Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Developers are cheering and environmentalists are jeering as the Lefleur Lakes ("Two Lakes") project gains momentum, helped along by political support from men like Mayor Frank Melton and Gov. Haley Barbour, who seem poised to rubberstamp the development despite concerns from residents and environmentalists.
Oilman John McGowan, who owns McGowan Working Partners and developed the Two Lakes plan, warns that with the amount of development now underway in Jackson's sprawling northeastern corridor and in Flowood, a flood like the infamous 1979 flood would drive the region into near bankruptcy, with prices running easily "over $1 billion, with a 'B'." He says the plan would reduce flooding by 11 feet in North Jackson and five feet in downtown Jackson.
Developers boast that the new waterfront property will compare to the multi-million dollar development along the Ross Barnett Reservoir, in Madison County, but they emphasize that exploding property values are only a happy side effect of the plan. They say the project's real goal is to provide a means for the city to combat its recurring flood problems and finally assert control over the fussy Pearl River.
"Jackson needs flood control," environmental planner Barry Royals of Waggoner Engineering told the Jackson City Council last year. "Right now, the city is unprepared for another disaster like 1979. This plan will address that problem."
Meanwhile, environmentalists, concerned city residents and emergency officials predict that a new lake extending from the spillway to south Jackson will be an environmental tragedy for the Pearl wetlands and aggravate water drainage problems already prevalent in the city—and may well not stop the flooding.
A Simple Plan
A plan to flood the green space between the Pearl River levees has been on the drawing board since 1995. Private investors, such as McGowan, want the federal government to partially fund the project through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but the corps initially blanched at the idea, citing high costs and environmental damage.
Then about two years ago, Waggoner Engineering and the Pearl River Basin Development District contracted the Corps of Engineers to take a more serious look at the environmental impact of putting the wetland areas between Rankin and Hinds Counties permanently underwater, and in July, the corps' environmental feasibility study will tell both supporters and detractors alike how much the project will cost, whether or not it is a practical means to address flood control in the city, and how much environmental damage it will do.
Local city leaders, eager to drag in vital tax revenue and development, have expressed enthusiasm for the project. Ward 1 Councilman Ben Allen said: "I'm all for that plan. I think it would be a mistake if we didn't approve of the Lefleur Lakes plan. The economic benefits of it are too great." Other city leaders, like Ward 4 and Ward 5 Councilmen Frank Bluntson and Charles Tillman, say they would simply like to see the city's streets stay above water.
Heroes and their shovels
The Rankin/Hinds Pearl River Flood and Drainage Control District is working in conjunction with Waggoner Engineering and other interested developers like McGowan and Mississippi Development Authority Director Leland Speed to end Jackson's flood problems by caging the river.
The project is currently known as LeFleur Lakes, though some residents knew the project as Two Lakes or Twin Lakes, as developers have called it through the years. The current plan, similar to past versions, calls for two underwater dams beneath the Pearl, one almost directly under I-55 and another beneath Interstate 20, which would flood the shallow wetlands and create two lakes. Developers would also like to dredge the river mud, deepening the proposed lakebeds and dropping the resulting dredge in the middle of one lake, forming an island that McGowan says will bring in remarkable lakefront development. The plan also features bigger levees intended to protect the endangered floodplain.
McGowan has considerable faith in the project, having gone so far as to buy property along what could potentially be the Jackson side of the upper lake, in the northern portion of the city.
"Jackson is in serious need of new business, and this project would be a windfall for it," McGowan said. "The city has been sitting by while businesses go to the suburbs and I, for one, would like to change that. The island inside the top lake, by itself, will be a magnet for development. You'll see that area explode with development where there wasn't any before. Who wouldn't (see the benefit in) that?"
The Rankin/Hinds Pearl River Flood and Drainage Control District has big aspirations, and with many wealthy parties taking an interest, it has big money as well. The two-year Draft Environmental Impact Study with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which was funded by the organization, cost $2.8 million, but McGowan says the whole project is affordable.
"I think it would cost about $130 million," McGowan said. "For what it accomplishes, I think it's a great investment."
Less conservative estimates submitted by McGowan put the project at $173 million, but Robert Jones, a biologist at the Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, says any figure submitted so far is "only a small part of the whole possible cost."
"I've heard that this thing is going to be substantially more than that. He's probably just talking bout the dirt work. When you look at all the things that are going to have to be moved, including highways and pipes, an old city landfill, and other things, then $130 million is going to be pocket change compared to what will really be needed," Jones said.
"What's interesting to me," Jones continued, "is that you've got a lot of backers for the project, but a lot of the people pushing it stand to make substantial financial gains by owning the island. Why would the Corps allow private ownership of property within one of their boundaries? They don't do that normally. In fact, the Corps is good for taking land through eminent domain for their projects, not handing it over to private owners."
Mayor Melton stands behind the project, however, regardless of cost. In late March, he told a South Jackson neighborhood association that he plans to cure the city's drainage ills with the lake project.
"There's no doubt in my mind that this is a great project, and I'm backing it 100 percent," Melton said. He told the Jackson Free Press in an April interview that he intends to let the engineers hash out the details.
Other local government officials are not so confident. Hinds County Emergency Management Director Larry Fisher said the LeFleur Lakes project takes little account of backwash pouring back into the city's creeks, many of which are already at the same level as the Pearl River at its current depth. A taller river means taller creeks.
Fisher recalls the 2003 incident when Town Creek swilled down Irby Construction.
"The river at that time, even though it did a lot of damage, still was not at the height that the engineering firm working on this lake project is planning to make it," Fisher said. "And as far as I know, they've only considered Town Creek, but we've got other creeks draining into the river. You've got Hanging Moss Creek, Eubanks Creek and so on. They'll get higher if the river becomes a lake, and if we'd had a lake in 2003, downtown would've been a flat-out catastrophe."
Installing backflow dams and station pumps in creeks all over Jackson would be expensive. The Corps said in 2005 that such pumps were not an economically practical method for relieving flooding of creeks.
McGowan argues that the creek issue can be resolved without expensive pumps.
"That's all done with improving the water conveyance," he said. He believes the lake will actually take "15 feet of flooding off those creeks."
The Reluctant Corps
So far, the Corps of Engineers has been unhelpful to developers. Corps officials, soon after submitting the environmental feasibility study for the 1996 levee plan, were cool toward the lake idea, rejecting it as an economic development project outside the purpose and scope of the Corps. The Corps, which is as single-minded as a hammer, had a job to control flooding in the city, not to build lakefront property.
"The Corps came out with a levee plan back in 1996, but there just wasn't any local support for it really," said Gary Walker, senior project manager with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. "There has to be a federal sponsor and a non-federal sponsor. The federal sponsor is the Corps, but there has to be a non-federal sponsor, a local unit of government that's willing to adopt the project, and nobody stepped forward at the time."
Local sponsorship seems to pivot on whether or not money is to be made from the project.
Cash has been an issue in the past, with Corps officials declaring the entire lake venture too costly for the federal government to plunk down tax dollars on it. Developers have faith in the new environmental feasibility study coming out in July, however, saying private developers will foot the enormous bill if the Corps will only sign off on the fundamental design in July.
New Money, Old Idea
William McDonald, director of planning and special programs at Waggoner Engineering, said plenty of private money has interest in investing in the project. In addition, Jackson city planner Jimmy Heidel said recently that new legislation pushed by Reps. Chip Pickering and Bennie Thompson would re-open the possibility of federal money helping out with building costs.
Heidel said the legislation means that the Corps "shall"—which means it's mandatory—"accept the adopted local plan, which takes it out of their hands."
"It'll be our (local developers') plan, and they shall adopt it," he said. "We're going to have to do the environmental assessment. We'll have to do mitigation land for replacement of the wetlands we're taking out, but this bill is going to be significant because it opens up many more areas of funding for us to go after instead of an appropriation through Congress to the Corps of Engineers to do this project."
He added: "Also, this opens up USDA funding, HUD funding, a lot of other funding sources of the federal government instead of that one appropriation made to the Corps of Engineers."
Paul Crowson, president of the Pearl River Basin Coalition, says he has countless major concerns about the project.
"If you remove the natural water retaining function in this area by developing it, it's a common sense conclusion that this is going to aggravate flooding downstream in places like Columbia and Monticello," Crowson said. "They want to replace the forest and wetlands with homes and streets and impermeable surfaces, so we'll have more rapid run-off, which will increase the stream flow. The more rapid the run-off, the more water gets into the river quicker. Sure, it gets out of Jackson OK, but it only goes down the river and increases erosion downriver. Landowners down the river won't be happy about that."
The flooding Crowson describes relates to the Jackson floodplain as a buffer between the northern river and the southern river territory. Flood water tied up in an unpopulated Jackson swamp is not barreling out of the city and sweeping into communities further south along the river.
Trouble Downriver
Monticello Mayor Dave Nichols was eager to speak about the project.
"If this project goes forward, it'll put more water to the southern area below Jackson," Nichols said, adding that the current situation was bad enough.
"We've already seen it happen. Look at all the development that's taken place on Lakeland Drive. It has made the water move quicker, and if you come south, you'll see all the sloughing that's happened along the riverbanks. There's a house just above Monticello; during the last big rain about a year ago they lost about 20 feet of the embankment. They had to vacate the house because the river is right up at their house now. I can show you another house where the bank has sloughed away about 16 feet, and there are other places all over. And it's all because of increased development. So now we're going to go and put this big island in the middle of the river and all this retail on it and probably a casino and I hate to think of what will happen."
