Jackson Free Press

Also see Pearl River Archive

The Rankin-Hinds Pearl Flood and Drainage Control District Levee Board voted this morning to deliver a letter to the state Legislature opposing a bill that would expand the board's membership, and possibly reverse its decision on a controversial Pearl River development plan. Board members expressed concern that the bill would turn over local flood control along the Pearl River to state officials who had no financial stake in the project.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Mary Coleman, D-Jackson, passed a House committee Feb. 1 and is now up for consideration by the full chamber. The bill would allow both the governor and lieutenant governor one appointee each from Hinds and Rankin counties. In addition to those four new members, it would also grant Hinds County another appointment, bringing the board's membership from seven to 11.

The board's current membership consists of four directors from the cities of Jackson, Flowood, Richland and Pearl; two directors appointed by the Rankin and Hinds County Boards of Supervisors; and one appointed by the State Fair Commission. Reps. Rita Martinson, R-Madison, and Bill Denny, R-Jackson, are co-sponsors on the bill.

Jackson businessman Leland Speed currently holds the Fair Commission appointment. He cast the lone vote against sending the letter to the Legislature, saying the state could provide valuable support for flood control and should have a say in whatever plan the board chooses. "It affects not just these municipalities. It affects all of central Mississippi and the whole state of Mississippi," Speed said. "And it potentially can be the largest economic driver in the state of Mississippi."

The board recently approved a levees-only flood-control plan after years of haggling, primarily over the competing "Two Lakes" plan supported by Jackson oilman John McGowan, whose family and business associates own hundreds of acres of property that could be valuable waterfront real estate under the Two Lakes plan. Speed, a vocal Two Lakes supporter whose family owns land likely to become waterfront as well, has called the Board's Dec. 14 vote for levees "a tragic day" for Jackson and warned that a levees-only plan would not protect against backwater flooding in downtown Jackson.

"The financing on this is pretty dramatic in its size, and it's going to be necessary that we have a broad base of financial support," Speed said. "Usually people don't like to put money in a deal unless they've got something to say about it. And I think the sooner the better that the rest of the area gets involved in it and, I think, the healthier it'll be."

The bill appears to be an effort to fulfill a vow by Two Lakes supporters to go to the governor and Legislature for a way to bring their plan back to life now that the Levee Board has taken it off the table due to its high cost, environmental mitigation costs and need to move ahead with a flood-control plan in order to claim federal dollars. Asked whether a change in the Board's composition could spur it to reconsider its approval of the levees-only plan, Speed demurred. "That'll have to be resolved by the folks who make the decisions," he said.

Jackson businessman Socrates Garrett, the Board's Hinds County appointee, made no indication of his vote, vocal or otherwise. He has voted with Speed in favor of Two Lakes and against levees. Garrett did not immediately return a call for comment after the meeting.

Jackson Mayor Harvey Johnson Jr. said that expanding the board's membership would be counter-productive.

"This is an effort to anticipate involvement and to involve the state, when it should be at a local level right now," Johnson said of the bill. "If the state is forthcoming with money, then I agree with you: There should be representation. But until that time, it's a local matter, and I don't think the governor or the lieutenant governor should have appointees on this board."

Near the end of the meeting, Flowood Mayor Gary Rhoads raised the possibility that Speed's membership on the board represents an ethics violation because Speed owns property that could be affected by the board's flood control plans.

"Mr. Speed, I think that you're in the middle of an ethics violation sitting on this board and making decisions that could have personal gain for you in the future," Rhoads said, hoisting a recent issue of the Jackson Free Press in which reporter Adam Lynch detailed floodplain property owned by Two Lakes supporters. "I'm not going to be sitting on the same board with a person that I know is in an ethics violation right now."

"There's one little sliver over here on Lakeland Drive that can't be used for anything," Speed replied, repeating what he told the Jackson Free Press about his family's property there. "I will publicly give deed—any economic interest that I have—to the appropriate public body.

After the meeting, Speed told the Jackson Free Press that he was offended that Rhoads would challenge his ethics.

"You start challenging my ethics, and it's going to get warm," Speed said. "I am 77 years old. I have worked my tail off all my life to keep my nose clean. I enjoy a very good reputation in this community, and I take offense at somebody that questions it. ... Look fella, you work your butt off as long as I have, and some jerk wants to come in here and start maligning me—I don't take that lightly. And I mean it."

