakes plan will be just like that, where the deals for tax-payer and rate-payer subsidies will be negotiated behind closed doors and never completely revealed to the public? Maybe the hidden subsidies will dwarf Nissan's.

PaulC

Jan 20 2007

What people need to do is the opposite of "shut up"—that is, speak up, ask questions, demand alternatives. Going to the proposed development's Web site is fine, but it's not anywhere near enough. That would be like supporting Frank Melton for mayor without knowing the whole story. Ahem. And, yes, "optimistic," Kate is well informed on this one. She knows the questions to ask, as do we. It's the answers we all need to be concerned with. The biggest question here, indeed, is about the engineering of this solution—and how does that compare with other flood-control options. The potential financial benefits to any particular person is irrelevant at this stage (at least as a reason to support the project; it is relevant if it's *why* someone supports it). Don't get sidetracked. (Councilman, by the way, do you stand to benefit financially in any way from Two Lake? This is probably a good point for full disclosure, if so.) Finally, I agree with Paul: Coming up with one plan and then telling us it's the only option is rather shortsighted, and can easily allow a faulty plan to be enacted. Jackson really has to start putting more effort on the front end into due diligence. Also, Councilman, trying to pretend anyone is saying that making money is a bad thing is really silly at this stage in the discussion. Throw that red herring back into the, er, lake, please. The need to raise these questions has nothing to do with being anti-economic development or with an obsession with hugging trees. It's about being smart and proactive. That is the stage this idea has to move into now. That is, if you want Two Lake to happen, be prepared to answer all the questions, not just to trot out slick PR that avoids difficult questions.

DonnaLadd

Jan 20 2007

Okay, I was feeling meek with the flu and appreciative of the fact that Ben was back, but now that I've had a good night's sleep I do have a big asterisk to put on that last post: I plan on attending at least one of the February sessions if I can, but the vast majority of the 180,000 people in Jackson and 500,000 people in the metro area will lack either the opportunity or the inclination or the foreknowledge to attend these meetings. What is needed is an overhaul of the twolakes.com web site with updated information, corrected spelling/grammar/punctuation (this is important!), and a good Q&A addressing all of the specific criticisms leveled against the project. Simply put, Two Lakes should only be pursued if its supporters have some kind of believable, non-evasive answer to every criticism leveled against the project that they can provide in less than 20 seconds, in any context, be it online or on television or at a hearing or at a City Council meeting or in an elevator or washing their hands in a restroom. Two Lakes is either an uncompelling idea or a compelling idea that is being promoted in a very uncompelling way. I'm not sure which, but nobody should have to attend a two-hour hearing to be sold on the idea. A good elevator speech, with followup answers if needed, should be enough. There is no idea that's too complicated to be sold by a well-prepared elevator speech with well-prepared followup answers. Personally, I would love to be sold on Two Lakes. Those illustrations look gorgeous. But I'm not sold on it yet. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jan 20 2007

Oh, it's Two Lake, not Two Lakes. I know this; I'm just sick and mildly delirious. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jan 20 2007

ladd... remember it's a democracy. Public opinion always counts FIRST AND FOREMOST. For the people by the people... Umm, so the person telling people who are posing questions and giving their opinion to shut up is now trying to tell us that a Web poll on a site set up to push the project is, somehow, a guage of "public opinion"!?! Please.

DonnaLadd

Jan 20 2007

No m'aam. I have no financial interests at all in this endeavor. None. We are just trying to wade through the issue as it was "dumped" in our laps. Last week Margaret and I met with 7 members of the Pearl River Basin Coalition. We agreed to a meeting, for as long as it takes with John McGowen and his representatives, representatives for the Airport Parkway and Delbert Hosemann and them (PRBC) , to discuss the project[s] and the commission that is studying its private financing (Two Lakes). We agreed that we would rather do that before the full public hearings and let them air it out and get to the quick of their concerns. We would be pleased to have you and your staff (whomever) join us. See, these concerns are valid, and Margaret and I think we need to have them addressed now rather than later. Just let us know and you are there. Can't believe you fathomed that any position I have on this would be because I would "benefit financially". Ouch. This is my last post on this issue. We will set any meetings asked for, and will deliver the representatives. Just confirm and we will get it going.