McDonald said he believed the Army Corps of Engineers had so far determined there would be no complications further downstream from the development.
"The flow in the river will not be changed as a result of this project," McDonald said.
Environmentalists disagree, however, and point to the city of Jackson as an example of how development can cause flooding.
Crowson said Jackson was a victim of upstream development in 1979. Much of the Yockanookany's upper course through Choctaw and Attala Counties had been straightened and channelized prior to the 1979 deluge. The rainwater, pouring into the Yockanookany, tore through this heavily processed corridor and came into Jackson with all the power that gravity could give it.
Former Mayor Dale Danks personally witnessed the destruction that year, telling reporters that he'd never seen the floodwaters coming. The river began rising on a day the skies above Jackson were clear and blue, almost tempting one to think that the city had dodged the bullet.
Danks got a lesson that year on hydrology, though the message might have dried up with the water. After watching the Pearl swallow the fairgrounds, he later approved the construction of The Oaks apartment complex on Ridgewood Road—well inside the river's floodplain. When the apartments inevitably flooded in 1999, Danks represented the apartments' residents and won a $1.1 million settlement with the city.
Tom Pullen, a private contractor who does work with the Corps of Engineers, says the Corps is caught in the middle.
"The Corps did evaluate an initial version of the Lefleur Lakes plan and didn't think much of it, but since then the politicians have gotten involved, and they've been directed to go back and study it. The question I would ask is: Once all these engineering studies are done, who is going to do the independent technical review of all this? The Corps process used to require an independent review of everything from an unrelated organization," Pullen said. "It still should."
The Corps is responsible for the preparation of the (EIS) Environmental Impact Statement, but Waggoner Engineering is supplying part of the work used to in compose the document. McDonald insists Waggoner has no influence over the resulting environmental statement.
"We do part of the work, but they're obviously ultimately responsible for the document," McDonald said.
What Have We Got to Lose?
Cathy Shropshire, of the Mississippi Wildlife Federation, said the project should be about more than just the economy. Many developers, she says, are not taking into account the environmental loss the new lakes would mean to the metropolitan area.
"The forest and the wetland here provide natural filtration of the water as it runs off, but it also provides a buffer to noise pollution and it beautifies the city," Shropshire said. "This is something that a lot of cities our size don't have, and it would be a terrible loss to our children and future residents."
Crowson said the Pearl River, with its abnormally low flow-rate and indigenous life, is too unique to put at further risk.
"There's probably only a drop of a few feet between the head of the river and where it empties into the gulf, and the water doesn't move very fast," Crowson said. "Finding a comparison to this kind of development in a similar river is difficult. The ultimate conclusion is that we've searched high and low to find a comparison to a similar project, but there really isn't one, which ought to say something about the value of this river."
Any visitor who has hiked the trails in the LeFleur Bluff State park, along Hwy 55, knows that the park offers serene vistas, with ancient cypress trees, colorful birds and the occasional "plop" of a turtle or young alligator dropping off a log and into the water. Even the bald eagle, which has taken up residence in the Ross Barnett reservoir area, could stand a chance of extending its territory further south into the city-side green space if given a chance.
"Along this area, you've got some endangered species like the sawback turtle and the gulf sturgeon, and both are very rare. The sawback turtle can only be found in the Pearl River. It doesn't even live up in the northern tributaries. It's endangered, and this territory is one of the few spots where you have a significant population," Jones said.
"You're not going to find any other major cities in the entire country that have what we have in this state park and along the Pearl River. What you've got here is fairly old-growth forest, not virgin perhaps, but there are some big trees down here in the park and you don't get that sort of thing in any major cities. And they want to put it all underwater."
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a say when it comes to endangered species habitat loss, but Connie Dickard, public affairs specialist with the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the department was withholding any comment until the Corps of Engineers offers a preferred alternative plan, which will be released with the EIS feasibility study.
"We're not out to stop anything. We want to work with project organizers to minimize the impact of the species affected, but we'll wait to see the study before having an official position," Dickard said.
Crowson predicted that if the river is left alone, what is now a shallow flood valley at the edge of Hinds County will become a green area in the middle of an exploding metropolis in the coming decades.
"This area will one day be like New York's Central Park. Ask anybody in New York if they'd destroy their Central Park, and they would look at you like you were crazy," Crowson said. "Go to the Mayes Lake section. Back in the woods, along the nature trail, you don't smell the diesel fumes coming off the highway. This wide swath of natural forest and wetlands in the middle of the metro area serves this function. If we destroy it we'll be more like Houston, Texas, where they've destroyed all their rivers and the air quality is terrible. People hate to live there."
Jackson Endangered, Developers Dither?
In the meantime, the Corps-approved levee plan of 1996 remains unfinished, leaving spots in North and South Jackson and Byram unprotected. The vulnerability of those areas was apparent as recently as three years ago.
"I had at least five inches of water in my house," said North Jackson resident Denise Cami, who lives along Hanging Moss creek, which crosses beneath neighboring Ridgewood Road—a creek that she didn't even know existed until it came out of the woods behind her backyard and came in to visit.
Young neighborhoods near Cami, on the east side of Old Canton Road, come dangerously close to the Pearl River. Some boast names like River Glen, River Cove and River Road. The names offer a clue to the insurance requirements for home ownership in that area, with many houses taking in water directly from the Pearl River when the river crested near 35 feet in 2003. Flood level is considered 28 feet.
Residents fear some of these homes will remain exposed and defenseless until some kind of plan is adopted by local sponsors—who seem to be holding out for the more costly but development-friendly Lefleur Lakes plan.
"Well, they're going to have to pick something," Jones said. "Because right now, we don't have any flood control at all in some places."
Previous Comments
- ID
- 79893
- Comment
CORRECTION: "There’s probably only a drop of a few feet between the head of the river and where it empties into the gulf, and the water doesn’t move very fast..." The River does drop more than "a few feet" from headwaters to the Gulf. It typically does not drop more than a few feet PER MILE, thus it is a slow moving river. ALSO: "Crowson predicted that if the river is left alone, what is now a shallow flood valley at the edge of Hinds County will become a green area in the middle of an exploding metropolis in the coming decades." Rather than simply predicting what might happen if these areas are left alone, I suggest that the riverfront be proactively managed for additional recreational opportunities for the citizens of the Metro area. If a fraction of the money proposed to be spent on the Two Lakes real estate development project were spent on reinforcing, building up, and extending levees where necessary and acquiring the flood-prone areas for trails, parks, and forests, the natural corridor of green space would provide a unique sense of place for Jackson. Many cities have succumbed to the temptation of over-developing and destroying interior green spaces and residents have to travel well outside their metro areas to find expanses of green space and the outdoor recreational opportunities they provide. Jackson could be a haven for 'creative class' individuals and families who prefer to have such recreational opportunities close to home. In addition, these recreational spaces could be allowed to flood from time to time with minimal adverse impact. Otherwise, quotes attributed to me are mostly accurate. Paul Crowson
- Author
- PaulC
- Date
- 2006-05-25T20:56:25-06:00
- ID
- 79894
- Comment
Paul, I like your ideas and I like the idea of keeping green spaces and using them for recreation without overdoing it. And Adam, thanks for the article to keep us informed. I will be looking out for that report in July. One of the reasons I settled in Jackson was that, after living in LA and Oakland, California I hated the overabundance of concrete and cement. As Joni Mitchell said "You don't know what you got til it's gone."
- Author
- Izzy
- Date
- 2006-05-26T07:18:51-06:00
- ID
- 79895
- Comment
Reposting: I support the project. I also agree with JSU that Mayes Lake does not really offer much? Been lately? Animals? Maybe a turtle and a mockingbird and the rare egret and squirrel. I have all that in my own back yard in the busy city (minus the egret but + an owl, bats, and a random hawk). Heck, Mayes Lake costs money to get in, most trails are not maintained, trees are falling over and rotting in the picnic areas, pavillions are NOT for public use and require $50+ "rental fees" and good luck renting a canoe! I say go with the project just to flood that money-hungry "public park." Can you tell I'm bitter? ;-) Seriously though... I know more than one person that owns land on the Pearl and they are 100% in support of the plan. As for the critters and green space, it's already there (including several paths, places to drop into the river, and four-wheeler/bike trails) and only a handful of people use them. I'd personally rather see tax-dollars generated than a "green space" that probably won't be used by the majority of the population and an area that will be poorly maintained by the Mississippi Parks system (based soley on how they maintain the Mayes Lake area). I say all that with little regard to this chunk of land because Jackson is actually a damned green place even in some of her most urban areas. I have several trees that are well over 50 years old on my lot that are amazingly tall and beautiful. My area is so green we have bats, owls, oppossums, raccoons, hawks, squirrels, turtles, frogs, snakes and Buddha knows what else I haven't yet stumbled upon. I'm all about keeping things green but I also realize we need land that can be developed without gentrifying every single neighborhood in our community (which is basically all that can be done to repurpose/redevelope most areas). We need new as well as revitalized!