Read more about this issue in this week's print edition and online. For the JFP's full coverage of Two Lakes and Levees, visit the Pearl River archive.

Previous Comments

ID

155830

Comment

Who is Leland going to deed his property to? Will he be deeding all of his property which stands to gain more than a marginal amount of value in the Twin Lakes plan? Would this include the larger sections of his property which are close by?

Author

daniel johnson

Date

2010-02-08T18:58:28-06:00

ID

155832

Comment

Daniel, you are always a thoughtful blogger. But, you seem to be obsessed with finding some ulterior motive for Mr. Speed's offer to donate his property for public use. Did you know that McGowan has done the same? McGowan plans to donate ALL of his property to the city of Jackson! Really. The difference is that Speed's property has nominal value (really). And, McGowan's property will be worth millions. Yes, McGowan has purchased a lot of property and is going to give it to the city of jackson (NOT Flowood; please take note, Harvey Johnson. This does not sound like a greedy, profiteering opportunist to me.) Yet, the JFP and others (perhaps unduly influenced by what I consider to be "over the top" and biased reporting by the JFP) continue to excoriate McGowan and challenge his integrity as well as Mr. Speed's. The truth is that MAYOR GARY RHOADS is the one who should be challenged and investigated by the JFP. There are some real issues about Rhoad's true motivation [unsubstantiated allegations snipped per user's agreement]. Ordinarily, these are the kinds of things that get JFP totally wound up. Why not now? It is sad and disappointing to me that the JFP and its loyal readers seem to be missing some of the finer points here because of their total bias and predisposition against McGowan's plan. I don't know if McGowan's plan is worth a damn or not. What I do know, however, is that Gary Rhoads cannot be trusted. period.

Author

FriendsofJackson

Date

2010-02-08T22:26:54-06:00

ID

155834

Comment

Is that Leland Speed or Gary Oldman in that pic? That's Gary Oldman straight out of that vampire movie.

Author

herman

Date

2010-02-09T08:42:52-06:00

ID

155841

Comment

If Leland Speed is willing to donate his land to a charity for them to use to provide a public service then I must say this is great. The idea of allowing the state to have more power over the board is wrong. We need to look at what the State has done for the people in the City of Jackson where most of State Government Office are located. Yet the Governor has not used his position to help the City of Jackson get new businesses or jobs for the citizens of Jackson. Just look at the business and jobs he has gotten for North Mississippi. Why? The City of Jackson has to provide services for the State of Mississippi Offices then why not give the City of Jackson a percentage of the taxes rcieved from these new businesses and jobs in order for Jackson to repair roads bring in new business, create new jobs? We new businesses in this area including a State Lottery, Gambling on the Pearl River or better yet allow the City of Jackson to have land base casino's. Why do Mississippi have to be last in everything.

Author

Chef Tony

Date

2010-02-09T10:54:00-06:00

ID

155842

Comment

I'm on press deadline, but a few quick thoughts, "FriendsofJackson": 1. Does Mr. McGowan plan to donate the land owned by all of his family members and "working partners" as well as the land that his estate sits on that was switched a few years back into the name of his wife? What about that owned by Meadowbrook Lakes, LLC? 2. No one is looking for ulterior motives. We are trying to augment the *extremely* biased (in favor of Two Lakes) media coverage that has been the only coverage of this very complicated development plan all these years (one that has kept any other kind of flood control plan from getting serious consideration). 3. Anonymously complaining that the JFP is "wound up" ain't nothin' but noise. If you recall, we came back to this story precisely because a mysterious PAC was raising money, not filing the documentation required by law, and running sensationalistic crime flyers (using information the FBI warns against) in order to get a pro-Two Lakes mayor elected (it turned out, when we forced them to file their paperwork just before the election). You cannot with a straight face blame us for reporting the way the Two Lakes folks have handled this, and it's ridiculous to start complaining that the public somehow has no right to know who owns the land that stands to go up to $2,000 a square foot in value, according to Wyatt Emmerich in last week's Northside Sun. Mr. McGowan told us last summer he couldn't get enough support from property owners over there to fund it privately. (You know there are property owners over there who love their homes and are scared to death of their property taxes going up 10 times or more, due to Two Lakes, right? Don't they have a right to information and a voice?) We would not spend so much time, and anger so many people, on this story if it's wasn't absolutely vital to get more information to the community. That would be stupid, and there are plenty of important stories that research on Pearl flooding (and Frank Melton before) pulls us away from. It would be irresponsible journalism not to cover this well, though, so we do what we must do.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-02-09T10:57:07-06:00

