Remember, this photo was taken on June 5th, can’t imagine what it looked like yesterday. There was funding requested to fix drainage at Twin Eagles and Heather Ridge, but never went through. The mayor is always preaching about ‘Bad Neighbors’ while refusing to admit the city is a ‘bad neighbor’ by not fixing the drainage issues on 85th street. The retention pond is NOT working in the area, it is the poorly planned pitch in the road. Wait until they turn a cornfield into a parking lot, watch the water flow then. Maybe they could build the first Walmart to replicate Venice. Pull up in your Gondola and get yourself some cheap goods with your $23 gift card used to buy the election.
Here is the pond today by Twin Eagle
The twin eagle pond has never had water totally
fill in tree area like this morning and will take several days to go down the water to south of 85th will stall and not drain backing the water table up in twin eagles and heather ridge. The Dakota crossing and more rmb dev behind the farm house will only make it worse. The city should take the 11,000,000 fed repay and fix this area and other similar areas rather than more entertainment expenditures
Drainage Plan? You Bet! This IS it! Other pictures show flat streets with water 1/2 way up the lawns. A member of the Lloyd family told me not to worry because it all goes to the south and water doesn’t flow uphill. During our discussion, Intek was pumping water out of her basement all the while. What a plan! Watch out downstream.
Put a roof over it and call it an indoor pool. Hey, anywhere but Spellerburg.
Boats on the left, cars in the drain.
I see you all are calling for MORE BIGGER GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT in the process of private property use planning @drainage now. Nice 180 – whenever it suits your need to bash.
Let’s see – sign says 7500 S. Grange – gee – that would be a street designed and built by the same developer that sold those multi-family homes on Audie as single family homes. You do know that the city doesn’t design or build those streets – right?
Looking at some Google Earth imagery from July of 2010 that shows that pond full to the brim. I think you’re exaggerating when you say “never” sick Dan.
While we’re enduring hail and major rain, our mayor is on the French Riviera. When he gets back he’ll helicopter over us on a fair weather day then call a directors only news conference saying it’s not so bad. End result will be 11 million in federal money spent on more landscaping for a private developer.
Ruf would drown a baby for a 4th Walmart. Speaking of 2 faced, you might be the only pro Walmart liberal.
Got a solution. Make sure Wally is the lowest property in the neighborhood. Ditch the shopping carts for canoes.
It was full then but then the city engineers who also did grange and designed the storm sewers raised the weir box out of the pond and really made it fill up. Grange and 85 were constructed by the city not stencil they are low and it’s getting worse. We are rated x on the flood game. the city burrowed 11,000 000 for flood control got paid back then they want to use it for swimming. Tax dollars should be used for infrastructure and errors not for fun.
rufusx: sick of drainage Dan is correct. The pond itself is a semicircle around a semicircle grove (land) which normally has no water. It has occasionally partially flooded in the trees for a few hours, but not like it is today.
Ruf. Neighbor down the street had 5inches in the rain gauge from past 24 hours. We didn’t have that much a week ago I think.
Sorry, Dan, we already spent that 11 million from the Feds on a swimming pool.
We have our priorities you know!!!
rufusx:
Providing infrastructure (public goods) is part of governments purpose and does not indicate “big government”. From Econ 101, these are the roles of government:
1. Provide a stable structure for markets & people to operate within (laws and regulations, referee).
2. Provide for public goods (infrastructure) that the market doesn’t adequately supply.
3. Provide a policy framework to ensure economic stability and growth.
4. Provide a basic financial safety net for those who need it (preferably temporary, sometimes permanent).
#2 would apply to the drainage problem.
Notice, none of them mention providing entertainment venues, events or luxuries for citizen use.
Teatime comment is democracy. We’re cleptocracy where the upper class physically and financially benefit. Our duty is to fund their kingly polo and do the grounds keeping. Little do they know we crap on the grass. The new indoor pool must be drained often. There’s a sale on Baby Ruth bars at Walmart. It’s not sabotage. It’s civil disobedience demonstration.
The indoor supporters will have plenty snacks thanks for the laugh dan daily
sick and tea – “normally” there would be no pond there. That thing is entirely man-made – not naturally occurring (unless you consider man as a part of nature). So, it works as and/or was modified to work. Temporary holding pond for excessive rain-water run-off. It’s SUPPOSED to fill all the way up when heavy rain events occur – and dry out otherwise. The intent is to protect DOWNSTREAM properties from flash flooding – by giving some TIME for preparation.
tea-t – further, as I recall ECON-101 doesn’t really cover government’s role in the markets. I believe you are referring to either political science or an ECON 200 level course. At any rate, IMO, #2 on your list does indeed cover things like large scale community event venues – which the market can’t adequately provide. If think it can – show me one.
LJL – proposed Walmart lot IS the lowest ground out there.
LJL – BTW – I am not “pro-Walmart” – I NEVER shop there – hate the place. What I am for is equal, consistent application of the law – even for my “enemies”. You see – when I was in a position of political power – I REFUSED to do ANYONE any personal favors, give them any “breaks”. Strictly by-the-books kind of guy. Stickler for detail. Most people don’t actually like that approach – regardless of what they spout off as their ideology on the matter.
rufusx: IYO #2 includes large entertainment venues. No, the definition of public goods (infrastructure) is
“Public goods have two distinct aspects: nonexcludability and nonrivalrous consumption.
“Nonexcludability†means that the cost of keeping nonpayers from enjoying the benefits of the good or service is prohibitive. If an entrepreneur stages a fireworks show, for example, people can watch the show from their windows or backyards. Because the entrepreneur cannot charge a fee for consumption, the fireworks show may go unproduced, even if demand for the show is strong.
The fireworks example illustrates the related free-rider problem. Even if the fireworks show is worth ten dollars to each person, arguably few people will pay ten dollars to the entrepreneur. Each person will seek to “free ride†by allowing others to pay for the show, and then watch for free from his or her backyard. If the free-rider problem cannot be solved, valuable goods and services—ones people otherwise would be willing to pay for—will remain unproduced.
The second aspect of public goods is what economists call “nonrivalrous consumption.†Assume the entrepreneur manages to exclude noncontributors from watching the show (perhaps one can see the show only from a private field). A price will be charged for entrance to the field, and people who are unwilling to pay this price will be excluded. If the field is large enough, however, exclusion is inefficient. Even nonpayers could watch the show without increasing the show’s cost or diminishing anyone else’s enjoyment. In other words, the relevant consumption is nonrivalrous.
Nonetheless, nonexcludability is usually considered the more important of the two aspects of public goods. If the good is excludable, private entrepreneurs will try to serve as many fee-paying customers as possible, charging lower prices to some customers if need be.” quoting T. Cowen.
An entertainment venue is excludable, since not everyone can buy a ticket to an event.
FYI, I have taught Econ 101 (community college and university level) and this information is included. These days, the first part of both Macro and Micro include the same information.
rufusx: Actually the pond is a naturally occurring slough with volunteer trees and has been there a long time. The east end was dug out further to accommodate storm drainage.
te-time – you don’t address this part of it – in your mini dissertation above “…..which the market can’t adequately provide.”
re: “the slough” – satellite imagery from as recently as 2003 shows almost all of that spot (given – it appears “low”)in row crop form. NO TREES – if there – they are in shrub form. A few volunteer trees (or maturing trees) show up in 2004 – about the same time non-agricultural excavation began just to the East of there.