- Author
- kaust
- Date
- 2006-05-26T14:27:22-06:00
- ID
- 79896
- Comment
I will say I'd like to see ALL developments on the "island" be required by law to be "green." Solar power to reduce pollution and independence (and possibly feed the grid), kayak and canoe rentals so people can actually enjoy the water and its critters that will more than likely stick around in some of the undeveloped areas like my friends' land, green spaces owned by the CITY and not the STATE so it's free to the public and accessible by all. Encouragement of foot traffic with shady, tree-lined streets and sidewalks, bike lanes, and such... I think we could find a common ground and metro governments and citizens could help us make sure green spaces are available and are encouraged. All I'm saying is I think both green spaces and development can happen if our leadership and the citizens demand it. Hell, why not encourage green spaces on rooftops in existing downtown while we're at it? Talk about creating filters for city smog! Let's not forget that proper development can also lead to environmentally sound spaces and buildings with equally beautiful landscapes with indigenous plants and animals. Paul, you said one thing that stings me as a Jacksonian... You basically said if they want waterfront property let them move to the Rez. Well, you see, that's the current problem with Jackson. They did move and continue to. They left us high and dry for the water front developments which sucked a huge portion of our tax-base right out.
- Author
- kaust
- Date
- 2006-05-26T14:27:37-06:00
- ID
- 79897
- Comment
Knol, I agree with you. Most of the land along the Pearl is currently privately owned, with a few exceptions such as Mayes Lake. Thus the Two Lakes project may just as much be about opening this area up to the public. Individuals will own many of the waterfront lots but the Corp. should require that a significant percentage of the waterfront property be a public greenspace. In addition, the proposed island would attract the general public and the lakes would be open to the public to use for boating and recreation. I tend to like the idea of the project and I think it could be a huge boost to the revitalization of Belhaven Heights and even downtown. If downtwon Jackson were flourishing I would be a lot more concerned with the environmental aspects of the project but with companies like Cellular South, Merrill Lynch, Wells Marble & Hurst, and Barnes & Noble moving out of Jackson, I think that the city needs to do anything it can to keep from losing more of its tax base.
- Author
- JXNnative
- Date
- 2006-05-26T14:51:59-06:00
- ID
- 79898
- Comment
reposting per request: Knol, I am also a Jacksonian, by birth and by choice. I think it is hardly fair to say that the Reservoir is the cause of white flight from Jackson. Try racism as an explanation for that problem, it fits the evidence much better. Also, I view the Metro area more broadly than you, that is to say that not every municipality can or should offer the same opportunities as every other one. I am happy to have the Reservoir close by, but don't see the need to duplicate it. I do see a need to diversify our outdoor recreational opportunities, and the greenway idea would do that. And most of the land created by the two lakes real estate development plan would not be in Jackson, anyway. Have you noticed that in the most recent conceptual drawings of the project, the island is outside the Jackson city limits? Most of the benefits of the project would go to the other side of the river, in my opinion. As for the argument about the usage and maintenance of the Mayes Lake portion of LeFleur's Bluff State Park, I don't think your argument is all that good. I am not arguing that it should be simply preserved as is. I am arguing for an alternate use of a portion of the money targeted for two lakes to be used to upgrade, improve, and expand the recreational opportunities along the river. If the existing park were connected to a other parks along the river and with downtown Jackson by a well developed and maintained trail system, I believe that you would see the usage go way up. To argue that since it isn't used or maintained well right now that it will never be used or maintained is no argument at all. Furthermore, I have spent a great deal of time in the Mayes Lake area of LeFleur's Bluff State Park and I have seen lots of animals that I don't see in my backyard. If you haven't seen much there, it is because you are not looking carefully. It's also incorrect to imply that all Metro area residents have a back yard like yours. And as for the cost of entry, you can purchase a pass for a whole year of entry into ALL of MS State Parks for only $20! That's less than the price of taking a date to a movie - once. And you can go to the park and sit under any one of the pavilions and have a meal and a nice day in the park. Only if you want to RESERVE a specific pavilion in advance for a planned public gathering do you have to pay the fee that you mention.
- Author
- PaulC
- Date
- 2006-05-26T15:34:31-06:00
- ID
- 79899
- Comment
JxnNative, when you say "the city needs to do anything it can" does that include strip clubs and and the like? When you say 'anything' just what do you mean? I ask this because I want to know what you think the limits are. I think we all have limits as to what we want our city to do to increase tax revenues, its just that some of us have a different idea of where to draw that line. I draw the line wherever I see waste and bad judgment, which is what I think the two lakes project is. I also draw the line to exclude the aforementioned clubs, as you probably do, too. In the two lakes real estate development plan, as proposed, there is no provision for public trails and recreational parks contained within a wide buffer zone of green space along the river. Therefore I must conclude that your suggestion to 'the Corp.' has fallen on deaf ears. I am pretty sure the new owners of the land along the riverfront would have boat docks so they could get access, but where in the plan is the public access? And even if they throw in a couple of public boat ramps, how is this different from the Reservoir or how does it offer a unique and wide variety of recreational options that will be attractive to the 'creative class' that the project is supposed to attract? A greenway plan with some levee improvements would require far less use of eminent domain laws to obtain land and it would not flood the land permanently. It would also be much less expensive to implement. Speculation that developments outside downtown would somehow magically lead to improvements in Belhaven and the downtown area seems unfounded to me. Where are the money commitments to improve downtown if this project goes through? Show me. My speculation is that the money for devlopment in the Metro area will be exhausted for many years to come by this project and that downtown will continue to waste away. It seems at least as likely that this version is correct as it is that yours is correct. I agree with most folks that the environment is only as good as what it can do for humans. But the remaining green spaces along the river actually do quite a lot for the humans who live in the Metro area, so tossing aside the 'environmental aspects' for short-term monetary gains is a win-lose proposition. I think there's a win-win option, that's all I'm saying.
- Author
- PaulC
- Date
- 2006-05-26T17:51:24-06:00
- ID
- 79900
- Comment
Great article! PaulC you are right on about viewing Jackson with a regional perspective. As a born and raised Jacksonian, I can tell you that was the perception when the Reservoir was built. It was only when flight to the suburbs began in earnest that such extreme turfism emerged. Every city and community has distinctive characterizes whether they are positive or negative. It is the job of the leaders to build on the positive and deal with the negative. Question to Adam: “If the twin lakes project is built, how will this affect the site of the new arena football facility? It appears the park to the east would be flooded. Is anyone looking at this?
- Author
- realtime
- Date
- 2006-05-27T09:25:23-06:00
- ID
- 79901
- Comment
Great reporting on this issue. I sense a bias against the development of the project, but that's o.k. You did such a great job of being thorough and getting all sides, that your bias doesn't detract from my abiltiy to inform myself through your article. I work as river engineer, so I am very interested in the project. I really haven't learned much about it, so that's why I really appreciate your article. My first inclination, without knowing more details, is to think that the project as it stands ain't such a great idea. I think there should be a more creative way to mitigate flooding, promote investment, AND preserve at least some of the freshwater wetlands in the floodplain. It would be nice if the city looked at something like the Kissimmee river restoration in Florida, where they are integrating the natural meandering river-floodplain planform with off-channel conveyance networks, that are only used during heavy flooding. Maybe they could use this together with a plan that only floods the lower portion of the existing floodplain (say from South of I-20 to I-55), which would give us a smaller lake right around the stack, where the overbanks are pretty much mauled anyway. Something like that might work better. I'll examine the EIS and see what I think. Anyway, thanks again.
- Author
- GLB
- Date
- 2006-05-27T16:29:56-06:00
- ID
- 79902
- Comment
I agree with Larry Fisher. If you make lakes out of the Pearl River at the points where Jackson's water drains into it you necessarily raise the level of the Pearl at those points. If the Pearl is raised on a permanent basis it cannot handle more drainage but rather less drainage. If the Pearl is "full" its tributaries will not empty into it but will be more likely to back up with increased floods into the neighborhoods up stream. Actually by putting a lake below Barnett you diminish its flood control aspects unless it is above (upstream) from our main drainage points. Barnett ideally witholds the water from the Pearl so that it is lower downstream and therefore able to accept more drainage water from Jackson.
- Author
- pneville
- Date
- 2006-05-28T15:46:31-06:00
- ID
- 79903
- Comment
pneville, what you are saying is not entirely true. Certainly, making the water higher in the new lakes can cause water to back up into tributary creeks (this is called a backwater effect). But if they make the lakes, they're going to dredge the existing wetlands. This wil make the whole floodplain deeper than it is now, but more importantly it will remove the vegetation, which drags on the water and slows it down. Essentially, if you have a floodplain with vegetation, the flood coming down river slows down and plies up, from the drag. If the vegetation is removed, and the flood is pasing over smoother lake bottom, it can move shallower and faster. Also, if they know a flood is coming (which they can predict a few days out) they can open some floodgates and lower the lake levels, so there is more capacity to store flood water. Again, I'm not advocating the plan, but they are right in that it will probably be able to help with flooding. How much it helps depends on how good their engineering analysis is. Also, one more thing. If you put weirs in a river, you tend to trap sediment. This sediment then can't renourish the river downstrean, and this can result in erosion (some of this was mentioned in the story). So any final plan needs to take this into account.