ID

155843

Comment

4. I've seen all the anonymous trashing of Gary Rhoads, and we are checking into allegations against him such as those I had to snip from your anonymous post (wrong blog for that kind of thing). The problem is that no one with an actual name to them (so that we can make sure they don't have an agenda or own waterfront property) have confirmed any of the allegations. Thus, this could be another one of Jackson's STUPID anonymous SMEAR campaigns that anyone who dares challenge the STATUS QUO knows well. If not, we trust that actual people with names will be in touch with Adam with details. 5. You are employing a very transparent logical fallacy on that front. Even if Mr. Rhoads were the antichrist, that has little to do with what is or is not true about the Two Lakes side of things. Anyone who owns land (including through an LLC) bordering or close to the Two Lakes footprint should reveal that when talking about a project that will require so much from the public (including lots of faith that a project of such magnitude and with no precedent) can work and not end up in court for 50 years, leaving us with no additional flood control for all that time. Put another way, I've been in this business long enough to know that both "sides" can be severely flawed. One doesn't make the other right. 6. On the flooding front, we are in a very tough spot, which you'll read about more in the paper tomorrow. Due to the stubbornness and political wrangling of the Two Lakes contingent, and the Corps' foot-dragging in response (apparently due to Pickering), no other flood-control plan has gotten serious attention all this time. Thus, the only other current option sucks, too, and the Two Lakes folks are trying to use that to their advantage. What they should be doing is coming to the table with people who don't agree with everything they want and putting the region's needs first, and work to establish a compromise solution. What they're doing, though, is trying to wrangle power through the governor and the Legislature to overpower the Levee Board and get Two Lakes as the only solution. And that reminds me of the situation with Melton (especially considering it's much of the same power doing the politicking): If you get what you wish for, we're going to have a serious quagmire for a long time to come. That is simply reality: environmentalists, the state of Louisiana, Mississippi towns down-stream, the reservoir folks, and more. In this case, I don't want to be again saying "we told you so"; this quagmire would make the Melton situation look simple and fleeting due to how long it would take to sort it out, if it ever happened. Thus, we will continue to call for people to demand that we start engaging in higher thinking and coalition building. People must ignore anonymous smears on this one, which seem to be getting more desperate; those kind of smears always mean that someone is trying to change the topic because they can't answer the questions.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-02-09T10:57:42-06:00

ID

155845

Comment

Great points Ladd. Keep us informed. In my GMs favorite saying, "Ain't nothing WRONG; but, something ain't RIGHT."

Author

justjess

Date

2010-02-09T11:08:07-06:00

ID

155847

Comment

We're on it, justjess. This story is a huge resources suck, but it is a vital one for the Jackson metro. Once again, we need to make up for years of one-sided reporting on an issue vital to the area.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-02-09T11:14:03-06:00

ID

155850

Comment

Question: Is this and the related peices prior to it one-sided or two-sided? I'm not journalist so i am just curious.

Author

Queen601

Date

2010-02-09T11:23:21-06:00

ID

155851

Comment

They're not really, either, Queen. We are reporting new facts as we find them without regard to where the chips fall. However, the paper has taken an editorial position based on the bottom-line facts. Two Lakes folks will say it's because we have some bias against McGowan or some of the others. That is simply absurd in this case; we didn't know anything *about* McGowan until we started digging on Two Lakes a few years back. It's the facts we have found that have framed and formed our position. We went in without a position. That's the way responsible journalism works. You do sh!t-tons of homework and then take an editorial position if it's merited. It is here. If Two Lakes was an easy, quick, simple, environmentally neutral path to prompt flood control and economic development, we would be for it, duh. But reading past the press releases has not supported that. And we've been doing that for several years now, and really intensely since the PAC surfaced in the city election. That's when we realized the "by any means necessary" aspect. Like with Melton, we don't criticize the good people of the metro who want this thing to be as simple and obvious as presented. Again, bad reporting and political finagling have put us in a tough spot. Sigh.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-02-09T11:31:33-06:00

