Jackson Free Press

Members of the Rankin-Hinds Pearl Flood and Drainage Control District held a press conference this afternoon at the Mississippi TelCom Center, where chairman Billy Orr announced that the District has selected a flood control plan for Metro Jackson, called the "Lower Lake" plan. The plan will incorporate nearly all the levees recommended in the Comprehensive Levee Plan that the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers created in the mid-1990s, but adds a weir to the Pearl River just south of I-20, causing the Pearl to flood and form a single lake from I-20 to just north of Lakeland Drive, across from downtown Jackson.

In that lake will be two islands of approximately 100 acres apiece. The upper island would touch Lakeland Drive and extend south; the lower lake would be accessible from an extension to Fortification Street. The Lower Lake plan is also designed to accommodate the proposed Airport Parkway, which extends High Street across the Pearl on a more direct route through Rankin County to the Jackson-Evers International Airport.

The Flood District's materials claim that the plan would have no downstream impact, and it sidesteps a number of trouble areas in the basin, including a SuperFund site and a landfill. The plan also saves 2,000 acres of bottomland hardwoods that exist in Northeast Jackson and northwest sections of Rankin County, as the river would remain wild from the Barnett Reservoir spillway down to around Lakeland Drive.

While the Flood District says the plan specifically saves the "interpretive nature trails" at the Mississippi Natural History Museum, in current drawings (and based on the planned water height of the lake), it does appear that portions of LeFleur's Bluff State Park, including Mayes Lake, will be underwater, unless the plan is altered.

Flood District engineer Barry Royals said the lake has some impact on the overall flood control value of the project, but not much. The levees, instead, are the primary source of flood control. The lake appears to be designed primarily for recreation and economic development and, by extension, may prove to be a large part of how the Flood District will fund the project. The District estimates the cost at $400 million, with $150 million to $200 million available from the federal government.

In the past, a version of the Comprehensive Levee System designed by the Corps failed to gain funding through the Mississippi Legislature for the required local portion of its funds. Con Maloney, the Hinds County representative for the Flood District, said that he thought a lot of the money for the project could now come from the private sector thanks to the 200 acres of lake view property available for development on the two islands.

The "Lower Lake" plan may be a compromise born of political expediency, as well. Because the project is designed within an existing Corps recommendation (the Comprehensive Levee Plan), the federal portion can be financed through standard legislation instead of as a legislative "earmark," which members of the board said would put political pressure on Mississippi's legislators. (Earmarks have come under increased scrutiny since the 2006 election, when Democrats took over control of Congress after campaigning, in part, against the practice of using earmarks to fund local projects.) Alternative plans may have required such "earmarks."

Some issues remain, including the fact that the lake, as designed, could rise as much as 14 feet in a 1979-level flood before water would come over the levees. That also means that the islands will need approximately 15 feet of "freeboard" elevation before they can be built on, a point that was discussed at length during the design charrette and public meetings held earlier this year by noted architect Andres Duany and his company, DPZ.

Overall, however, the plan seems to incorporate many of the new ideas that were generated by the charrette, including the single lake concept. According to Flood District materials, the plan will not require large pumps on Town Creek in downtown Jackson, and it thus "leaves open" the possibility that Town Creek could be developed as an urban river walk and mixed-use development, a plan that Duany presented as a potential boon for economic development for Jackson proper.

Click here for links to past JFP coverage of 'Two Lakes' proposal.

Previous Commentsshow

Is there a map of the Two Lakes project? I know where it is, etc. I guess I'm trying to figure out what the One Lake will be.

Puck

Jul 16 2007

my suspicion is that this vote is atactic to derail mdot"s review of the airport parkway design, and not as a way to advance the two lakes project.

chimneyville

Jul 16 2007

Derailing the airport parkway would be very stupid at this point. Not that I don't put it past two certain State Highway Commissioners at this point.

Ironghost

Jul 16 2007

The Ledge's story says One Lake leaves the parkway intact.