- Author
- GLB
- Date
- 2006-05-28T16:31:40-06:00
- ID
- 79904
- Comment
Something that hasn't come up is the possibility that a comprehensive greenway development along the Pearl being able to do is offer an alternative *transportation* option in Jackson, along with the parks and greenway benefits. When I visited Athens, Georgia last year, I was impressed with how handy the greenway paths were for younger folks who like a biking, skating option for getting around. And, the fact is that private residential development took full advantage of the river greenway project -- apartments, condos and renovated homes for students and professionals sprang up, even a few miles north of downtown, in part because of the alternative transportation options they had for getting to the Georgia campus that is just south of downtown in Athens. The weekend I went, there was a massive bike race and rally that made use of the streets and the greenway. The greenway itself was a reasonably simple development that is designed to withstand flooding and create a buffer against further development on the banks of the river -- it's also very cool for biking, rollerblading, picnicking, nature-lovin' dates -- and it's completely open to the public, not managed as a state park. Purty as hell, to boot. There are Rails-to-Trails opportunities in Jackson from the fairgrounds (and, ultimately, downtown) through Belhaven and up to the river. There are also some dead municipal projects that could offer access to the river, not to mention the levees that people already use for jogging and dog-walking...If, somehow, we got in our collective heads that Jackson could use a greenway that connected downtown to the Reservoir, it would offer an extraordinary "creative class" asset for Jackson that would enable people to get from some very charming places to live and work up to the "motor boat lake" that we already have -- in spades -- as part of the Metro Jackson swiss army knife of assets to attract more bid'ness. Finally, from what I've seen of the Two Lakes project, you're talking about losing a great deal of hardwood forest and tree canopy that currently surrounds the Pearl, reaches into downtown and gives us some remarkably breathable air. Plus, the proposed lakes are downstream from quite a bit of development, parking lots, concrete and would encourage even more development right up against the banks -- frankly, I'm pretty concerned about water quality in those slow-moving lakes...would they be fishable, swimmable, etc.? Or might that water, ultimately, come to resemble the waters in that coveted San Antonio riverwalk a bit more than we'd really like.
- Author
- Todd Stauffer
- Date
- 2006-05-28T19:07:01-06:00
- ID
- 79905
- Comment
GBL-If LaFlure Lakes retains the power to discharge the retained water to accomidate flooding on the tributaries it will not be usefull for developement as the homes and boats will be left high and dry. If the main channel of the Pearl is dredged to hold greater quantities of water it will cause greater flooding downstream when released. Barnett because it is upstream from Jackson helps Jackson, marginally, by holding water. LaFlure is either at the tributaries or below them so it would have to release at every rain downburst to do any good resulting in both flooding below and problems for those at its waterside.
- Author
- pneville
- Date
- 2006-05-28T20:17:31-06:00
- ID
- 79906
- Comment
pneville: yes, that's true that if they dewater the lake in anticipation of flooding, the water will periodically drop well below the property lines of the houses. But only temporarily, because I assume they'd only drop it if they knew flooding was coming from further upstream. And yes, if they wanted to accommodate flooding on the local tribs, it would be a big problem because they'd have to just keep the lake levels really low. But I suspect the lakes will not be designed to accommodate local tributary backwater flooding, but rather flooding coming downstream from further up in the pearl watershed. Still, that leaves the problem of the backwater effect in the local tribs unresolved. A lot of this stuff is in the details, and I'm not privy to those. I was just wanting to point out that it probably is possible to improve flood mitigation with a lake project. That doesn't mean it's the best idea, but it would be effective. Anyway, you seem to know more about the local hydrology that I do, so maybe I'm saying things that don't make sense for Jackson. If so, I apologize. I'm mostly just speaking in general terms, about how water moves through watersheds. Anyway, thanks for the discussion. Like I said, when the EIS comes out, I'll get a copy and try to educate myself a little more.
- Author
- GLB
- Date
- 2006-05-29T17:16:07-06:00
- ID
- 79907
- Comment
GLB-I spent a year litigating Jackson flooding. Most of Jackson's yearly flooding is caused by backwater flash flooding on the tributaries. The water quickly drains away but has already done its damage to your house. If the Pearl is a lake there is nowhere for it to go until the lake is lowered. The Great Flood involved the entire Pearl River Basin and didn't go away for sereral days because the Pear was a great lake.
- Author
- pneville
- Date
- 2006-05-29T18:11:34-06:00
- ID
- 79908
- Comment
Hmmm... Well, I think I see the problem. The prposed project is designed to mitigate floods coming from upstream: that is, floods in the wider Pearl river watershed. And I think it would do that effectively, for the reasons I stated earlier (i.e. improved conveyance efficiency). However, I agree with you that it would not do anything to mitgate local flooding, and could exacerbalte it. So the question is, do we want a project that protects us from a large event (say, a 50 year event), but may make the small events worse (the 2 year event or less)? I am largely ignorant of the specifics in Jackson, but one thing that I think could help (regardless of whether or not the lakes project is built) would be to just maintain the dang storm drainage system. Do you think this would help? Also, I've thought for awhile about trying to develop some community based programs that are sort of like a habitat-for-humamity for storm drainage. If the local community agrees to keep the debris out of the storm drainiange network, the city will agree to maintain the channels. I know there has been talk of the need to actually retrofit a new storn drainiage system, but that is quite expensive. I would bet that a lot of improvement could be realized by just maintaining the existing system. Anyway, do you think something like this might be worthwhile?
- Author
- GLB
- Date
- 2006-05-30T09:17:08-06:00
- ID
- 79909
- Comment
build a spillway at the south end of the Lakes. drain when neccessary. problem solved.
- Author
- JSU
- Date
- 2006-05-30T09:48:46-06:00
- ID
- 79910
- Comment
there are apparently two topics on this subject. I'll just repost my comments here: Paul Cwrote-"I'm saying is that this two lakes plan, as proposed, will hurt us, not help us, in the long run." How? name some reasons. here are a few of mine that I think will make it work: 1. It would be MAJOR aesthetic upgrade to the city causing tourists to stop on their way to whereever and spend money in the process.. put light poles and walkways to light it up at night along with the building lights. Jackson is a crossroads city. travellers from Atlanta to Miami going to Cali, from Texas and Cali going to Miami, from detroit to chicago going to what was once new Orleans,. come through here. 2. put a man-made beach on one side of it. attract all types of water loving people, but only allow small water craft on the lake such as jet skis and paddle boats for a fee..again more money for the city which could be used to help upkeep the evironmental side of things. this would also create jobs via landscaping companies to help with the maintenance of the island. 3. souvenir shops the sell all things Jackson(t-shirts, pennants,buttons, caps,etc.., promote the city and what we have and what we have to offer. more money for the city. 4. have the great Mississippi balloon race start and or finnish from the Island. attract people to the city. 5. add a park(small fee) with picnic tables and built in grills for family outings, basketball courts, tennis courts etc.. 6. Kite flying competitions are big in other city's, Jackson could host one from the Island. again..promote the city. 7. include and upgrade the mayes lake are for tourists to enjoy when they stop, for a fee...more money... see a trend here? the list goes on...the pros far outwiegh the cons. .....paul c wrote- "Providing better and more diverse recreation is a HUMAN issue, not a 'worm' issue. The fact that some people are birdwatchers is important because they view that as a form of recreation, not because I value birds more than humans." see above comments. ...paul c rwote-"As for the area over by the zoo, what would you propose we do to help the folks over there? If it's not a casino, what would it be? ......" A casino would help that area without being in that area. those people would get jobs at the casino wherever it's built. but that area is not the best look for Jackson, Two Lakes is. What they need to do over there is refurbish and re-excite that Zoo. that place used to be the bomb, now it's rundown. it needs a facelift
- Author
- JSU
- Date
- 2006-05-30T09:50:35-06:00
- ID
- 79911
- Comment
and to think ,there wasn't this much debate on the Rez. Ross Barnett just did it.
- Author
- JSU
- Date
- 2006-05-30T09:57:31-06:00
- ID
- 79912
- Comment
GBL and JSU-Jackson has 100 year events on its tributaries with alarming frequency. The Great Flood of 79 was a 500 year event. While programs to clear channels of debris and brush possibly have some effect I have not found an expert that can quantify the difference this makes in these cloudburst generated events. If Jackson could widen and deepen the drainage channels on these tributaries this would make a difference BUT this would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. It would be cheaper to condemn the houses most at risk and demolish them for parks or parking lots. A continuous spillway would not make any difference since we would be working from a river that had been effectively raised 20 feet (guess?) and broadened to a lake. The water coming down the tributaries would meet the river/lake sooner and back up quicker. The spillway might allow it to drain off quicker after the flood had occurred but thats what we have now.
- Author
- pneville
- Date
- 2006-05-30T10:10:18-06:00
- ID
- 79913
- Comment
"build a spillway at the south end of the Lakes. drain when neccessary. problem solved." -JSU According to the Two Lakes plans, I believe there will be a dam (with drain control) at the southern end which help control lake levels. You can view details and plans for Two Lakes @ www.twolake.com.
- Author
- kaust
- Date
- 2006-05-30T10:12:03-06:00
- ID
- 79914
- Comment
Well Knol, I have a problem with that. that site is all about builbing homes on the site, not a place for the city to go have fun at. I totally disagree with all the houses on it. condos too. maybe one big hotel is all it needs. the rest should be geared towards Jackson's lifestyle and allow ALL the citizens to enjoy the area, not just some rich big home owners.
- Author
- JSU
- Date
- 2006-05-30T10:23:46-06:00
- ID
- 79915
- Comment
JSU, the island won't be in Jackson from what I can make of the proposed island location. So, your hopes for a city island may be crushed. The perk to Jackson is acres and acres of land that could potentially be developed...
- Author
- kaust
- Date
- 2006-05-30T10:25:33-06:00
- ID
- 79916
- Comment
....pneville wrote -"It would be cheaper to condemn the houses most at risk and demolish them for parks or parking lots." most of the houses are rundown crack spots anyway, bulldoze em'. eminent domain. ...pneville wrote -"A continuous spillway would not make any difference since we would be working from a river that had been effectively raised 20 feet (guess?) and broadened to a lake. The water coming down the tributaries would meet the river/lake sooner and back up quicker." Keep the spillway open. let the water flow. simple. manage it like they are managing the REz right now. that's a few jobs created right there.