ID

155853

Comment

Chef Tony, the attempt to get the Legislature to approve casinos here died as I understand it. There are people who believe strongly that the only investors who would be able to afford all that island space in Mr. McGowan's plan, and all the infrastructure they need, are casinos. His people say selling the land to casinos is not part of his plan, and I have no reason to believe that it is. It was disturbing (if, like me, you don't quite picture casinos lining Jackson as the answer our future) to see Downtown Jackson Partners post an anonymous letter from someone in support of Two Lakes that talked about casinos and other developments. We really hope Two Lakes folks do not have that particular ulterior motive, and have seen no evidence that indicates that they do.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-02-09T11:52:15-06:00

ID

155854

Comment

I gotcha Ladd. To be honest, this entire thing has become so freak'n confusing to me that I don't even care to read anything more about it. I make myself read it just in hopes that it's worth it in the end. But it's been going on soooo long and seems like circles keep forming. I actually think by now I probably just need to have a sit down with a representative of both sides and see if I can get the bottom line. What does this mean to me? Why do I care? Why should I care? As a Jacksonian, are these men economically raping me? Are they taking advantage of me? The stats are great! I appreciate all the effort everyone is making to tell their "side", but it still hasn't hit home for me. I'm being as honest as i possibly can and I guarantee there are other Jxnonians who feel the same. And I WANT to care, but it's become such a show that the seriousness and relevance of this issue to my life has become hidden and less interesting. ~~~Don't know why I went there.....just had to get that off my chest~~~

Author

Queen601

Date

2010-02-09T11:53:43-06:00

ID

155855

Comment

Understood, Queen. It's complicated stories that hold the most risk for hiding things from the public. (Can we say TORT REFORM!?!) We're putting together a primer of sorts that will be out soon to make it all easier to understand, and working on public forums about flood control to help get the public more involved. It is vital to reform the debate out of levees v. Two Lakes, which should have happened already. But there are people who won't take no for an answer. The big thing with the above story is see, Queen, is that a House committee passed a bill that will allow the state to take over the local levee board, even though the state has shown little interest in helping us fund flood control. Some people don't like what has been done, so they are trying to remake the board in order to change it. This one's simple.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-02-09T12:01:08-06:00

ID

155856

Comment

Why you should care; a few quickies to consider: 1. Potentially no flood control for many years due to lawsuits from every direction. 2. A huge development plan that has very few African Americans at the table to reap direct benefits. 3. Potential huge costs to the entire city's taxpayers. 4. People trying to buy their own mayor (and possibly legislators) with unreported campaign contributions. (Related) 5. Anonymous smear campaigns against media outlets and people who don't agree.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-02-09T12:03:34-06:00

ID

155858

Comment

Case in point. All, note that the mayor of Flowood questioned a fellow levee board member's ethics yesterday and voted to ask the Legislature to not end-run their authority yesterday, and this is the only other media coverage so far: Levee Board Declines State Adding Members Bill Ward said WLBT had the only other reporter there.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-02-09T12:35:33-06:00

ID

155861

Comment

WOW!!!!! See that's the type of breakdown i need. Basic facts. All the back and forth and the soap opera-ish antics tend to pull us away from the type of facts you mentioned above.

Author

Queen601

Date

2010-02-09T12:59:21-06:00

ID

155862

Comment

Right, Queen. But if all we did was give that list, there would be nothing to back it up. ;-) And no soap opera antics on this front. We're trying to be as straightfoward as possible on a very complicated issue, while dodging all sorts of whispered attacks because we won't toe the line. So my advice is: When someone starts attacking the messenger, ask yourself why rather than buying into the hype. Todd's recent column broke the whole thing down about as succinctly as possible. Read it if you haven't already: Facts, Damn Facts and Opinions

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-02-09T13:04:17-06:00

ID

155863

Comment

Yes, yes, don't get me wrong, i do understand that you must do what you have to do. I meant that "personally" I need the bottom line. This just isn't something that has ever been at the forefront of concern for many of us and now it's a really big deal so we are playing catch up. I did read Todd's column which is actually what made me start thinking....okay there is a lot more going on here than I originally thought. ALOT MORE! I should probably go back and reread it now though. Thanks again.