Ironghost

Jul 16 2007

One Lake should leave airport parkway in tact, from what I hear. Puck, One Lake is closer to downtown, rather than up behind Eastover. I don't personally have any more detail than that, but I'm sure others will provide it before too long. I'm just glad they've made a decision, and it sounds like a good compromise between development and open space.

kate

Jul 16 2007

That's my thoughts. It seems very wise to take Two Lakes off the table, and replace it with a more down-to-earth solution. I just hope we still get a greenway and keep the park.

DonnaLadd

Jul 16 2007

I didn't trust the developers on Two Lakes at all, to be honest. I keep thinking it's getting the public to pay for something 80% won't be able to afford to enter.

Ironghost

Jul 16 2007

Well, I've been concerned all along with McGowan's apparent plan to just hiring new engineers until one gives him the answer he wants. The Two Lakes plan has always smacked of a big development-welfare scheme that could leave the public really bilked and paying the price if it didn't work as rosily as he promised.

DonnaLadd

Jul 16 2007

Todd went to the press conference today -- and he doesn't attend many press conferences. Keep an eye out for his take. As everyone knows, he's been on Two Lakes for years now, and I'm proud to say, has educated a lot of the public about the potential problems here, during a time when The Clarion-Ledger, instead, chose to run glowing, side-by-side pro-pro pieces on it.

DonnaLadd

Jul 16 2007

Lets see the plan. I strongly doubt that it truly addresses any of the major concerns that have been expressed by the "environmentalists" or any of the major concerns expressed by those of us who are not "environmentalists" per se. The developers' and the Clarion-Ledger's slant of blaming all the objections on "environmentalists" is an attempt to misdirect attention from the real issues.

PaulC

Jul 17 2007

will be interested to see Todd's take on it.

Izzy

Jul 17 2007

FYI, I updated this article based on the press conference instead of creating a new thread.

Todd Stauffer

Jul 17 2007

I hope they can save Mayes Lake. I'd hate to see that get flooded. I'm also hoping they go for a Town Creek Development. Which is a waterway much more on the scale of San Antonio's "River" Walk than the Pearl.

kate

Jul 17 2007

I think a Town Creek development would be nice -- however, it seems that the idea floated by Duany that the money we "save" on pumps at the mouth of Town Creek is unlikely to really be meaningful in terms of funding a development along Town Creek. After all, the money "saved" is money that we won't really have (it was part of the $1.4 billion estimate; the project is now estimated loosely at $400 million). Also, my assumption is that the Flood District would have little authority over developing Town Creek anyway. I'm guessing, but I would imagine that since that's totally within the city limits and not really a flood control/management issue, it would be up to Jackson and/or Hinds to put something together on that along with the private developer interests that might want to make something like that happen.

Todd Stauffer

Jul 17 2007

I've now seen a very blurry image of the proposal and it still destroys the MAJOR portion of LeFleur's Bluff State Park. The Mayes Lake part of the park is really most of what is worth saving, not just a few trails by the Museum. This is no different than the original plan, from the looks of it. They still destroy the majority of the public lands in favor of a private island. With the admitted reduction of the flood "control" benefits, their position as concerns the park is even weaker now than it was before, if you ask me. The press release makes some statements that I don't think will bear up to close scrutiny. As for the reduction in destruction of wetlands and bottomland hardwood forest, that's nice, but they apparently have no plans to use what is left over after they destroy the majority of it. There seems to be no plan for public access to it as parks or a greenway along the river. I think its a scam that doesn't really address many of the concerns except the cost and the toughest of regulatory concerns. It shows that they really AREN'T listening to the objections, they are just stumbling down their own path to providing risky flood plain development welfare for the developers.