- Author
- JSU
- Date
- 2006-05-30T10:29:55-06:00
- ID
- 79917
- Comment
Knol wrote -"JSU, the island won't be in Jackson from what I can make of the proposed island location. So, your hopes for a city island may be crushed. " I was picturing it to be located on both sides of I-55 close to the Pearl bridge and over by the stack and the other side of I-20. there's a metal crushing or city dump or something in the area too. am I in the right locale? Knol wrote-"The perk to Jackson is acres and acres of land that could potentially be developed..." we sure can use it.
- Author
- JSU
- Date
- 2006-05-30T10:33:34-06:00
- ID
- 79918
- Comment
We could defintely use the land for development though I'd like to see just as much effort in saving West and South Jackson as there is in saving NE and East Jackson. As for the island, go view the plan and you'll see that the island looks to be in Rankin County... This is actually one of my biggest issues with the island. Rankin has quite a bit of land to develop and work with (certainly more than Jackson at this point). From every bit of my understanding, the island will be in Rankin County(though a good portion of the sand/dirt used to create the island is from Jackon's turf) which means the tax dollars generated on the island will go to Rankin and possible Pearl(?) rather than Jackson.
- Author
- kaust
- Date
- 2006-05-30T10:38:21-06:00
- ID
- 79919
- Comment
Knol wrote -"As for the island, go view the plan and you'll see that the island looks to be in Rankin County... This is actually one of my biggest issues with the island. Rankin has quite a bit of land to develop and work with (certainly more than Jackson at this point). From every bit of my understanding, the island will be in Rankin County(though a good portion of the sand/dirt used to create the island is from Jackon's turf) which means the tax dollars generated on the island will go to Rankin and possible Pearl(?) rather than Jackson." I need to really go look at this picture lay out. post the link Knol.
- Author
- JSU
- Date
- 2006-05-30T10:49:24-06:00
- ID
- 79920
- Comment
Quick correct to Knol's link...it's: http://www.twolake.com On the site under the link "visible improvement to our area's economy" is a piece by Wyatt Emmerich talking about how we could become the "Venice of the South." My thinking is that a lot of what he's talking about could accomplished in a way that's just as effective -- and less cost-intense and conservative from a resources perspective -- if we have a visible, vibrant greenway and access to the river from the spillway entrance down to the areas below downtown. Emmerich says the levee plan would have no economic impact, but the truth is that a hiking, biking, canoeing, kayaking resources could have a great deal of economic impact, because it's attractive to younger families, students, professionals -- the folks we need in Jackson as entrepreneurs and knowledge workers and teachers and artists. Because the lakes proposal/project is so destructive, it would require some extraordinary environment mitigation as a matter of course and law...and where, exactly, are those urban trees going to be replanted or replaced? Here's a piece regarding some of the potential environmental impact: http://mississippi.sierraclub.org/newsletter/archives/2004/03/a_016.html I dunno...my thought is that we should maintain the river as a *river* and concentrate on taking flood control measures while making the *river* more accessible for Metro residents.
- Author
- Todd Stauffer
- Date
- 2006-05-30T10:57:35-06:00
- ID
- 79921
- Comment
My link above was incorrect (corrected it). The URL is www.twolake.com. Map of projected lakes. Artist renderings of proposed island.
- Author
- kaust
- Date
- 2006-05-30T10:59:08-06:00
- ID
- 79922
- Comment
and to think ,there wasn't this much debate on the Rez. Ross Barnett just did it. Yeah, he "just did" a lot of things. Look where that got us. ;-) Viva la debate.
- Author
- DonnaLadd
- Date
- 2006-05-30T11:12:04-06:00
- ID
- 79923
- Comment
Here's a site for the Athen's greenway: http://www.athensgreenway.com/ The Trinity River plan in Dallas offers a "balanced" approach, but one that seeks to maintain wetlands, control flooding, offer amenities (like very small lakes) and still create greenway parks, access to the river and so on. http://www.trinityrivercorridor.org/index.html Some general greenways stuff: http://www.greenways.com/pages/about.html
- Author
- Todd Stauffer
- Date
- 2006-05-30T11:12:35-06:00
- ID
- 79924
- Comment
" JSU Pollutin Post to ATLexile from the other Blog Thoughts on Twin Lakes" Yes and “JSU” that is correct. It would be best to limit it to charter boat (dinner on the lake kinda thing) and very small craft. But also it is best that there should be no private access to the water. Controlled at certain “landings” only (like wharfs). That way it does not become the elegant “playground” of the few. Think of the way you access Lake Michigan: Lake, Shoreline, Public road (the loop), sidewalk, “tall things” or buildings as such. Meaning there would inevitably be a lot of high end housing up toward the northern reaches (that land that would flood when I was a kid) but, if you live up in the new “silk stocking” district all you get is a view you don’t get a private shore, like on the REZ.
- Author
- ATLExile
- Date
- 2006-05-30T11:13:42-06:00
- ID
- 79925
- Comment
Nosing in on the Greenway Debate as well.........The Greenway space is indeed a good idea and would preserve the belt of natural habitat along the banks of the mighty Pearl. The problem being that either way there is going to have to be more reliable flood control along both side of the river and it will be accomplished by the lakes or by high levees. There could be no Greenway without a barrier such as a levee because the Greenway would mostly flood at spring high water and be a constant maintenance problem as far as debris and repair (i.e. the wreckage at Mayes Lake after a high flood). The levees would stop that but would also eliminate the natural strip against the shore. It would seem, indeed that the lakes, with Greenway, would be the obvious solution. Many times when I was growing up at the end of Wild Valley Drive the river would flood the woods up till about a little over a quarter mile from the back door. The Pearl channel was one and a half miles from the house. You could count on it every other spring. Not too long ago there was a plan to build a parkway road on top of a levee and skirt the Jackson side from the Rez spillway/levee all the way to DT. Where’d that idea go? Like a real riverside drive!
- Author
- ATLExile
- Date
- 2006-05-30T11:20:52-06:00
- ID
- 79926
- Comment
that map makes it clearer for me. I like it. It's still in Jackson/Hinds for the most part.
- Author
- JSU
- Date
- 2006-05-30T11:26:32-06:00
- ID
- 79927
- Comment
wouldn't builing a road on top of the levee be a flood hazard? it would have to be elevated like an expressway.
- Author
- JSU
- Date
- 2006-05-30T11:28:54-06:00
- ID
- 79928
- Comment
GLB, studies done by the Corps of Engineers when they were not artificially constrained to limited alternatives showed that the best way to approach flood reduction in Jackson was to implement upriver strategies. In 1970, they recommended three small recreational and flood control lakes at strategic points upriver on the major tributaries. They were deemed, "not economically justifiable", after which Jackson took the hit that would have paid for that plan and more. In the mid 80's they recommended an upriver dry dam. The dry dam ran into opposition from a few powerful State House politicians from the proposed area for the dry dam. In the mid 90's, the Corps was asked to evaluate the levee system in the Metro area and recommend improvements. The Corps also apparently took a quick look at the two lakes plan at that time and didn't think too highly of it. The levees haven't been done and the Corps has been roped into looking at this two lakes thing. It's the same old story. The politicians wouldn't OK the levee improvements, why? Because levee improvements would have negated the need for the real estate developers plan. So, Jackson is still unprotected on purpose. My personal speculation is that the Corps still doesn't have a very high opinion of two lakes. Recently, at a symposium on the Pearl River, the Corps spokesman and the private engineering firm spokeman said that there were still some potentially serious problems to work out. Chief among these unresolved issues was how to get the water past the south end of the second lake. This choke point for all the projected flood water is like a point at which an eight-lane highway suddenly narrows down to a two lane highway. The problem, according to the Corps spokesman, was that the water would pool up there. He said that they thought that new levees would have to be constructed to contain this pool, but I didn't get the sense that this was considered to be a complete fix. I would speculate (because I'm not a river engineer) that one way to fix it would be to straighten out and widen the river for many miles to the south. This seems to beg the issue of the need to stop the water before it ever gets to Jackson in the first place. It seems to me that once the water does get to Jackson from upriver, the problem of a major flood event has already been magnified to the point that it is difficult or even impossible to solve with anything short of a straight and wide concrete-lined ditch all the way to the Gulf. No matter where the river narrows again, the water will pool up there during a major flood event and inundate the local residents of that area. Concerning streamside vegetation, the fact that it does slow the water down has beneficial effects on water quality in Jackson and downstream. Vegetation and the soil that supports it serve as natural water filters. If thousand of acres of vegetation were removed we would need to build a very costly stormwater capture and filtration system to replace the natural filtration of runoff from the Jackson area. None of the folks down south of us want a disgusting or dead river running through their communities or through their land. The best answers for solving flooding problems in Jackson were put forth over twenty and thirty years ago, and nothing has changed that would negate the effectiveness of either of those solutions. Jackson should not the be the focal point for solving upstream problems and Jackson should not flush its problems downstream.