Author

Queen601

Date

2010-02-09T13:30:08-06:00

ID

155864

Comment

I understand, Queen. The tough part of reporting complicated stories is that you don't always know the bottom line until you're very deep in. Or, you think you see why people are doing/saying the things they are, and then another motive is revealed upon digging. (For instance: Should we learn that a motive of some is to sell land to casinos for big money, it would add a new layer.) And very often, people have different motives. Often, the biggest supporters of a project (or a mayor) are misled by people with different motives and don't even know it. You see that all the time with sound-bite journalists and, increasingly, with bloggers. All this makes investigative reporting very complicated, and all that more important.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-02-09T13:35:04-06:00

ID

155865

Comment

I think Gary Rhoads has dibs on the soap opera antics in this matter. Leland Speed could not have been any more clear that he would deed his land near the river over to the state.

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2010-02-09T13:46:00-06:00

ID

155866

Comment

Maybe someone out there can help me quickly. While editing the next installment on all this, I need to do some square footage/acreage math. Wyatt said the shoreline created by Two Lakes would be worth up to $2,000 a square FOOT. My research shows that there are 43,560 square feet in an acre, and 640 acres in a square mile. Anyone disagree with that? If that is true, it seems that someone with one acre of waterfront property could see value of a whopping $87,120,000 -- or that 1,000 FEET of shoreline would be worth $2 million. Following Wyatt's line (which always seem to match McGowan's), a short piece of waterfront property could be quite lucrative. Those numbers sound like a pipe dream, but if the Two Lakes folks are putting them out there, then clearly they are motivating some of the strong support. I'm guessing. (Those numbers also indicate a property-tax nightmare that could get many to sell and move rather than pay it, which is what some Eastover residents are concerned about.)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-02-09T14:03:23-06:00

ID

155867

Comment

Rex, I'm still unclear on Mr. Speed's promise. He obviously owns that property with his siblings; have they all agreed? There is also prime waterfront (under Two Lakes) Speed property that seems to belong to his sister-in-law. It looks like she is divorced from his brother, though, so not sure if he has any interest there other than the noble interest in his extended family being taken care of. Mr. Speed also lives close to Mr. McGowan, and all those property values would clearly increase with waterfront so nearby, but so do many people, so that part doesn't indicate a conflict to me. I do wonder why he is intent on being on the levee board; it seems like he could step down to avoid appearance of conflict of interest, and get someone else appointed who thinks just like he does.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-02-09T14:10:11-06:00

ID

155868

Comment

For comparison sake, some .25-acre lots of reservoir-front property are on sale for $200,000 in Lost Rabbit.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-02-09T14:21:11-06:00

ID

155869

Comment

"one acre of waterfront property could see value of a whopping $87,120,000 -- or that 1,000 FEET of shoreline would be worth $2 million." where did these #s come from? If a rising tide lifts all ships, I'm staying right where I am in the rez area.

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2010-02-09T14:34:57-06:00

ID

155870

Comment

That's the math based on the number Wyatt Emmerich is putting out there for the Two Lakes waterfront property (which I assume comes from Mr. McGowan) and using the numbers I listed above for square feet and acreage. Help me check my math. That's why I posted it.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-02-09T14:37:13-06:00

ID

155871

Comment

considering the source, then, I'd say those were "best case scenario" numbers, ie- pie in the sky.Taking into account current economic condtitions, I'd say those numbers were exaggerated to say the least.

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2010-02-09T14:42:01-06:00

ID

155872

Comment

I tend to agree with you, Rex. But the kicker is that Wyatt tends to hawk anything and everything Mr. McGowan says to "sell" the plan. So are people being promised these numbers by anyone other than than Wyatt? We haven't had time to look through all the Two Lakes Foundation documents, yet, to know for sure. But if anyone knows, let us know. And, hey, maybe casinos would pay that. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-02-09T14:49:07-06:00

ID

155873

Comment

I'd be surprised to see casinos without a vigourous fight from the Choctaws.

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2010-02-09T15:06:50-06:00

ID

155874

Comment

Me, either. (Although John Horhn tried.) The Choctaws aren't likely to be happy about Two Lakes, either. (Read that full story and comments, btw.) (Maybe the Choctaws are working a trade to build casinos here? KIDDING) Also, I just saw this: Pearl River Flood Control Measures Ignite Controversy (Pretty succinct, Queen.)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-02-09T15:15:35-06:00

ID

155875

Comment

Ladd, Your math tallies with mine. I think someone needs to challenge Emmerich's assumptions on this - get a clear statement of what he's working from. Then get a numbers guy like me, or the 2nd best ex boss (Jim Leggette), to work the numbers over under a variety of scenarios that vary from the rose colored glasses scenario that Emmerich pitches. Property tax nightmare - oh yeah. Even under a less rosy scenario, it could be grounds for a class action suit against Two Lakes right there. That's outside of everyone down stream, the Choctaws and others...