Ben Allen

Jan 20 2007

Thanks for answer on the disclosure, Ben. I actually didn't "fathom" that—it's clear that you believe this would be good for the city, regardless of any personal interested—but I did think I remembered you telling me that you have property that would front on the Lakes and, thus, would increase in value. Perhaps I dreamed that. At any rate, I think we should ask anyone and everyone involved in these discussions going forward exactly how they would benefit from this proposal, or any others that are put forward. The public has a right to ask that, right? Definitely let us know when the meeting is; we want to be there, and at any others. It seems like these are discussions that shouldn't be taking place behind closed doors with the city anyhow, so please notify us of any discussions that council members have with the various players on this. The most important thing here is to fully and completely explore all the options, and all the possible downsides to Two Lake or any other flood-control proposal. Thoroughly. That's what we will be watching for going forward. The citizens of Jackson do NOT need to be told that our only option is Two Lake, by any means necessary, which seems to be the message that Mr. McGowan was sending through the Northside Sun the other day. Once this is done, it can't be undone—thus, extremely due diligence is required and should be demanded by every Jacksonian. I'm also concerned about the eminent-domain question Mr. McGowan brought up—because he seems concerned about it. That was another red flag. I'm also a bit worried that you are having those meetings with all those folks outside the public hearings. Why? The public needs to hear ALL of this, not stuff that you select to then put in front of of them. With due respect, you are going overboard with your attempts to keep city business out of public view.

DonnaLadd

Jan 20 2007

Hey, uh... You think there is a way we could put the Convention Center on the island? ;-)

pikersam

Jan 20 2007

I've emailed the Corps before and haven't gotten any answer. When I email McGowan and Ben they'll answer. So do I trust the Corps? NO. McGowan's engineers have answered several questions about the downstream effects and such on the website. I'm sure if you email him he will send you a map of the whole project with the simple schematics... I've seen it before. Do I believe in building levees? Hell No I've sen the footage of New Orleans after Katrina. I'm sorry If I want to live in an area that prospers. I'm sorry if I think that a flood control project that not only protects, beautifies, and benefits this area economically, but also is better than another oversized bridge or underutilized wetlands in the middle of a city which is the only city in a state that is mostly forrest. "At any rate, I think we should ask anyone and everyone involved in these discussions going forward exactly how they would benefit from this proposal, or any others that are put forward. The public has a right to ask that, right?" Definetly. Although won't all in the flood plain benefit. Won't the city benefit? Those are necessary questions. What are our options? Two Lakes or Levees. I haven't seen or heard of any other proposals for a city this size. Do I know everything? Hell NO. Although I don't believe coming into this discussion or into the public meetings with a negative or positive view will help any of us come to a good decision. All I hear from most people on this the bad. "Umm, so the person telling people who are posing questions and giving their opinion to shut up is now trying to tell us that a Web poll on a site set up to push the project is, somehow, a guage of "public opinion"!?!" Well what the hell is a gauge of public opinion? All the damn polls say Bush is bad. I guess he isn't since a damn poll isn't a good gauge of public opinion. "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are now saying the plan 'from a hydrologic and engineering aspect seems technically feasible." USACE says it could possibly work. I"t is also unclear whether political obstacles to Jackson flood control have changed enough to allow serious consideration of any proposal. The most recent plan, one to fortify and expand metro levees, has been stymied by fears that it would worsen downstream flooding and erosion. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said it is still interested in pursuing the $130 million levee plan. But federal planning cannot proceed without a commitment for local funding. Legislators have not supported the local bonding authority. The cost of such projects is shared by federal and local taxpayers. Local taxpayers would pay more than $40 million of the levee plan." Levees could worsen downstream flooding and we'd still be paying for something with virtually no payoff. All I'm saying is that we need to be open-minded. We can't let our fears of not getting in on the benefits or that this will only make the rich richer discredit the overall benefits of this plan in an economic and flood controlling manner. Most of you don't like me because I said shut up before you speak up and you probably ignored everything I just said, but I think it needed to be said.

optimisticaboutNewJackCity

Jan 21 2007

Optimistic, I think the problem is that you said: "All I'm saying is that we need to be open-minded." ...and... remember it's a democracy. Public opinion always counts FIRST AND FOREMOST. For the people by the people... ...in the same thread where you said: I think alot of people just need to shut up. For what it's worth, I am open-minded. But being open-minded and being convinced that the Two Lake project is a good idea are two very different propositions. I remain uncommitted on this issue. I don't know if McGowan is right and I don't know if Donna is right. Because Donna is very seldom not right, my money's on her, but on rare occasions she does fail to see the pure and objective truth that only my beliefs can fully capture. ;o) Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jan 21 2007

"For what it's worth, I am open-minded. But being open-minded and being convinced that the Two Lake project is a good idea are two very different propositions. I remain uncommitted on this issue. I don't know if McGowan is right and I don't know if Donna is right. Because Donna is very seldom not right, my money's on her, but on rare occasions she does fail to see the pure and objective truth that only my beliefs can fully capture. ;o) " That's all that I am asking for. I have hopes, but after 20-30 years I am skeptical that this will ever happen.