- Author
- PaulC
- Date
- 2006-05-30T13:04:14-06:00
- ID
- 79929
- Comment
PaulC: Thanks for the overview. I've got no problem with anything you said. I suspect the best solution for the whole system would be to have small mitigation options all the way down the river (like off-channel detention or small dams) rather than a big system at Jackson. So I have no problem with that. I was just arguing that the two lakes proposal would probably be able to help with flooding from upriver events (not local flooding). I wasn't arguing that that meant it was a good proposal overall. I think the decision of whether or not it is a good proposal will hinge on whether or not the residents of this city think the wetlands are worth preserving. I think the two lakes can probably be made to effectively mitigate these floods and provide economic development (I don't know this, but I tihnk it is likely). So ultimately, the wetlands will only be preserved if they are deemed worth preserving for their own sake. I would personlly like to see them preserved if at all possible, because I think they are biologically and aestheticaly valuable. I LIKE them, for one thing, but more than that they seem to my non-biologist eye to be productive, healthy riparian wetlands and bottomlands. Taht's why I'd like to see a plan where maybe the wetlands north of I-55 are preserved (by adding a flood relief channel alongside the meander belt that it only used for floods), and then maybe impounding a lake in between I-55 and I20. I have no idea if this is feasible or not, but something like it would be nice. Anyway, when the EIS comes out, we'll see what the Corps has to say about it. BTW, I happen to know that there are several old family burial plots IN THE FLOODPLAIN, just downstream of the spillway. IF the lakes are built, these plots wil be underwater. Has anyone considered what would happen to these?
- Author
- GLB
- Date
- 2006-05-30T13:57:01-06:00
- ID
- 79930
- Comment
JSU says: "1. It would be MAJOR aesthetic upgrade..." A greenway would be a bigger aesthetic upgrade than a casino and condos. It would cost less. Development monies could then be used in places in Jackson that really needs help. "2. put a man-made beach on one side of it...allow small water craft on the lake... " There are already beaches along the Pearl. A greenway would make them more accessible. Small water craft can already use the Pearl, but there are few places to put in and take out. A greenway would give more access points for recreation. "3. souvenir shops the sell all things Jackson..." & "4. have the great Mississippi balloon race..." & "6. Kite flying competitions...." We can do all those things and more with a greenway! "5. add a park...." We already have a park. It needs some maintenance. It doesn't need to be destroyed so someone can design and build a new one, even if they were going to do that. That's wasteful. "7. include and upgrade the mayes lake" The two lakes real estate development plan destroys the Mayes Lake area of LeFleur's Bluff State Park. The powers that be have decided that already. JSU, the more you argue against a greenway, the more you seem to embrace the ideas that a greenway would promote, more and better recreation for citizens and tourists, increase in land values near a greenway, etc. The important thing to realize about the two lakes real estate development plan is that NONE of these ideas have been incorporated into the plan, no 'greenway around the lakes' is possible, because all the major green space will be destroyed or turned into fully developed real estate for private use. The pushers of the two lakes plan are dead set on private exploitation of the land to the detriment of the general citizenship. They have shown ZERO INTEREST IN NEGOTIATING any kind of plan that would incorporate saving the existing green space. Why? Because it would turn the plan into a 'levees plus greenway plan' with limited 'opportunities' for putting in a casino or some expensive shopping malls and cookie-cutter house neighborhoods and McMansions, just like the Ross Barnett Reservoir already has. We could have a truly beautiful and attractive and healthy riverfront area with a greenway. A greenway would create the sense of place that would attract more folks of all types and backgrounds to the area. The existing neighborhoods near the river would increase in value and attractiveness. The development dollars proposed for the two lakes real estate development plan would best be spent in other areas of Jackson where the need is great and the opportunities are sitting right there in front of us - there is no need to concoct a wasteful plan for my federal tax dollars to be spent on. As for the Zoo area, JSU says "those people would get jobs at the casino". That's a pretty pathetic bone to throw to the some of the most economically deprived folks in town. And JSU says "What they need to do over there is refurbish and re-excite that Zoo." I agree, the people around the Zoo could use an influx of re-development money in their neighborhood and for the Zoo. Why not focus on that area and others that need help?
- Author
- PaulC
- Date
- 2006-05-30T14:25:40-06:00
- ID
- 79931
- Comment
In reference to my own last comment, lest anyone say that I mean that a few jobs would not be meaningful to a few individuals from around the Zoo area who could get them, that is not what I intended to imply. What I did mean to imply is that this is a paltry offering IN RELATION TO the huge benefits that would accrue to the whole neighborhood if a fraction of the two lakes development dollars were spent IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. How about a new business park and residential revitalization for the Zoo area combined with more expansion and upgrading of the Zoo? If we would do something IN the neighborhood, it would create far MORE jobs for the residents there than a casino fifteen or twenty miles away would.
- Author
- PaulC
- Date
- 2006-05-30T15:08:37-06:00
- ID
- 79932
- Comment
Paul C, ANY new businesses or upgraded/expaned businesses ANYWHERE in the city would create jobs. the plan with 2Lakes is to create an economic boost via new ideas and tourist dollars. at least that's what I thought.
- Author
- JSU
- Date
- 2006-05-31T10:33:18-06:00
- ID
- 79933
- Comment
...Not that the Zoo won't do that, but Jackson looks like a haunted ghost town when you're driving in from the "front door" of the city(I-55/I-20 junction by the stack). Lakes would greatly improve that. show travellers that Anthony Perkins is not waiting on them when they check into our hotels..lol
- Author
- JSU
- Date
- 2006-05-31T10:45:07-06:00
- ID
- 79934
- Comment
how much of those dollars from real estate development and businesses would go into Jackson's tax coffers? Can someone help me with that? thanks
- Author
- Izzy
- Date
- 2006-05-31T10:53:20-06:00
- ID
- 79935
- Comment
how much of those dollars from real estate development and businesses would go into Jackson's tax coffers? Can someone help me with that? thanks
- Author
- Izzy
- Date
- 2006-05-31T10:53:21-06:00
- ID
- 79936
- Comment
...Laurel wrote -"how much of those dollars from real estate development and businesses would go into Jackson's tax coffers?" in the past and now present, Jackson "officials" don't fare well when there's a cookie jar close bar. We'll worry about that later after we actually use some of the money.
- Author
- JSU
- Date
- 2006-05-31T10:59:17-06:00
- ID
- 79937
- Comment
no, what I meant was, isn't some of it going to go to Rankin County not Hinds?
- Author
- Izzy
- Date
- 2006-05-31T11:07:26-06:00
- ID
- 79938
- Comment
Yeah. What county would the island in the middle of the lake belong to?
- Author
- GLB
- Date
- 2006-05-31T11:10:15-06:00
- ID
- 79939
- Comment
From my understanding the island would go to Rankin... Again, that's one of my biggest issues with it. Would be nice if either the island were mutually owned and maintained or 1/2 went to Jxn and 1/2 to Rankin. Still, more than a few acres (according to the plans) would be available for development along the Jackson side that is currently not available for development.
- Author
- kaust
- Date
- 2006-05-31T11:18:55-06:00
- ID
- 79940
- Comment
Jackson should own most of it if not all of it. if Rankin is a part of it they can help pay for it too.
- Author
- JSU
- Date
- 2006-05-31T11:30:03-06:00
- ID
- 79941
- Comment
From my understanding the island would go to Rankin... Again, that's one of my biggest issues with it. Would be nice if either the island were mutually owned and maintained or 1/2 went to Jxn and 1/2 to Rankin. Still, more than a few acres (according to the plans) would be available for development along the Jackson side that is currently not available for development. That's my biggest problem with this idea, not that it can't be done as the engineers suggest, but I don't want to see Flowood/Rankin County get an uneven benefit from the lakes or the island (and therefore the taxes), which is why I think Harvey was lukewarm to the concept. Flowood has too much of a leg up on us in development to just give them another source of revenue. But I don't suppose there is much that can be done to avoid that.
- Author
- Jeff Lucas
- Date
- 2006-05-31T11:30:51-06:00
- ID
- 79942
- Comment
maybe the 2Lakes can be put on the 220hwy side of Jackson? plenty of undeveloped land going that way. then just let the excess water flow throw the sewers.
- Author
- JSU
- Date
- 2006-05-31T11:50:11-06:00
- ID
- 79943
- Comment
I also think the loss of the public use of the park (or is it just the lake?)is a pretty big problem. I am thinking of the lake in downtown Boston where they have swan rides. It's great, with weeping willows, plenty of public space for picnics. I need to look at the plans again to understand which if any will be public spaces.
- Author
- Izzy
- Date
- 2006-05-31T12:33:49-06:00
- ID
- 79944
- Comment
Laurel, I'm with you on public spaces. As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm all about the city owning some land for public parks.
- Author
- kaust
- Date
- 2006-05-31T12:47:57-06:00
- ID
- 79945
- Comment
If you have ever been down in the "creeks" that run through the Belhaven neighborhood, you have probably noticed the iridescent sheen that coats the top of the water. There is a tremendous amount of street runoff that feeds into the tributaries flowing through our neighborhoods. These are constantly flushed into the Pearl and flow out South. Well, if they contain these tributaries to the Pearl, that run-off is just going to build behind our houses. It is already pretty disappointing that wildlife can hardly live in these creeks anymore, i would hate to see the mess made by stopping up all the street run off behind our houses. If you go explore some of the yards boarding these creeks you will see that at one time they were obviously focal points for entertaining. It would be amazing if they were attractive and usable again as a point of interest and not a toxic eyesore.