Author

Pilgrim

Date

2010-02-09T15:48:45-06:00

ID

155876

Comment

We're on it, Pilgrim. A series is coming. ;-) And anyone can write me directly with info or suggestions: [email protected] Hadn't considered the class-action angle. Wow. Tell me more.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-02-09T16:03:19-06:00

ID

155877

Comment

Class action suit because a project might raise property values?

Author

QB

Date

2010-02-09T16:53:15-06:00

ID

155878

Comment

I don't know, QB. Anyone else? I guess it could make sense if the government is involved in any fashion, especially.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-02-09T17:04:09-06:00

ID

155880

Comment

Here's the WLBT video of their report on the Levee Board meeting. It's pretty good, considering that TV can't get any real context in there. It's also funny because Rhoads waved a copy of the JFP, and you can see Ward in the opening camera shot. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-02-09T20:10:30-06:00

ID

155882

Comment

ok, Ladd, you win. I concede defeat. I should have known better than to try to advance ideas that you so adamantly oppose and expect to get anything other than a massive blast of even more one-sided blogs from you. (Perhaps your over zealous and voluminous blogging is the reason why so few folks bother to blog on your site anymore, ya think!) Clearly, you and Todd have made up your minds on this issue, have decided that Leland Speed and John McGowan are the anti-Christs and that Harvey Johnson walks on water and anybody who has an opinion to the contrary must be motivated by greed, lust or some other evil. The number that Todd did on Ben Allen a few weeks ago was simply low class, though probably within your prerogative. In my opinion, and that's all it is, the JFP USED to be the greatest thing since sliced bread and one of the most important catalysts for reform in the city of Jackson. Unfortunately, though, I believe your obsession with your opposition to McGowan and his plan, for whatever reason, has so totally colored your judgment that you cannot be impartial. You guys have turned into the very things you were formed to fight and you just can't see. You're no better than the Northside Sun or the Clarion Ledger. It's really, really sad and I am very disappointed. So, you win. I quit. Like many others over the last year, I'm through with blogging and with reading the JFP and with supporting the advertisers of JFP. I think that's fair game isn't it? Oh, and by the way, you really are a bit sanctimonious in editing my blogs. I really don't buy that "user agreement" crap you cited as the reason for the edit. So much for your alleged support for the First Amendment.

Author

FriendsofJackson

Date

2010-02-09T23:51:18-06:00

ID

155884

Comment

The Clarion-Ledger is reporting today that Leland Speed has asked for an ethics ruling about his serving on the Levee Board while owning property that could benefit from Two Lakes. The Ethics Commission meets Friday about it at 10 a.m. Rhoads also said that Speed has donated generously to the Two Lakes Foundation, although we haven't confirmed that independently, yet. BTW, this is the first that the Ledger has reported on any of this. We first reported that Rhoads and others on the Levee Board were upset about Speed owning land that could become waterfront under Two Lakes in mid-January.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-02-10T11:51:19-06:00

ID

155898

Comment

Friends of Jackson ~ i know i'm a little late on this, but i'm interested in what ulterior motive i was suggesting with my comment. As far as my comment goes, i merely expressed curiosity as to who Leland was deeding his property to and how much of each parcel of land he was planning to donate. It seems to me these are the pertinent questions to ask when a potentially conflicted member of a Board offers to sell portions of their capital to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. So. Are people following up on the promise by Leland to donate his land? Why won't McGowan and Leland go ahead and draw up legally binding documents with those in receivership to ensure their good faith pledges? At the end of the day, one has to question a group of people who must continually make appeals to power rather than reason to achieve their goals. To put it another way, it is disturbing to see people with money and property appeal to politically connected friends to achieve their ends over the will of the people rather than spending their energies making a solid case for their intentions. (And making a solid case means more than drawing up a document and making a web site to showcase your findings that incidentally no disinterested party agrees with)

Author

daniel johnson

Date

2010-02-10T23:18:16-06:00

ID

155902

Comment

I know the JFP loathes any development that might allow already wealthy white guys to make money, but until I see an independent study which clearly details the superiority of levees to Two Lakes, I must regard all attempts to discredit McGowan's plan by this publication as severely biased. What exactly has the Corps done to prove themselves as levee experts? Moreover, what makes the JFP such an authority on flood control?

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2010-02-11T09:03:46-06:00

ID

155918

Comment

FriendsofJackson, I don't think that Harvey Johnson "walks on water" nor do I believe that Ladd believes that he does. What I do know it that Johnson is not only a planner but a thinker, a visionary and one who deals a fair hand. We have seen too many of smaller but similar projects wherein these said philanthropic doners become the lions and receive the lion's share. Don't get it twisted. I'm not opposed to people with money doing what people with money/power do. I'm simply saying that the City of Jackson should not be up for sale: Not even to the highest bidder or the largest giver.

Author

justjess

Date

2010-02-11T11:57:16-06:00

ID

155923

Comment

Whoa, tons of comments since I was on this thread Tuesday. Quickly: FriendsofJackson: It is a ridiculous logical fallacy to say we think Johnson "walks on water." He's been the best choice for mayor since the paper has existed (Horhn's advocacy for casinos on the Pearl have cemented that view for me.) But if you recall, his past support of Two Lakes is part of the reason it lingered as long as it has. I'm glad to see him more questioning this time around. (Cynically, you could see that the Better Jackson PAC pretty much guaranteed he'd take a harder look at it.) Otherwise, your pure ad hominem response at 11:51 to my very specific responses and links responding to your earlier comment prove you're not here to have a real conversation. You're another anonymous attacker who can't stand that a media outlet has fallen out of the line the Two Lakes folks have drawn. My response: Whatever. Your response is no different than the multitude of angry posts about me and Todd and the JFP when we dared challenge Melton, then Robert Smith, then Crisler. Anytime we, uh, step out of line, we have some anonymous complainer show up and tell us how irrelevant we are, how far we've fallen, blah, blah. It's noise, Friends; always has been; always will be. If you want to come here, reveal yourself and any land holdings/foundation position/engineering gig you have and have a serious conversation, come on. Otherwise, you're showing clearly that you got no response to my very serious questions, such as whether Mr. McGowan is going to give up all the land connected to him and his family in the flood plan. Look at the GIS map yourself: There is very little land at this point under his name. At up to $2,000 a foot ("front foot," Mr. Speed just told us, meaning waterfront), they stand to make a ton of money under Two Lakes. We are not flood control experts; we are journalists who are very good at research and asking questions. And anyone who bothers to do any homework whatsoever will learn very quickly how unlikely Two Lakes is ever to see light, no matter what candidates are installed. We don't want people chasing apparitions if we have information they need and deserve to have. And I'm not trying to "win" anything; we're just trying to put every bit of information we can out there about a vital issue, which is clearly not pleasing some of you who would prefer that the public not know everything about this before getting behind it. There will be an interesting story in The Daily today about Mr. Speed and plans for his property. Subscribe if you haven't already: http://www.jfpdaily.com And the comment about loathing any development that make rich guys richer is sheer lunacy, Rex. We have been pro-(smart)-development since Day 1 and publish Boom Jackson, for God's sake. You're going to have work harder than that. Here's an idea, Two Lakes folks: Stop attacking the messenger like 7-year-olds (making us look RIGHT to anyone except those with a dog in the hunt), and come here and talk real issues about lakes, levees, other alternatives. As you can see in our big story this issue, the only levee plan anyone has developed to date is riddled with problems, too.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-02-11T12:32:28-06:00

ID

155924

Comment

Reximus, you're ludicrous. i could care less if the Twin Lakes investors make money...just don't do it at the expense of others and through back-room power brokering. i mean, if they deserve to make a fortune, they should do it like any other politically unconnected person would do. Do it in a way that reflects American ideals. Stop pitching a fit that your plan has run up against insurmountable problems and put your energies elsewhere. Just look what David Watkins has been able to accomplish in less than half the time they have been trying to push through Twin Lakes. Opportunities to make money are out there if you can manage not to get caught up in pouting and political pushing. It makes me wonder if there are other reasons they want the Pearl flooded. It really begs the question of ulterior motives beyond simply making money. (The motive of helping Jackson seems to be far out the door when you look at the latest plan of islands with no utilities and therefore little development potential.) i sometimes ponder what might be covered up by such a radical reconfiguration of our Pearl.

Author

daniel johnson

Date

2010-02-11T12:41:32-06:00