Jump to content



Photo

Long Term Implications of the Charlestown Water Crisis?


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#21 Holy Cow

Holy Cow

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 23 January 2016 - 06:09 PM

So Russell, are you sure that the land will go to "developer buddies," or is that just a blind accusation?

#22 CityBoy

CityBoy

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 973 posts

Posted 23 January 2016 - 06:35 PM

So Russell, are you sure that the land will go to "developer buddies," or is that just a blind accusation?

 

Although I'm not Russell, I'll respond to your question.  Hall's previous attempt to "redevelop" (translation: raze) Pleasant Ridge was based on all the property owners selling their property to Neace Ventures.  

 

Hall's record with "developer buddies" was firmly established with the Danbury Oaks subdivision debacle.  Developer Jesse Ballew needed C'town sewer service for Danbury Oaks, which is outside the city limits, but he didn't want to foot the bill to run the line there.  No problem.  Just weeks before leaving office in 2004 (having been defeated for re-election), Hall signed a sweetheart deal with Ballew.  The result: The city has already paid Ballew over $200,000 in "reimbursement" for his cost to run the sewer line.  And Ballew stands to collect another $200,000 or so.  Pretty sweet deal, huh?  

 

Wouldn't you agree that is reason enough to be suspicious of Hall's deals with developers?


  • Old Pawpaw and Russell Brooksbank like this

#23 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 23 January 2016 - 06:37 PM

So Russell, are you sure that the land will go to "developer buddies," or is that just a blind accusation?

1) It's a general statement. Else I would have named names.
2) Are you saying this scenario never happens?
3). As far as Pleasure Ridge is concerned I certainly haven't heard any talk of public use for the property. So tell me who normally develops private property?

Edited by Russell Brooksbank, 23 January 2016 - 06:39 PM.


#24 Holy Cow

Holy Cow

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 23 January 2016 - 08:28 PM

You answered my question. It was a blind accusation.

#25 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 24 January 2016 - 04:57 AM

You answered my question. It was a blind accusation.

It was not an accusation. It was a general statement about what generally happens. Are you denying that it happens?

Edited by Russell Brooksbank, 24 January 2016 - 05:00 AM.


#26 Holy Cow

Holy Cow

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 24 January 2016 - 05:41 AM

Russell, Deflecting to "does it ever ever happen" does not work. Your comments were unquestionably made within a context of a thread about Charlestown and the water issues. Further, your comments were made regarding what you perceive to be a choice by the mayor between providing essential essential services versus handing land over to private developers. As a casual, unbiased reader who believes the water problem in Charlestown needs to be solved, it was not a general comment.

#27 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 24 January 2016 - 01:03 PM

I make no apologies for my opinion that Charlestown's current government has their priorities screwed up. Now, you asked,"So Russell, are you sure that the land will go to "developer buddies," or is that just a blind accusation?" I choose to answer that question with a question of my own: Are you saying that this never happens? You may choose to refuse to answer. I can't force you to, but conversations are normally characterized by back and forth exchanges of ideas. The ball is in your court.

Edited by Russell Brooksbank, 24 January 2016 - 01:05 PM.


#28 Holy Cow

Holy Cow

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 24 January 2016 - 01:58 PM

Russell, I did not make the accusation. I really have nothing to explain. I would suggest that asking a question to respond to a question is not an answer.

Edited by Holy Cow, 24 January 2016 - 02:00 PM.


#29 GrumpyGranny

GrumpyGranny

    Local Legend

  • Administrators
  • 5,166 posts

Posted 24 January 2016 - 02:32 PM

Russell, I did not make the accusation. I really have nothing to explain. I would suggest that asking a question to respond to a question is not an answer.

 

And I would suggest that you, Russell or any other member has a right to ask questions as you see fit, just as any of you have the right to answer, or not answer, in any way you see fit as long as the answer follows our terms of use. 

 

I am also under the impression you certainly did make an accusation...you accused Russell of making a blind accusation...


  • Russell Brooksbank likes this

#30 Holy Cow

Holy Cow

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 24 January 2016 - 02:37 PM

I respectfully disagree. I made no accusation. I asked Russell if he knew for a fact that what he said actually happened. He responded by stating that he made a general statement. That answered my question.

#31 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 24 January 2016 - 02:42 PM

I respectfully disagree. I made no accusation. I asked Russell if he knew for a fact that what he said actually happened. He responded by stating that he made a general statement. That answered my question.

I did not say it was a blind accusation. YOU said so. You mischaracterized my answer.

#32 GrumpyGranny

GrumpyGranny

    Local Legend

  • Administrators
  • 5,166 posts

Posted 24 January 2016 - 02:46 PM

Can we move on with the topic...please...thank you...


  • CityBoy and Russell Brooksbank like this

#33 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 24 January 2016 - 03:08 PM

Can we move on with the topic...please...thank you...