- Author
- daniel johnson
- Date
- 2006-06-01T14:33:20-06:00
- ID
- 79946
- Comment
reminds me of venice, california the canals there little footbridges, ducks in the water
- Author
- Izzy
- Date
- 2006-06-01T19:55:40-06:00
- ID
- 79947
- Comment
JSU "...ANY new businesses or upgraded/expaned businesses ANYWHERE in the city would create jobs." We agree. That's my point. Exactly. So let's put the businesses where they can do the MOST good. Why should we be happy with projects that are less effective and more wasteful? JSU "...Not that the Zoo won't do that, but Jackson looks like a haunted ghost town when you're driving in from the "front door" of the city(I-55/I-20 junction by the stack). Lakes would greatly improve that. show travellers that Anthony Perkins is not waiting on them when they check into our hotels..lol" The Metro area will not become a tourist haven just because they cut the heart out of it and build stuff. Contrary to what they would have you believe, tourists are not going to be attracted by more development along the river. If this were the case, tourists would be flocking to the Ross Barnett Reservoir. Instead, we see that the Rez is used mostly by local citizens. A greenway would make the central Metro area into a more livable place for the existing citizens and attract more creative class individuals to the core of our area. To me, it's about livability not 'curb appeal', and creating false horror stories about Jackson certainly doesn't help your argument any. Trying to dress up the I-55 to I-20 intersection area would be like putting lipstick on a pig. There is simply too much traffic there for the area to be attractive to anyone. Who would want to live around that intersection? Who would want to be outdoors around there? The diesel fumes and traffic noise will prevent any attractive development from taking hold. The best possible thing to do with that area would be to keep it green to provide that buffer between it and downtown. Knol : "Still, more than a few acres (according to the plans) would be available for development along the Jackson side that is currently not available for development." Knol, after the 1961 flood the levees were expanded and upgraded. The levees were completed in 1968, which then made more land 'available for development.' The majority of homes that were flooded in 1979 were built on the land that had become 'available for development' in 1968. Enjoy the '79 Flood? Here, have another one, only worse this time because of all the new building on lands made 'available for development'...... Laurel: "I am thinking of the lake in downtown Boston where they have swan rides. It's great, with weeping willows, plenty of public space for picnics." Laurel, that is the Boston Commons, which was originally set aside in the center of Boston town for use as a common grazing area for urban citizens' livestock. Our founding fathers understood the need for commons areas, but what they could not foresee was the use of these areas in the future as human 'grazing' areas. The city of Boston has its Commons, which IS a tourist destination and the city of New York has its Central Park, which IS a tourist destination. A greenway plan would be more like these areas than two lakes would ever be.
- Author
- PaulC
- Date
- 2006-06-02T06:01:48-06:00
- ID
- 79948
- Comment
....paul c wrote -" So let's put the businesses where they can do the MOST good. Why should we be happy with projects that are less effective and more wasteful?" the Zoo is on the interior of the city, it won't be as effective. attracting tourism is best accomplished when travellers see how your city LOOKS as they pass through it. EVERY city that has a water feature attracts people. the Rez was built OFF ROUTE, back in the woods. It was meant to be that way. The Rez wasn't built to attract tourism. The 2Lakes will show visitors passing through our city that we got it going on and how do you like us now? Right now Jackson looks like a big ghetto, with underbrush overgrowing the hwy's and bi-ways. Time for change. paul C do you even live in Jackson. You sound like you live in Madison, next to the Rez.
- Author
- JSU
- Date
- 2006-06-02T08:00:04-06:00
- ID
- 79949
- Comment
...paul c wrote- "Trying to dress up the I-55 to I-20 intersection area would be like putting lipstick on a pig. " Do you say the same for the intersection of I-55N/Madison exit? that pig was preety ugly back in the day. now look at her, such a pretty hefer she's become.
- Author
- JSU
- Date
- 2006-06-02T08:02:37-06:00
- ID
- 79950
- Comment
Putting lipstick on a pig is really quite flattering. But the eyeliner always makes them look a bit trampy.
- Author
- GLB
- Date
- 2006-06-02T09:58:43-06:00
- ID
- 79951
- Comment
JSU, tourist-friendly cities have attractions all around the town. We need to focus on making the whole city better and spend those dollars in places where it will do the most good for the folks that need it. That Madison exit sure does bring in the tourists from all over the country doesn't it? The way you make it sound, the city of Madison must be a real tourist heaven now that they gussied up their Interstate. Is that all you've got? Not much, I'd say. "EVERY city that has a water feature attracts people." We agree, so let's build that beautiful greenway, it'll knock your socks off how beautiful and useful it could be. You and everyone else that drives by. It' would attract lots of folks. People of all kinds. It would make our city a better place to live, too. By the way, I already said that I live in Jackson. I was born here and I've lived here all my life. There's no need to get personal about it just because you can't make a good argument based on facts.
- Author
- PaulC
- Date
- 2006-06-02T10:15:52-06:00
- ID
- 79952
- Comment
Just for you, GLB: ^ . . ^ ( @ ) You'll have to provide your own lipstick, though. I suppose YOU'D like to live near a MAJOR Interstate crossover? Or take your children boating underneath it? ;)
- Author
- PaulC
- Date
- 2006-06-02T10:26:54-06:00
- ID
- 79953
- Comment
Pig. by Maybelline. PaulC, I agree with JSU that the area around the stack is just an eyesore, and I don't think it has much ecological value. But what is actually done with it, whether a lake or a greenway or something else, is fine with me. Regardless, whatever plan is implemented must effectively mitigate flooding, or it doesn't serve its purpose (and is very unlikely to get any federal dollars). Hopefully, we can generate a plan that provides economic benefit and preserves at least some of the most productive wetlands and bottomlands as well.
- Author
- GLB
- Date
- 2006-06-02T10:37:02-06:00
- ID
- 79954
- Comment
...Paul C wrote-"it'll knock your socks off how beautiful and useful it could be. You and everyone else that drives by. It' would attract lots of folks. People of all kinds. It would make our city a better place to live, too." Tell me, other than a bike/running trail, will the greenway provide in the way of bringing in immediate tax revenues to get this city back on it's feet? to me, the greenway idea could work but it's more selfish-based than commerce based. What can it offer the average tourist passing through on any given day? and I didn't read where you were from Jackson, my bad. You just don't seem like it.
- Author
- JSU
- Date
- 2006-06-02T13:14:44-06:00
- ID
- 79955
- Comment
GLB I also agree that the Stack area is unattractive. I never said otherwise. As for your statement that it doesn't 'have much ecological value', I'd like to see some unbiased information to support your conclusion. My estimation is that the area does have ecological value as it pertains to the human beings in the Metro area and south, per my comments above. The only part of that area that isn't an eyesore is the greenery that still remains. Many years ago, it was somewhat prettier than it is today. Now, if I recall correctly, the Corps has to contract yearly to clear out brush along the river down there. Rather than clearing it mechanically, they have allowed the use of herbicides which regularly turns the brush and foliage into ugly brown and dead remains. This has destroyed much of the natural beauty that the river had down there. This is another example of how attempts to engineer the river in and around Jackson have had bad consequences. First, we engineer it into ugly, then we say that it is ugly and it needs more engineering to fix it. I'm not inclined to follow that 'logic'. As I also mentioned above, I believe the best answer to floods from upstream is to stop the water before it gets here, not to continue to fight an impossible war once it does get here. I believe that this assertion is backed up by plenty of data that is readily available to the public and supported by common sense as well. We could get the most bang for our buck by implementing upriver solutions, upgrading our levees, and building a real greenway along the river. This would give us better Return On Investment for our economic development dollars. It is a well documented fact that greenways such as the one I am arguing for raise the value of all land adjacent and nearby. Green areas also reduce crime in the communities that are adjacent to them. It would cost at least a hundred million dollars less, and I think that's a conservative estimate. We would get our flood control and economic development without degrading air and water quality that are so important to healthy living for humans. Upgraded and extended levees would indeed destroy or degrade some of our wetlands, so it seems like this plan would also be acceptable to the tree-hugger-haters. I'm NOT saying that the two lakes real estate development plan wouldn't provide some flood control for somebody, but I do know enough now to say that there are still big problems with the design and that it may make things better for some, but a lot worse for a lot of others. What I AM saying is that it is extremely costly even for the development that it would provide, that it will downgrade the basic qualities of the environment most important to human health, and that it won't turn Jackson into a tourist heaven. It won't attract the creative class. As a matter of fact, I speak to young creative class folks frequently and I can tell you that almost none of them think that the two lakes plan is a good idea. They strongly prefer a greenway. The two lakes plan will drive them and people like me, a middle-aged part of the creative class, out of Jackson. I don't say that lightly, because I've lived here all my life and I'm pretty stubborn about staying here. But, if they degrade rather than enhance the general quality of life for the rest of us while chasing after a buck, I'm outta here. If the folks in Jackson don't care enough to try to attract and maintain the young creative class population the future will be no better for us than the recent past has been. Ultimately, success or failure for Jackson is not about whether this two lakes plan can be engineered into a mathematically acceptable solution for Jackson to major flood events coming unimpeded from upriver. It is all about quality of life and attracting a diverse and exciting young population to the center of our Metro area. The money could be much better spent if these are the operative values.
- Author
- PaulC
- Date
- 2006-06-02T13:27:21-06:00
- ID
- 79956
- Comment
JSU, you can call a greenway selfish if you like, but I think that using the citizens' tax dollars to promote the concentration of monies into the hands of a few developers is selfish. I think that degrading the quality of life for lots of folks in order to achieve an upgrade for a few folks is selfish. I think that Jackson will continue to fail if they put in this plan and view it as a quick fix to a lot of social problems that will take time to overcome. The money would be best spent in other ways that are more specifically directed toward solving our problems. As for your other question, I've supplied plenty of info already. Please see my comments above. I may not "seem like" I'm from Jackson, but I am, and I'm willing to stand up and say what I think is right for my home town. You may not agree, some won't. Personally, I don't have anything to gain or lose from two lakes, other than the fact that I view it as an unnecessary and ill-advised plan to degrade my home town using my tax dollars.
