We’ve been a fan of the Flood Control Task Force (the “FCTF”) since its establishment, in part because several of its members have first-rate expertise in water and flooding matters; and most of the other members appear to have served capably in their lay-persons roles.
But when appointed board, committee and task force members decide to go beyond their assigned duties and try to play politics, it almost always goes off the rails – often causing additional and unnecessary expense to the taxpayers. That’s what we addressed in our post “The Flood Control Task Force: Leaping Before Looking” (07.22.09), and that’s exactly what we’re getting again from the FCTF, if the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate’s story is accurate (“In flood’s wake, Park Ridge task force looks for new problems,” May 6).
Former Public Works director and FCTF member Joe Saccomanno, claiming he speaks for a majority of FCTF members, is trying to resurrect one of the more boneheaded wastes of taxpayer dollars we have seen or heard in at least two decades: City (a/k/a taxpayer) subsidies, or “incentives,” for homeowners installing flood control systems – primarily overhead sewers and shut-off valves – in their own homes.
That wrongheaded idea was originally proposed by Saccomanno and Company back in 2009 as a $420,000 give-away which, at $2,500 a home, would help 168 households. It was wisely rejected by the Council for several reasons, including that it’s a form of “welfare” that would actually reward those homeowners who have been too irresponsible or too cheap to install their own flood control systems, at the expense of those many residents who already have sprung for that expense themselves; or who are fortunate enough to not have seepage and/or back-up problems.
Worse yet (and as Saccomanno acknowledges), these taxpayer-subsidized private flood control devices would likely put more water into the streets, many of which already become impassable when we get the kind of rains that cause this kind of flooding. In other words, the FCTF wants to use public monies to subsidize the installation of flood control devices in private homes that likely will push more water into neighbors’ basements and into public streets, helping make those streets impassable.
And impassable streets mean a likely delay, if not a complete loss, of fire, police and other emergency services – as anybody who remembers the photo of a City police cruiser on a flatbed and a Fire Department ambulance literally dead-in-the-water at Greenwood and Busse back in 2008 can attest.
That kind of subsidy was bad public policy four years ago, and it’s bad public policy today – just as it’s bad public policy to throw public dollars at private community groups, or to subsidize private businesses.
We believe the recent flooding should cause the City – and the FCTF – to revisit the issue of whether the flood control program already devised will actually provide $1 or more of value for every $1 borrowed and spent. That program is only designed to address “10-year” floods, even though we reportedly have had three “100-year” floods since 2008 that the City’s 10-year plan would not have prevented.
Is simply “reducing” the amount of flooding worth the multi-millions of cost – and bonded debt to fund it – that the current program is intended to provide? More importantly, do our citizens realize that the program will do only that and not keep their basements bone dry going forward?
Those questions should be front-and-center on the new Council’s agenda, especially as it reconsiders the already-passed 2013-14 budget over the next few weeks, a prerogative newly-elected Councils enjoy.
Meanwhile, we suggest that the members of the FCTF stick with the technical issues within their wheelhouse, leaving public policy matters to the folks the voters elected to address them.
To read or post comments, click on title.
16 comments so far
“Meanwhile, we suggest that the members of the FCTF stick with the technical issues within their wheelhouse, leaving public policy matters to the folks the voters elected to address them.”
Amen. People complained about The Youth Campus purchase as a waster of taxpayer dollars that will only benefit a few. I disagree. But this type of “incentive” is exactly that.
I agree with PW that these task force members need to stick to what they were tasked to do, not go off in whatever direction that captures their fancy. That’s what happened with the police chief’s task force that was formed in resposne to the Ekl Report and to improve police-community relations, but ended up recommending a new police station. WTF?
Before the city goes and spends lots of money on flood controls, shouldn’t it consider what effect the completion of the deep tunnel quarry system will have on these 100 year floods? It seems to me that the flooding occurs when the deep tunnels fill up and completion of the quarry system (which will hold billions of gallons of water) is set for 2017.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We must confess that we didn’t really think about that, nor do we know whether or not the FCTF included that factor in its studies.