Yes ma'am
  • kelley likes this

#34 Old Pawpaw

Old Pawpaw

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 255 posts

Posted 25 January 2016 - 12:06 PM

Bob Hall made the statement that Pleasant Ridge was a "stigma" on our  schools and our city. If Flint Michigan is getting it's water problems from old pipping, would it  not make since for the City of Charlestown to invest much more of it's resources into replacing old infrastructure and doing more to test individual homeowner's pipping than to tear down an entire subdivision? What happens to the rest of Charlestown after Pleasant Ridge is gone? I know that many other ares of Charlestown have problems with their water as well. Does any body think that a developer is going to build in Charlestown with our ongoing water issues and no answer in sight?


  • kelley, CityBoy and Russell Brooksbank like this

#35 Old Pawpaw

Old Pawpaw

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 255 posts

Posted 28 January 2016 - 02:53 AM

We as a people can't let the water situation in Charlestown be swept under the rug by Bob Hall. I am sure the situation in Flint Michigan is many times worse, but any degree of un-clean water has to be at the very least addressed by our City Council and Mayor in order for the people of Charlestown to have confidence that they(the administration) are concerned with the health and wellness of any and all who must use Charlestown water! Bob Hall is a master at diverting the people of Charlestown's attention away from our water problems,by putting the attention on Pleasant Ridge and convincing the new council if they can raze Pleasant Ridge and get rid of it's inhabitants all of our crime and the "stigma" (Bob Hall's words) will go away. Any "stigma" that is associated with Charlestown could very well be the "stigma" that Bob Hall and his Council are a group of none caring gentlemen who need to rethink their priorities !!! 



#36 Holy Cow

Holy Cow

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 28 January 2016 - 06:05 AM

Old Pawpaw,

While I admittedly seldom agree with you, I do believe that the water problems in Charlestown should be addressed. I would point out that conditions in Flint, Michigan elevated beyond the level of the Mayor of Flint, and escalated to the point that the action of the the state's governor became necessary. Has the issue of the water problems in Charlestown gone to the state? If so, what was that response. If not, what can be done to force a call to action at the state level which I believe would force action at the local level?
  • kelley and Russell Brooksbank like this

#37 Old Pawpaw

Old Pawpaw

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 255 posts

Posted 28 January 2016 - 11:41 AM

Holy Cow,first thank you for agreeing,in answering you on if this problem has gone to the state I would suggest that you refer to the Minutes of the redevelopment Commission 08/17/2009, page 3 Well Study: I quote the minutes " Mayor Bob Hall said we will have a public hearing on the well study with manganese and we are looking at the Utica wells, Mayor Hall talked to the state,they want us to apply and get approved. Since then it has been approved to move our wells to the Utica field. We will have all new wells,lines and a four million gallon above ground tank. This is a five million plus project,the cost to the city is zero,it will be funded through the stimulus money.We will do all the operations of the wells." Holy Cow,with this information I would hope you would agree with me that either Bob Hall was lying then or he is lying now,when he claims that we as a city have addressed our water issue and the chemicals that the water company is adding are taking care of the problems. In my opinion it is a shame that it takes a terrible situation like what is happening Flint to get attention to the situation that has existed and been trivialized by Bob Hall for years! 



#38 Riverlover

Riverlover

    Tourist

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 29 posts

Posted 28 January 2016 - 11:56 AM

Bob Hall made the statement that Pleasant Ridge was a "stigma" on our  schools and our city. If Flint Michigan is getting it's water problems from old pipping, would it  not make since for the City of Charlestown to invest much more of it's resources into replacing old infrastructure and doing more to test individual homeowner's pipping than to tear down an entire subdivision? What happens to the rest of Charlestown after Pleasant Ridge is gone? I know that many other ares of Charlestown have problems with their water as well. Does any body think that a developer is going to build in Charlestown with our ongoing water issues and no answer in sight?

 

Do you know what other areas, besides the projects, are having issues with water quality? 



#39 Holy Cow

Holy Cow

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 28 January 2016 - 12:51 PM

Old Pawpaw, I am not quite ready to say I agree that Bob was lying then or is lying now. I say that because everything I read about about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds (stimulus money) was that a lot of it never made it to where we thought is was going. That is not an accusation of the feds or the mayor, it is just the way all of that rolled out.

Now, what I am talking about is has there been anything that has drawn attention to the quality and healthiness (or lack thereof) of the Charlestown water in the same manner as Flint? Obviously, the Flint situation escalated because the quality issues became so serious that the state had to intervene. I apologize for my lack of clarity, but has there been anything like that in Charlestown?

Edited by Holy Cow, 28 January 2016 - 12:52 PM.


#40 CityBoy

CityBoy

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 973 posts

Posted 28 January 2016 - 02:14 PM

The problem with the water is the high content of manganese, but it doesn't exceed state or federal standards, so we won't get any help from them.  The addition of Clearitas does absolutely nothing to address the root cause; it is strictly cosmetic, i.e., lipstick on a pig.    

 

Several years ago, a citizens action group ran an ad in the Leader pointing out the potential health issues related to the manganese.  They were promptly sued by the city, who accused them of defamation, and "inciting concern, distress and panic among customers of the water utility."  The lawsuit was withdrawn, but only after the city attorney learned that a city is not allowed to sue its citizens for exercising their right to free speech.  The city paid thousands of dollars in attorney fees for their misguided and vengeful action, including $1,000 that Judge Susan Orth ordered it to pay the citizens action group. 


  • Old Pawpaw likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users