PaulC

Jul 17 2007

Who gets the islands? Hinds or Rankin? Also, what is the point if NE Jackson still floods? If the Pearl is allowed to "go free" before it hits the lake then that tells me that there is more potential for flooding north of Lakeland. Are they going to build 14' high levees behind Jackson County Club? Doesn't sound like it! What good is this if the soccer fields are still going to flood? Go look at Google maps, and see that if they could control the river a bit more from the Rez to Lakeland you could really open up some space for all kinds of recreation that is now limited due to flooding and lack of development. I'm not convinced this will help as it should?

pikersam

Jul 17 2007

I'm hearing that the announcement yesterday was merely an attempt to get the Airport Parkway back on track. Word is that the Mississippi Engineering Group is willing do anything to make sure that the Airport Parkway does forward so that they will make their cut off of that project. Many believe that the MEG, which I believe is a joint effort between Pickering Eng. and Waggoner Eng., feels that there never will be a lakes project so they want to be assured of the work for at least least one project that will guarantee them over millions of dollars. Certain members of Airport Parkway Board (2 of whom also sit on the Levee Board) can help their constituencies more by building the parkway that any version of the lake project. Therefore, they would rather see the bridge built and could really care less about the environmental concerns or any economic impact it a lake project would have on Jackson.

JXNnative

Jul 17 2007

Maybe I'm not following, JXNnative, but if the parkway and a compromise lake plan happens to pay for the flood-control part, is that a bad thing? I'm truly asking here. Beyond this, Todd will have to respond to y'all. This is his thing.

DonnaLadd

Jul 17 2007

Yikes, I'm afraid that this is no "compromise" ladd, it's just a caving in to SOME of the realities of the severe regulatory problems. And reducing the costs of the overall project doesn't really "pay for" anything does it? The most important part of a greenway would be the part that goes into downtown Jackson. Although the northern section is necessary, the destruction and privatization of the areas that would provide trails into downtown leaves that section of a greenway much less attractive. The point of most greenway plans that have been implemented elsewhere is to provide continuous passage into the populated central areas by way of bike, hike, and skate trails. Don't buy into this slightly reduced version, it doesn't pass the smell test for a progressive development plan. The levees alone will provide additional flood protection for downtown Jackson, no need for all this risky new development in the flood plain. We should have done the levee upgrades in 1996 instead of getting into this big mess that will continue to delay the implementation of flood damage reduction for downtown Jackson.

PaulC

Jul 17 2007

Well, it's clearly a "compromise." Whether you approve or not is a different subject and, by all means, let's talk about it.

DonnaLadd

Jul 17 2007

I would agree that it is a "compromise" of the possibilities of a much better plan for Jackson and surrounds, in the sense that a compromise means settling for less than the best. It is a compromised plan in that sense. However, there are no real compromises as a result of listening to what progressive voices want, the "compromise" that they want to misdirect you with is simply the the product of their own realization that the original plan was a very ill-considered idea, full of flaws, which have not yet been completely addressed.

PaulC

Jul 17 2007

I believe JXNnative is correct. I don't see one or two lakes ever being built. I recently recieved a notice from McGowan asking me if I would be interested in paying to help build Lefleur's Lake. Basically I would have to pay what ever my flood insurance premium is (supposing that I didn't have to pay flood insurance anymore.) I would imagine that this new compromise really puts NE Jxn in the crosshairs for massive flooding because it would get 1)fresh rain water 2) discharge from the Rez 3)and less possibly back up from the lower lake. These are just guesses and worries and I have no real data to back up anything for what its worth.

Limbic

Jul 18 2007

The Clarion-Ledger is tapdancing again, considering that they raised no real questions about "Two Lakes" for so many years: Critics, including LeFleur Lakes proponent John McGowan, say the new plan provides far less flood protection and less economic development potential. McGowan says his original concept would reduce Jackson flooding by some 14 feet. But a Corps study obtained by The Clarion-Ledger earlier this year determined that McGowan's plan is not economically feasible using federal funds.

DonnaLadd

Jul 18 2007

Here's the Lower Lake Plan map (PDF, 2.8MB) that you can download and check out. Note that the plan does call for extensive new levees in Northeast Jackson, but placed much wider than those closer to downtown and Pearl. Paul wrote: Don't buy into this slightly reduced version, it doesn't pass the smell test for a progressive development plan. The levees alone will provide additional flood protection for downtown Jackson, no need for all this risky new development in the flood plain. We should have done the levee upgrades in 1996 instead of getting into this big mess that will continue to delay the implementation of flood damage reduction for downtown Jackson. I agree with you on all points, but the realities of the situation seems to be that the region hasn't had the political will to build the Levee project, since they couldn't raise the local portion of that money. This new plan is a compromise from my point of view, in that it seems like a legitimate attempt to get the Levee plan built. My take on it (Pub Note this week as well) is that the motivations for this plan are clear and the current direction seems to be driven in large party by some of the excitement generated at the charrette. We now need to get specific about the greenway and other features that could be integrated into this plan and create a progressive development plan that tweaks and improves on where we are today.

Todd Stauffer

Jul 18 2007

We now need to get specific about the greenway and other features that could be integrated into this plan and create a progressive development plan that tweaks and improves on where we are today. - itodd Right! This is the time to get that on the table. Let's try for greenway/recreational use at least in part for bikers, joggers, and canoeing/rafting

Izzy

Jul 18 2007

Just another project to make private developers rich at tax-payer costs.

Jo-D

Jul 18 2007

Todd and I just heard Robert Muller (McGowan's engineer) speak at the Capitol Club. He can update you, but I will tell you that Muller has his own (disparaging) name for the Lower Lake—"the puddle." ;-) They plan to try to fund Two Lakes privately and sway public opinion back to it.

DonnaLadd

Jul 18 2007

Now that I have seen the high resolution version of the new plan, I'm even more disappointed than I was at first. I can't understand why the levee board is intent on the near-complete destruction of the state park. They really want to turn it into land for private development. If they would take this plan and keep the state park intact, I think I could support it. They still get their casino island and some new risky flood plain areas to build flood-prone houses in. We would get a contiguous area from the Rez all the way into downtown Jackson for a serious greenway and extensive park system in the center of our metro area that would make the central Jackson and metro area a much better place to live and would also lead to continued revitalization of existing neighborhoods close to the river. It is a proven fact that property values and desirability rise when public green spaces are created nearby. In 1980, the Pearl River Basin Development District, in a remarkably forward-thinking effort at that time, published a study that could have led to the development of an extensive park system like the one progressive voices have been calling for lately. It is time to revisit/redo that study and take it to its completion. Properly designed parks could be allowed to flood from time to time without devastating economic consequences and heartbreak to home and business owners. I think it is important to once again remember the flood of 1961 that led to levee building in the 60's. Those levees, completed in the late 60's, led to new development in the flood plain that got inundated in the flood of 1979. A large majority of the homes that were flooded in 1979 were built after those levees were completed, based on the promise that the new levees would now prevent flooding in those areas. Even with the new levees, if they ever do get built, potential homebuyers should be very skeptical. I, for one, do not think that with this history in mind the new homes in the flood plain would be worth nearly as much as the pols and developers believe. Surely the people who would buy in such an area would require a discount for the increased risk, wouldn't they? ...the realities of the situation seems to be that the region hasn't had the political will to build the Levee project, since they couldn't raise the local portion of that money. This new plan is a compromise from my point of view, in that it seems like a legitimate attempt to get the Levee plan built. iTodd, I think that the reason that the levees couldn't get support in 1996 is because McGowan was in the background pushing for his pipe dream, not because we didn't need them. As such, this "compromise" is the residue of the unwillingness of the pols to admit to being led down the primrose path by a pushy developer, not to mention their total and willful ignorance of the facts of the airport parkway project, which we've already spent millions to study and purchase land for. In my opinion, the latest shenanigans are their poor attempt to save face.

PaulC

Jul 18 2007

iTodd, I think that the reason that the levees couldn't get support in 1996 is because McGowan was in the background pushing for his pipe dream, not because we didn't need them. As such, this "compromise" is the residue of the unwillingness of the pols to admit to being led down the primrose path by a pushy developer, not to mention their total and willful ignorance of the facts of the airport parkway project, which we've already spent millions to study and purchase land for. In my opinion, the latest shenanigans are their poor attempt to save face. Paul, that's all well and good, but that and $5.00 gets you a cup of coffee. :-) Let's say they've come to a slightly better decision in order to "save face." Who cares? Regardless of how they've arrived at the logic of the decision, if they can maintain some sort of awareness of their surroundings and find more ways to incorporate people's suggestions instead of ignore them, I think that would be a very healthy place to be. I'm hoping that a "charrette" mentality might continue at the District and we'd have more opportunities to add to the planning and discussion as it takes form. There's going to be discussion about Mayes Lake vs. the Island -- that's going to be front and center, because (from my understanding of this) the height of the lake is what does or does not put Mayes underwater -- Two Lakes puts a lot of the park underwater because it wants to sit at 270 feet so that water level is a few feet below the island's retaining walls. Lower Lake puts the lake level at 260 feet, which saves more of the park at the expense of requiring the island to have between 15 and 25 feet of elevation before you can build. (Below that, you could do riverwalks, etc., ala the Seine walkways that they showed during the charrette.) I've been told that the Flood District board is willing to consider and even lower water level and that 255 might do the trick to save more of Mayes Lake (it's at 261, so I suppose that isn't much wiggle room...don't know enough about it). And the green space and greenways are huge in my mind. The levees and their right-of-ways could be a urban greenway for biking and commuting that could make a huge different for quality of life. That's the kind of stuff that won't cost much to build, but will take a lot of effort, compromise and cooperation to get drawn into the plans.

Todd Stauffer

Jul 18 2007

Let's say they've come to a slightly better decision in order to "save face." Who cares? Well, Todd, it's easy enough to discount the past and throw it away as if it means nothing. However, I do think that it is important to understand history and attempt to analyze it in an effort to understand how not to make the same mistakes over again and again. It is important to me that the efforts we continue to make in the future are based on realistic assessments of both the past and the future. There's going to be discussion about Mayes Lake vs. the Island -- that's going to be front and center... That's great, if true, because the continued existence, in whole, of the state park as public lands is the key to having a good solution, in my opinion. For those unfamiliar with the history of it, that state park has been under near continuous assault by private developers for decades, and it has been repeatedly and successfully defended. It will not die easily, I don't think, nor should it. Currently, it is the only state park within approx. fifty miles of downtown Jackson and it is a gathering place used by citizens, companies, charities, and tourists from all walks of life. The levees and their right-of-ways could be a urban greenway for biking and commuting that could make a huge different for quality of life. That's the kind of stuff that won't cost much to build, but will take a lot of effort, compromise and cooperation to get drawn into the plans. The ROI (return on investment, for non-MBA's) for the development of parks and greenways is relatively very high, due to the much lower initial cost of implementing them. And I'm all for a spirit of compromise, but compromise for compromise' sake can lead to less than the best possible outcome. I don't think a compromise in order to allow certain pols and developers to save face is either necessary or advisable. The pols supposedly work for the people and should be held accountable, warts and all. Private developers should not be allowed to derail good solutions in pursuit of pie in the sky. The idea that private development should somehow pay for the public good, while not categorically bad, is suspect in my opinion and should be carefully scrutinized whenever it is attempted. I would rather pay higher property taxes for a good solution and improved quality of life than live in fear of another flood while the private developers and pols dream of "perfect" solutions.

PaulC

Jul 18 2007

Todd's Publisher's Note is up on the topic.

DonnaLadd

Jul 18 2007

PaulC, no one is arguing for less scrutiny, but I sure would like to see private development interested in the "public good" a bit more often. I happen to think a spirit of cooperation and compromise is important going forward. We're sure not seeing that from the Two Lake crowd. They want they want, and that's what they want. And I hope we don't see that same non-compromising attitude from the environmentalist side, though. But I'm a Libra. I like compromise. Except when I don't. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Jul 18 2007

Well, I'm a Libra, too! I do indeed have a predisposition toward balance, but the balance here needs to be between citizens about what is really best for human beings who live in the area, not the false balance between "developers" and "environmentalists". That is the false framing that the levee board and the C-L have been harping about from the start. They want to frame the debate as "wild-eyed tree-huggers" versus the public good as represented by the private developers. That frame is still working against those of us who are not "environmentalists" per se, as I can see from your and the JFP's continuance of buying into that false representation. I already said that private investment for public good is not categorically bad, but it certainly does raise my suspicions as to the ultimate motivations of pols and private interests. We shouldn't disallow private interests from doing public good, I never said that. We do need to give such projects increased scrutiny, as evidenced by the beef plant fiasco, no? And a spirit of compromise is a nebulous good, I agree with that, and when possible it should be our first instinct. If, however, as you have pointed out, "the Two Lake crowd" has never been interested in compromise, where does that put those of us who arguing for a more progressive 'quality of human life' solution? It takes two sides to compromise, right? I don't intend to let up on relentlessly scrutinizing any new proposals out of a false allegiance to a nebulous good.

PaulC

Jul 18 2007

PaulC, you're not helping anything by trying to say we're trying to frame it that way. For one thing, it seems to be your thing to assume that any talk of a compromise over development is bad for humans. That's as faulty an assumption as you are accusing The Clarion-Ledger et al of doing. I sure wouldn't frame anything as pro-development vs. pro-environment. Why? Because I'm pro-both. That doesn't mean I'm for anything any developer says, or anything any environmentalist says. But I am for smart development, and I sure love the environment. My suspicions are always high about *any* interest group—I am an investigative reporter, after all, thus always suspicious—so I certainly am not saying that that you should not scrutinize private investment. At the same time, you seem to be making assumptions about it that isn't based on a whole lot. Yes, have the discussion. Just don't shut it down based on vague suspicions. Be open first. That will get you somewhere. The problem with your last graf is that you seem to be assuming that one "side" of this debate is the "Two Lake crowd," as I called them. Actually, I think this train is passing by those folks because their idea has not withstood public scrutiny to date, and their main response has been, "It's complicated and too hard for (the public, critics, the media, the JFP, etc.) to understand." Obviously, their condescension is not going to help them win supporters and influence Jacksonians. Neither is their downplaying of the serious environmental issues with their plan. I guess they haven't noticed that the world, even the conservative, is turning more green by the day. Belittling us green types won't get you very far anymore. As for the new plan, it needs to be scrutinized inside and out, as Todd and I both are calling for—but that does not mean it is not a "step" in the right direction. I think you're the one who is veering a bit into the us-vs.-them argument, and that's not going to help. In other words, I'm not getting the feeling that you're wanting to even consider the possible benefits to the "lower lake" plan, along with the need to get it altered in a more positive way. If you're not, you would be acting a bit like McGowan has about his plan, and I don't think that will get you where you want to go. It's sure not a tactic I'm going to take, regardless of how that makes you wrongly characterize my newspaper.

DonnaLadd

Jul 18 2007

Wow, sorry I if I hit a sore spot, but the last article in the JFP that I was quoted in had the headline about it being environmentalists vs. developers, if I recall correctly. The whole article read that way. If your viewpoint has changed since then, I am glad to see it. I never said that development was de facto bad. However, if the specific development that is proposed is, in my opinion, bad, that doesn't make me an idealogue, as you seem to suggest. As for acting "like McGowan", that is really a smear that I don't think I deserve. All I've done here is point out that whatever "compromise" they seem to have made doesn't seem to be the result of actually listening to local alternate voices. Instead, the "compromise" seems to be the result of larger political forces, as Todd has mentioned in his recent post. Granted, I haven't been involved in recent discussions as an active participant because of other pressing issues, but I never got a single indication from any of the players involved a year ago that they were interested in anything resembling compromise. I didn't start the "Us vs. them" stuff, and I have only tried to dispense with that whole notion from the start. I was rebuffed at every turn by "the other side" whoever they were or are. I never said the new plan wasn't a step in the correct direction, all I said was that it still had flaws, in my opinion. And the point of my last graf in my previous post was not to further the divide, but to point out the desire of others to further it and by propagating the false divide destroy the dialogue that you and I want to continue to happen.

PaulC

Jul 18 2007

No sore spots -- but which article are you referring to? Could it be this one? That doesn't sound like a headline I would write (those are awfully long words for a headline), but I do forget things from time to time. Just give me a link to the piece you mean in which we turned this discussion into environmentalists v. developers, please. Then we can discuss further.

DonnaLadd

Jul 18 2007

I should also add that you might be being rebuffed due to your tone and attitude. I mean, look at the attack here on people who are pretty much on your side. I mean, it doesn't bother me any—I'm used to frontal assaults—but it might not help your cause. And I'm down with the cause, at least in a theoretical way. Obviously, we've all got to gather around the table and work out the details. That's hard to do if people aren't willing to consider compromise with the "other side."

DonnaLadd

Jul 18 2007

Well, Ladd, you're right about the headline ("Fantasy Island" was the headline), and I'm wrong, so I do apologize for that, but the first line was something like "developers are cheering and environmentalists are jeering", which was a statement of fact, but an incomplete assessment. Having it as the opening sentence set the tone. However, upon revisiting the article, the content was more balanced than I remembered and I apologize for misremembering. I guess I'm so sensitive about that because I do perceive it to be not only the desire of some local forces to frame this issue that way, but it's the prevailing frame used by forces allied with unrestrained development and pollution. In the past, whenever the voices of reason have sought to balance the competing interests of wanton destruction of the environment by developers and the need to do some development, we have been caught in this trap of being cast with and characterized as "crazy tree-huggers". At the original Scoping Meeting held by the Corps way back in 2003, I think it was, anyone who thought Two Lakes was a bad idea was variously called a "nattering nabob of negativism" and a "turtle lover", "tree hugger", and any number of other derisive things. Anyone who would purposefully or even inadvertently further that false and simplistic view of the issues needs to be reminded of how wrong it is. I am sorry if I misdirected my correction at you and the JFP, but I'm not sorry for having brought it up repeatedly, here and elsewhere. As for my tone, etc., I guess that's a matter of opinion to which I'm willing to accede that you have yours. If I am a gadfly to those who have similar positions to my own, so be it. That really doesn't bother me much. It's not about me. If I have raised someone's eyebrow or disturbed someone who was thinking that this latest plan was a marvelous compromise then I have done all I set out to do. I've never been one to shy away from a spirited discussion whether it's with someone I mostly agree with or mostly disagree with. And, if I might go back to your previous post about my "vague suspicions", I would just point out that I was born in Jackson and I've lived all my life here, with the exception of my college years. I've seen how things work here, I've seen how things get done or undone, I've noted them carefully for several decades. My suspicions are, in my own opinion of course, far more substantial than merely "vague". And I do believe that I am careful to state that these suspicions are my own opinion. If I missed doing that somewhere along the way, I apologize for that also. As for fighting with you or JFP, I'm not going to continue to do that. I do sincerely respect the fact that you guys have been the ONLY place where this issue has been discussed openly and honestly, though perhaps not perfectly ( in my opinion:) ) I never require perfection, but I always strive for it. Everyone knows I'm not perfect, including me.

PaulC

Jul 18 2007

Apology accepted. Having it as the opening sentence set the tone. Actually, that was a true statement in that case, and was followed by a very substantive analysis of the issues, which only my paper has done on this topic. It was not a simplistic frame as you've asserted. It is clear that I'm wasting my time. You don't even look up the actual facts (or headlines) before posting. I am done. Good luck.

DonnaLadd

Jul 19 2007

geez, accept my apology and then slap me in the face, thanks a lot. If someone makes a mistake you just decide to write the whole discussion off? So much for your claim of being able to handle confrontation.... buh-bye.

PaulC

Jul 19 2007

Paul, you pointed out your error, and then you tried to twist what followed into what you had accused. Can't you see that? I just don't have time to play these kinds of games. *That's* my point.

DonnaLadd

Jul 19 2007