optimisticaboutNewJackCity

Jan 21 2007

Actually, understand that I am not absolutely *against* Two Lake, folks. I just have yet to see enough to make me be in *favor* of it. That's the problem. On the topic of polls, optimistic—agree with them or not, there is science behind the polls that show that much of the country has turned on Bush. There is nothing scientific about a Web poll on a PR site for a development project. You're comparing apples and oranges. The truth is, much of the public know too little about this yet to really have an opinion. They're being sold one idea—so the people who like that idea (or will benefit) go vote for it, and the rest of the people don't have an opinion. And, it's important to note that this shouldn't be a popularity contest anyway. If 99.9 percent of the people in Jackson wanted it, and the engineering is bad, or the risk of failure too high, then it doesn't happen. It's not like these developers own the Pearl River. They don't get to make unilateral decisions based on selling something to a public that isn't being offered other good solutions to choose from.

DonnaLadd

Jan 22 2007

Levees or Lake? That is probably our only choices, and after Katrina I don't want a levee.

optimisticaboutNewJackCity

Jan 22 2007

I don't know guy's....I went to the Two Lake site and I think you've got something here. Something really big. The development potential is definitely being thought out but this is also great potential to create "reserve" wet lands, that actually are wet lands, in the middle of your rising city. 13.000 acres of potential and plenty of room for both sides to find common ground or wetlands as the case may be.... I mean truthfully I was raised on the edge of those proported "Wetlands" and the house went under when the wetlands moved up onto Wild Valley drive in 79. When I was 12 on I knew those woods like the back of my hand and traced them on foot north to the Country Club levees (not too far south of the spillway). Most of that land is too high to be considered wetland but not high enough not to flood every two to three years or so with the Spring rains. It is really a tanglewood morass and it is far past time to tame it.....in fact the tri yearly floods would come up to the power lines behind Wild Valley and when they receded the woods "so lovely" were full of garbage, tin cans, tires, toilet paper in the low limbs....real nice.....really....what ever the currents carried from bank to bank. Now South of Lakeland where it really flattens out, there are segments that could indeed be wetlands and really cool ones. Then just north of the Gold coast and the Gold Coast itself I think it gets higher again. Then south of the I 20/55 interchange its' basically tarn. So there's plenty of opportunity for both view points here. Now as for that bridge.....come on....Single bridge three bridges...whatever....OK fine. Make it a single bridge for arguments sake. But make it a real nice single bridge. We've got one now over the DT connector linking Atlantic Station to Seventeenth street and it's pedestrian friendly with bike lanes and landscaping on both sides, the supports look like hugh "Old Kingdom" Egyptian columns. Kinda like a cross between the Ponte Vecchio and Karnak....in fact there are two pedestrian friendly bridges now. The second one links Georgia Tech to Midtown on the other side and it too has brick pavers and landscaping. Kinda like a "Quad" in the sky.....but as for the one bridge over the proposed "Isle of Lefleur", they have a huge bridge over one end of the Roosevelt Island in New York City and it hasn't hurt development there one bit (you've seen that island Donna you know what I am talking about)...so three bridges well fine to.....Just make them all lighted up like those multi-color night lights under the bridges that link Miami Port to Miami South Beach. The supports are all lighted in shades of pink yellow green and blue.....it's a little tacky but it's good tacky..... Hey guys Architecture and Civil Planning can solve everything....and as for the little Sawback Turtle, she'll adapt and can have a real, "cleaned up" and managed wetlands to live in. A Great City needs a great identifier. This Lakes project could be the greatest marriage of Urban Developement and Natural Resource Preservation of the 21rst Century. And true there will be some of the areas only fit for wetlands and some only fit for good urban development.

ATLExile

Jan 22 2007

....."This Lakes project could be the greatest marriage of Urban Development and Natural Resource Preservation of the 21rst Century. And true there will be some of the areas only fit for wetlands and some only fit for good urban development." Only to continue this for a small couple of sentences. This thing is surely worth a good look and that study coming forth from the Corps will probably call for some alterations to the original study by McGowan and Company. Both sides must be open for what they have to say. And by the way...Wasn't most of the river bank fauna...cleared after the 79 and 82 floods to make the river flow through faster. If so....I would think the natural beauty has been for the most part destroyed anyway. Especially if they have kept it cleared.

ATLExile

Jan 22 2007

"Hey guys Architecture and Civil Planning can solve everything....and as for the little Sawback Turtle, she'll adapt and can have a real, "cleaned up" and managed wetlands to live in. A Great City needs a great identifier. This Lakes project could be the greatest marriage of Urban Developement and Natural Resource Preservation of the 21rst Century. And true there will be some of the areas only fit for wetlands and some only fit for good urban development. " Wow you put the words of my heart into one little paragraph. That's how I feel about this project you guys. Parks, Wetlands, and Development. Pure Beauty.

optimisticaboutNewJackCity

Jan 23 2007