I always feel the need to preface flood related comments by stating that we purchased a flood contro system 5-6 years ago after several floods and we have been dry as a bone since then. So related to flood control subsidies I have no skin in the game, other than being a taxpayer.
That said, I feel like your arguments about the FCTF commenting on flood control system subsidies or recommending them as being inappropraite do not hold water (pun intended).
One argument is that they should stick with what they were tasked to do. According to the PR website, the FCTF was tasked to do the following:
“The Flood Control Task force mission is to listen, learn from and to lead the Park Ridge Community in understanding area flooding issues and to develop an appropriate variety of flood control mitigation measures that would reduce homeowner flood risk”.
You will notice it does not say simply “technical issues in their wheelhouse” (what ever the hell that means), and it does not say stay awya from public policy issues. I would argue that ANYTHING they recommend is going to end up being a public policy issue because it is going to be a huge amount of money. We many not agree with homeowner subsidies but I certainly think they fall within the perview of the FCTF. The council can give a thumbs up or down as they see fit.
The second argument seems to be that subsidies like these will benefit only a few at the expense of all. Duh!!!! That is the essense of our tax system!! Forgetting about the flood control system subsidies, the remainder of the FCTF suggestions and the plan the city approved benefits a very few at the expense of all the taxpayers. If we are all against that the city should kill the existing plans now!!
EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s why we believe the whole flood control plan needs another long, hard look. And the message needs to go out from City Hall that even if we bond out another $20-30 million (or more), the resulting flood control system may not keep basements dry in the event of rains like we got just last month.
Maybe it’s time for our elected officials to take this on, instead of giving this to a task force to take the blame. Flooding is persistent issue in Park Ridge. Whether the choice is to scale back funding or increase, it’s the job of the council and mayor to lead.
The mayor read the litany of task forces that he has formed at the last council meeting. It actually opened my eyes to how ineffective that practice has been under his tenure. I would much rather have elected officials get together with city engineers (and outside consultants if needed) and come up with a real solution.
I’m starting to think our Park Ridge elected officials are using “task forces” as a shield from actually taking any responsibility on major issues. It gives politicians any easy way out when questioned about failures. “I assigned a task force” can’t be a substitute for actually legislating good policy.
PWD- I know most on this board are Schmidt people, but it doesn’t mean you can’t aggressively question his RESULTS.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Task forces serve a purpose, just as committees and commissions do. But they definitely should not be a shield or an alibi for elected officials – and City staff – doing the jobs that they were elected and or hired to do. If something is a bad or questionable idea, the fact that it came from a task force (or committee or commission) should not entitle it to a rubber-stamp from the Council.
Unfortunately, Schmidt (not unlike his predecessors) has not been authoritative enough in clearly defining the precise mission and authority of some of these task forces, and some task force members apparently viewed that error as carte blanche to extend their range.
Flood control was one of Mayor Schmidt’s campaign issues when he ran for mayor in 2009, and I understand it was part of his “promises made, promises kept” campaign platform this year. But I hope that doesn’t blind the mayor to the possibility (as we saw just a few weeks ago) that meaningful flood control is not achievable at less than a staggering, if not unaffordable, cost and debt.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Good points all. We detect substantial political pressure by residents in certain parts of town for the City to do “something” – with effectiveness and value of that “something” given secondary or even tertiary consideration. We can only hope that “government” trumps “politics” as this issue is deliberated further.
l,7:17:
“……that meaningful flood control is not achievable at less than a staggering, if not unaffordable, cost and debt”. May I simply say, Duh?!?!?!?!
This point was made in discussions all over town and on this blog. I posted here about it taking 100 million plus to even make a dent and PR citizens not being willing to spend that kind of money. The issue of only a few citizens benefiting was also hashed about here. Even if you are one who believes this plan will do something (Santa anyone??), we are not into the Mayors second term and exactly what actual projects have been implemented??
So, to be candid, any citizen who sees this issue as “promises made, promises kept” is a fool. It is a shame that it took another “100 year rain” to make some folks realize that.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Yes, we recall some “anonymous” or other commenting about a $100 million cost of flood control, although just throwing out a number with no explanation doesn’t inspire a whole lot of confidence.
And as we also recall it, in 2008-09 candidate Schmidt promised action to address the flooding problem. Within months of being elected he created the FCTF, which studied the problem, made and prioritized 12 or so flood-control projects that were forwarded to the City’s outside flood control consultants, and a couple/few of those already have been implemented. That would appear to constitute “promises made, promises kept.”
That being said, we believe these kinds of projects require constant monitoring to determine whether they are succeeding at what they were intended to do.
“……….for the City to do “something” – with effectiveness and value of that “something” given secondary or even tertiary consideration”.
Excuse me but this is exactly what has been happening all along. You suddenly sense that now?!?! This did not dawn on you at all before??
You have lived in this town a hell of a lot longer than I have so you know this issue better than me but what is with this sudden enlightenment?? Are you telling me that you looked at this plan and compared it to all the areas and neighborhoods ALL OVER TOWN where the streets flood and where folks drag out the carpet to the curb and thought “gee this is going to make a significant difference????” and now, after one big storm, and with the majority of “the plan” not even implemented, “wow…this might not work????” None of the collective wisdom of the people on the FCTF or consultants has changed. All the data they provided in support of these recommendations has not changed.
Apparently you thought they were giving effectiveness far more than “secondary or tertiary value” before.
The truth is that the Mayor used this as an issue against Frimark and therefore had to appear to do something. The truth is the plan approved by the city was never going to make a dent in the problem or benefit more than a few. As bad as it was for many folks in town, at least the recent flooding has caused some people to open their eyes.
By the way, you talk about flood control subsidies being bad becuase tax dollars are used to benefit a few. Well guess what? We just got disaster area status so here come the FEMA dollars. Where do you think that money comes from?? Tax dollars benefiting a few. Seems to me the question is do you want to pay them up front or after the flood.
EDITOR’S NOTE: As we understand it, City staff, the FCTF and the outside consultant all believe the proposed multi-year flood control project WILL “make a dent in the problem” – which is why the Council approved the first remediation projects. Nonetheless, the recent flooding and reports that it affected areas where flood control had already been implemented suggests that a review of those situations and, if warrented, a course correction.
As for FEMA relief, that’s being provided by the Feds. Whether such relief is wise or not does not change the fact that the money already has been appropriated by folks not under the control of the Mayor or the Council. If you’ve got a beef about that, contact your Congressman, your Senator, or at least the Governor who sought FEMA relief.
I hope the Council reconsiders that flood control plan. It is too big an expense, and too much debt, to buy into and stay bought into without regular reconsideration.
I never said I would “solve” the flooding problem. I promised to make flood control a high priority, and I have done that.
I doubt even $100 million would “solve” the problem when we are talking about biblical storms like September 2008 and April 2013. But does that mean we should just throw up our hands and do nothing at all since we can’t stop the “Big One?” Some people say yes; I disagree. I believe that is terribly short-sighted.
It is a fact there are certain parts of town that flood more often than just during “the Big One.” They experience flooding even when there is “only” a moderately heavy storm. It is those areas I believe we can and should focus on, and it is those areas which the Task Force and the consultant identified for the flood control projects.
I have no problem with re-evaluating the efficacy of future projects. However, I will not just throw my hands up in the air and say, “well, since we can’t solve the problem completely, we should do nothing at all.”
Mr Mayor:
If what you stated above it the direction you believe we need to go, may I respectfully recommend that you “recommunicate” this information to the citizens of PR. I would recommend the Spokesman, but I am really not sure how many folks even read that. How about a letter written to the HA.
As pointed out on this blog, there may be a disconnect about how you see this project compared to many citizens expectations.
When you originally ran for office you said the following:
“For example, our inadequate storm sewer system has caused many residents to lose thousands, and even tens of thousands, of dollars of possessions, including such irreplaceable things as family photos and mementoes. It also has increased the cost of their insurance and caused them a lot of time, effort and drudgery related to clean-up and repairs”.
If you decide clear up the perceptions and expections on the approved projects, you are going to have explain that even after all the projects are done, the vast majority of the people you reference above are still screwed.
I love the idea of not “doing nothing at all”. The problem is that when you look at the storms that have generated all the dialogue on this blog and around town, and have people up in arms, the plan that has been approved will “do nothing at all” for the vast majority of the people who flood.
Anon 647am- Park Ridge is a strange place in that there is such a loud minority of people that are so happy with crap, and then think that crap is special.
You are telling me, Park Ridge is so unique to the world that we can’t figure out how to keep the sewers from backing up? It’s not like a river is overflowing in our homes…it’s that our sewers can’t handle water.
Quit striving for failure. If you don’t think your property value is harmed due to the well-known basement flooding problems, you are mistaken.
Mayor Dave- I think many citizens are very interested in finding out if the millions of dollars in bonds is really going to do anything or if it was just to pacify us.
EDITOR’S NOTE: To what specific “crap” are you referring?
Park Ridge is not “so unique” for allegedly not being able to “figure out how to keep the sewers from backing up”: Chicago – arguably one of the world’s great cities, has the same problem and is reportedly getting millions of dollars from the bankrupt State of Illinois to upgrade its 100-year old sewers.
As far as getting real value for whatever we spend on sewer repair and replacement, and/or flood relief, we will be keeping a close eye on the Mayor and the Council, as well as on the FCTF – which, by the way, is meeting TONIGHT (5/15) at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall. So if you care about this issue, SHOW UP!!!!!
8:02am On the whole I don’t understand what you are getting at. That said, when you find the engineer that GUARANTEES a project or set of projects that will prevent overland flooding or clean water or sewer water back up in Park Ridge under any conditions, introduce him or her to all of us. I won’t hold my breath waiting.
Point is, 4,5,6 inches of rain or more in a couple of hours and the water has to go somewhere. I think you would hear if you ask tonight that we couldn’t reasonably afford to build a system to handle these so called 100 year events… and if we could systems up and down stream would need to be able to handle it as well or… well, the water has to go somewhere.
So the point is, what are we willing to spend on regular maintenance and upkeep of the basic system, along with some improvements to what’s there to handle larger rain events? What will pacify you / us?? After that my advice would be to buy the insurance if you can, both flood and back up, and install your own personal flood control device(s). And then HOPE you have done all you can to stay dry. But NEVER bet you will always stay dry because no on can guarantee that.
EDITOR’S NOTE: As a general rule, anybody who has chronic flooding problems and has NOT installed their own flood control system – overhead sewers, check valves, etc. – is an idiot. And anybody who expects the City’s taxpayers to subsidize the installation of such in-home systems is a shameless parasite.
What the City should take responsibility for is PUBLIC flooding remediation, such as flooded streets and overtaxed sewers. But the watchword for this type of remediation, as it should be for any significant expenditure of public funds, has to be “VALUE”: What exactly are we getting for the money being spent?
Oh, and Soccomanno is out of his mind with his “recommendation” to subsidize residential flood control devices.
EDITOR’S NOTE: That might be a tad strong, but it’s definitely a bad idea on several levels.
You’re the one who said: “anybody who has chronic flooding problems and has NOT installed their own flood control system – overhead sewers, check valves, etc. – is an idiot.”
All I am saying is that for Saccomanno to want to bail those “idiots” out with a taxpayer subsidy is idiotic. An idiotic idea to bail out idiots may not have Saccomanno out of his mind but it is crackpot nonetheless.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>