- Author
- PaulC
- Date
- 2006-06-02T14:01:16-06:00
- ID
- 79957
- Comment
PaulC: You may be right about the upstream flood mitigation. And that would be a nice option -- it it's doable. Sometimes it's not. But I have to plead ignorance on that: I haven't seen this data. I don't doubt you that it exists, I just haven't seen it. I do work as a river engineer, however, and as such I understand pretty well the pitfalls of trying to tell a river to behave in a way that it doesn't want to. But that doesn't mean that an engineered soluton is always the wrong one. If you could restore the entire watershed to pristine condiitons, then that would be great. But if not, then you have to engineer solutions to try to mitigate the affects of anthropogenic interference. Establishing upstream off-channel storage is an engineered solution as well, and that could also be catastrophic if it is undertakeen improperly. Essentially, we can't unspill the milk. All we can do is try to design the best paper towel. Anyway, I appreciate your advocacy for what you want to see. When the EIS comes out, I'll study it and give you my opinion, for what that's worth.
- Author
- GLB
- Date
- 2006-06-02T14:30:28-06:00
- ID
- 79958
- Comment
....paul C wrote- "I think that degrading the quality of life for lots of folks in order to achieve an upgrade for a few folks is selfish. I think that Jackson will continue to fail if they put in this plan and view it as a quick fix to a lot of social problems that will take time to overcome." At this point Jackson needs all the tax revenue from commerce it can get and I just don't see a hike and bike trail or renovating the Zoo can do it for the city, as noble as it sounds. It just won't get the job done. Jackson needs a financial kick in the pants, not a slight nudge. and it sounds to me like if the 2Lakes plan is revised to meet your approval you'd be all for it, am I right? seems like the only major snag for you is flood control.
- Author
- JSU
- Date
- 2006-06-02T14:41:25-06:00
- ID
- 79959
- Comment
...Paul C wrote- "It is all about quality of life and attracting a diverse and exciting young population to the center of our Metro area." And you propose a hike and bike greenway will do this? I put my money on a Casino or 2lakes.. Lots more potential to attract the younger crowd. Most Mississippians aren't into physical fitness, so putting a greenway up won't entice the fat folks to get out more, but something of interest like a Casino or 2lakes will.
- Author
- JSU
- Date
- 2006-06-02T14:44:42-06:00
- ID
- 79960
- Comment
GLB, I would be glad to share some data with you. I have compiled a self-contained CD with pdf files of most of the relevant portions of all the Corps documents for the basin since the 1960's, plus various other studies done by an assortment of govt agencies. I don't know exactly how it works, but I'm supposed to be able to receive emails redirected to me by this site, if you are interested. I also appreciate your open mind on the issues. However, I have heard the 'pristine' argument too many times.... I never advocated for a total restoration to pristine conditions. In fact, I have embraced the need to apply engineering when necessary. All I am arguing is that the engineering options have been artificially constrained in the current study to disallow the most effective, least harmful engineering solutions. Once you allow the developers to constrain the engineering to their choices you have no real option to engineer the best solution. Granted, the Corps is constrained by politics, so I'm not accusing them of anything other than being the good soldiers that they are, trying to do the best job they can. I'm OK with that. Where the problem lies is in the big money politics that almost always controls these types of river engineering projects. Ignoring the best that science and engineering has to offer is just plain dumb, if you ask me, and dangerous in the long run. Especially when the best science offers less costly, more efficient engineering options. And as for the possibility of catastophic failures, they'd be less economically damaging by far if they were upstream in less populated areas. Also, if the two lakes plan were to include pumping stations for all the creeks that run in the Metro area, stormwater runoff treatment plants at each of those pump sites, and some holding areas to keep the people and towns south of us from getting an extra overload of disgusting stormwater runoff on their living room floors, the project would not be economically viable. So, they will ignore all that by calling downstream citizens and Jackson's regular flashflood victims 'treehuggers' and 'naysayers'. Scientists, too. Watch and see. And yes, I'd be very interested in your opinion of the study when it is released. Thanks for your comments.
- Author
- PaulC
- Date
- 2006-06-02T16:53:06-06:00
- ID
- 79961
- Comment
Thanks PaulC. I may try to do some research on the data, but my problem is just time. I have a day job that keeps me pretty busy, and at night I sometimes want to do something besides stare at more hydraulic data. So I'll probably start with the EIS when it is released and go from there. I will tell you this, however. I don't really have a dog in this hunt, so I can be pretty objective about the engineering side of this. So I'll do my best to paint an accurate picture of what I'm seeing. Thanks for all your work, though. Also, do you know if it is possible to put the issue on a referendum? I think something like this would be ideal for a city-wide referendum, even if it is non-binding.
- Author
- GLB
- Date
- 2006-06-02T17:06:00-06:00
- ID
- 79962
- Comment
JSU, you are very ready to use your imagination and conjure up balloon races and kite contests and souvenir shops for your beloved two lakes plan. However, you refuse to use your imagination when thinking of a greenway plan. You merely insist that it is only a trail for people who aren't fat. The problem is, there wouldn't be enough room on the edge of those lakes to have a balloon race or kite contests or an outdoor music pavilion. There would be if we built a real greenway. Trails for skinny people are only a small part of a greenway plan, JSU. And hey, wouldn't you like it if you didn't have to go to the coliseum to see your favorite events? How about that? A nice big area where we can have outdoor concerts like they do in Central Park in New York City. A place where a hundred thousand people can gather along the river to see a big fireworks display on July 4th, with the Pepsi Pops Symphony, like they do along the river every year in Boston. Those types of events really do pack in the tourists. Show me where the two lakes plan has ANY of that. It really sounds to me like you just want a casino. So, if what you want is a casino, go ahead, put one in downtown on Capitol Street and try it out. There's plenty of space left there after all the businesses have moved out. See if it brings in all those great tax dollars before we spend hundreds of millions to build some extra lakes we don't need. A casino there would bring traffic into the Farish Street revitalization project. It would bring enough traffic to make Farish Street into a Beale Street, like Memphis. I bet the convention center would be booked SOLID. And the King Edward Hotel and the Walthall and the other hotels downtown would be FULL. There's your tax revenues right there. And no tax money would be wasted on that. Pure private enterprise. Ya gotta love it. It could happen real fast, too. A kick in the pants, doubletime. No need to go through all the government red tape and spend years constructing those lakes that we don't need. Surely we'll have enough money to feed the poor, educate the children, double the police force, and eliminate pot-holes if we just build that casino. The two lakes plan can't be modified enough to provide a real riverfront experience for all the citizens like they do in other cities, so I'd have to say that I could never support it. BUT, I never say never, so ask your two lakes developer friends if they would compromise away some of that housebuilding land, make the lakes smaller, and put funds in for development costs for some large public spaces to hold, say, a hundred thousand people, then get back with me, OK? I've already addressed the issues of flood control many times up above. For you to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
- Author
- PaulC
- Date
- 2006-06-02T17:42:06-06:00
- ID
- 79963
- Comment
GLB, I'm not sure about the referendum idea. I have no guidance to offer on that.
- Author
- PaulC
- Date
- 2006-06-02T17:45:10-06:00
- ID
- 79964
- Comment
Sid Salter took on the Two Lakes issue Sunday. One thing that intrigued me was the headline in the print edition (but, oddly, not online): "LeFleur Lakes: Flood Control or Fantasy Island" Now, quick, look at the headline of Adam's story above from May 24. Ahem, Ledge.
- Author
- DonnaLadd
- Date
- 2006-07-03T13:26:59-06:00
- ID
- 79965
- Comment
True, Ladd. But I think Aaron Spelling really has the first option on that expression. Of course, he's passed on now So maybe Adam has dibs.
- Author
- GLB
- Date
- 2006-07-03T13:34:04-06:00
- ID
- 79966
- Comment
I don't guess it occured to anyone that property taxes from homes/condos sold in the are would result from new development and if the waterfront is developed, that means sales tax revenue as well and waterfront property always apprecciates along with the taxes that go with it. Anyone seen the river ranch development on Camellia Blvd in Lafayette? that is REAL nice and a good example of mixed use that could be used in the two lakes project and would bring in more revenue.
- Author
- Kingfish
- Date
- 2006-07-03T14:02:18-06:00
- ID
- 79967
- Comment
Didn't say it was copyrighted, GLB. The point is that original thoughts over there aren't exactly in great supply. We're getting a little tired of them, on the one hand, repeating our ideas while, on the other, trying to take away our channels of distribution.
- Author
- DonnaLadd
- Date
- 2006-07-03T14:11:21-06:00
- ID
- 79968
- Comment
I know Ladd. I was just kidding around. And I agree with you; they snagged his headline.
- Author
- GLB
- Date
- 2006-07-03T14:18:01-06:00
- ID
- 79969
- Comment
Sorry I missed your humor, GLB. ;-D
- Author
- DonnaLadd
- Date
- 2006-07-03T14:26:18-06:00
- ID
- 79970
- Comment
That's o.k. I am accustomed to awkward silences in the wake of my attepts at humor. I expect it is partly what accounts for my continued bachelorhood.
- Author
- GLB
- Date
- 2006-07-03T14:29:48-06:00
- ID
- 79971
- Comment
Donna, I noticed the Ledge knock-off, too. I thought it was weak writing & they should have come up with their own ideas.
- Author
- Izzy
- Date
- 2006-07-03T14:40:50-06:00
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID