Jackson Free Press

When the Jackson Free Press editorial board met with mayoral candidates last week, we asked each candidate roughly the same questions based on a list we had compiled beforehand. But when one candidate brought up John McGowan's Two Lakes project and pledged his whole-hearted support, we added the question to our arsenal and called those we were still considering for a comment. Although they were not equally enthusiastic about the project, the majority of the other candidates said they supported the project.

This was a red flag for us. Most of the candidates had not studied the project carefully enough to take such a firm stance. While Two Lakes has good intentions (to develop the Pearl River area into an attractive multi-use destination while boosting flood-control), McGowan's proposal has a number of roadblocks that include environmental threats, lack of feasibility and extremely high costs.

The Pearl River, which currently ranks among the country's most endangered rivers, is home to old growth forests—dense growth that can help process rainwater and improve air quality in the city—and a number of endangered or threatened wildlife species. The Two Lakes plan would destroy a good deal of that natural habitat to make room for prime riverfront real estate and recreation. Those features aren't necessarily bad, but when you evaluate the cost (the low estimate is $200 million and lost natural habitat), it's problematic at best.

But it doesn't have to be that way. There are ways to develop the river without uprooting trees and flooding the Pearl River Basin. The Army Corps of Engineers has proposed installing levees in the area to alleviate flooding. This approach could still mean property near the water—think high-rise condominiums with a view. The levees could also be built in conjunction with a Pearl River Greenway, which would offer transportation and recreation options and still keep the ecosystem intact—all while controlling flooding. Those bike paths and ball fields would be a huge draw for young adult professionals and families.

When we asked the Two Lakes question of the candidate we ultimately decided to endorse, he told us that he had supported the project in the past, but needed to study its latest form before he could say whether he supported or opposed it. That showed us that he is not quick to take a stand for the sake of posturing, but is willing to do his homework before he commits himself—and the city of Jackson—to a massive undertaking. And we like that. We want the Pearl River taken very seriously.

It would behoove the other candidates to follow his lead, and be careful not to adopt an idea before thoroughly scrutinizing it. This kind of mentality will only hurt Jackson.

Put the city of Jackson first, and voter appeal second, and ultimately the two interests will align.

Previous Comments

ID

146516

Comment

BTW, all, John McGowan pitched his Two Lakes project again this morning in the Flowood City Hall Boardroom. Adam will have a full report. Needless to say, with McGowan's determination (and all the blind support by some mayoral candidates and beyond), we've got to stay diligent on this very expensive and, to us, questionable scheme.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-04-30T09:46:18-06:00

ID

146520

Comment

I still do not understand why you blindly support the report created by one guy in the Vicksburg corps office as being the only solution to the flooding problem. The article makes conclusory allegations ("unfeasible") without any evidence as to why it would be unfeasible. You take the corps' word that it would cost X amount, and refuse to consider the developer (who by the way is not only a very capable businessman but also has a LOT to lose on this project)'s figures. Also, I note your environmental concerns but honestly, that area is hardly used for recreation. I suppose the JFP would have been against the Reservoir being constructed as well. Sorry for all the posts today, I'm feeling a bit feisty. :)

Author

QB

Date

2009-04-30T10:00:54-06:00

ID

146523

Comment

Fat Harry, once again you sell us short in your rush to be feisty. Our problem with the Two Lake plan goes far beyond the Vicksburg report. We, and especially Todd, has talked about these issues over and over again in the paper. At least get up to speed on our issues before being so superficially dismissive. We are being *anything* but "blind." We are, once again, cautioning against blindness. See some of our past coverage here. I also caution readers that local media coverage, especially The Clarion-Ledger, has been pitiful on this issue. (Think how they covered Melton, and you get the idea.) In one Sunday edition, they even ran two "pro" columns next to each other, as I recall. They're pandering on this one, and not bothering to get at the real issues, which allows supporters to skate over them as well. If this was a smart development project, we would be more likely to support it. It just doesn't check out, though, and just about anybody who isn't whole-hog on it and who bothers to listen to real concerns about it can see the problems. Be. careful. Especially when a developer is willing to hire new engineers to come up with what he wants them to find. Our experience with Mr. McGowan is that he has no interest in entertaining criticism of his project, and that is a big warning sign, especially about something of this scale and potential cost to the taxpayers (both on front end and then to deal with problems it could cause).

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-04-30T10:14:56-06:00