RSS Feeds
 |
|
|||||||||||||
News » Metro
Article rated a 0
by 0
users |
|
||
~ADVERTISING~
C.F.'s North Cedar School suffers little flood damage
By EMILY CHRISTENSEN, Courier Staff Writer
CEDAR FALLS --- A thick layer of mud covers much of the lower playground equipment at North Cedar Elementary School.
The pea gravel and wood chip surfacing has mostly washed away. The turf on the field is already losing its lush green color, and the young trees have been sapped of their will to live.
But Rick Gersema, supervisor of buildings and grounds for the Cedar Falls Community School District, counts the district among the lucky ones living and working in North Cedar. Water from the Cedar River inundated the North Cedar Elementary playground but stopped short of entering the building itself.
"We are very fortunate," Gersema said. "I'm guessing the depth on the field was probably 10 feet deep. I have no idea why it didn't come in the building, except for the fact that the building is on the slope, so the foundation comes up a little ways and the water wasn't able to get into those vulnerable areas, like unit vents."
The district had been prepared for much worse. On June 10 Gersema and other school employees gathered at North Cedar about 8 a.m. to move furniture and books in the lower level to higher ground. By noon Gersema had instructed everyone to leave for fear that the city would close off all access to the neighborhood. By that time water was already lapping at the building's edge.
On June 11 a school employee made a cursory check of the building and gave Gersema the all clear.
But it wasn't until one of this own workers could inspect the school that Gersema felt safe in knowing the building had not been breached. The only water to be found was in a tunnel underneath the school that houses pipes and electrical lines. About three inches accumulated there, but Gersema said a small sump pump was enough to dry the area out.
Superintendent David Stoakes said the district had also prepared for the worst at the new Lincoln Elementary, putting furniture and books on higher ground and bags of water softener salt on floor drains to keep any sewage backup out of the school.
"Losing six classrooms at North Cedar would have been a difficult situation, but it is nothing like what Waverly is facing," Stoakes said.
The district has already begun the clean-up process, removing debris from the playground as the water is slowly pumped out. From there, Gersema said they will focus their efforts on the hard surfaces, like basketball courts, and the playground equipment. The grassy areas won't get reseeded until later this fall.
It is still too early to know just how much the playground clean-up will cost, but the Cedar Falls Lions Club has already agreed to donate proceeds from Sunday's Sturgis Falls Pancake Breakfast to the project. The breakfast runs from 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Cedar Falls Community Center, Sixth and Main streets Cedar Falls.
Contact Emily Christensen at (319) 291-1570 or emily.christensen@wcfcourier.com.
The pea gravel and wood chip surfacing has mostly washed away. The turf on the field is already losing its lush green color, and the young trees have been sapped of their will to live.
But Rick Gersema, supervisor of buildings and grounds for the Cedar Falls Community School District, counts the district among the lucky ones living and working in North Cedar. Water from the Cedar River inundated the North Cedar Elementary playground but stopped short of entering the building itself.
"We are very fortunate," Gersema said. "I'm guessing the depth on the field was probably 10 feet deep. I have no idea why it didn't come in the building, except for the fact that the building is on the slope, so the foundation comes up a little ways and the water wasn't able to get into those vulnerable areas, like unit vents."
The district had been prepared for much worse. On June 10 Gersema and other school employees gathered at North Cedar about 8 a.m. to move furniture and books in the lower level to higher ground. By noon Gersema had instructed everyone to leave for fear that the city would close off all access to the neighborhood. By that time water was already lapping at the building's edge.
On June 11 a school employee made a cursory check of the building and gave Gersema the all clear.
But it wasn't until one of this own workers could inspect the school that Gersema felt safe in knowing the building had not been breached. The only water to be found was in a tunnel underneath the school that houses pipes and electrical lines. About three inches accumulated there, but Gersema said a small sump pump was enough to dry the area out.
Superintendent David Stoakes said the district had also prepared for the worst at the new Lincoln Elementary, putting furniture and books on higher ground and bags of water softener salt on floor drains to keep any sewage backup out of the school.
"Losing six classrooms at North Cedar would have been a difficult situation, but it is nothing like what Waverly is facing," Stoakes said.
The district has already begun the clean-up process, removing debris from the playground as the water is slowly pumped out. From there, Gersema said they will focus their efforts on the hard surfaces, like basketball courts, and the playground equipment. The grassy areas won't get reseeded until later this fall.
It is still too early to know just how much the playground clean-up will cost, but the Cedar Falls Lions Club has already agreed to donate proceeds from Sunday's Sturgis Falls Pancake Breakfast to the project. The breakfast runs from 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Cedar Falls Community Center, Sixth and Main streets Cedar Falls.
Contact Emily Christensen at (319) 291-1570 or emily.christensen@wcfcourier.com.
 |
 |
More Stories from News » Metro
Heavy rains bring about flood warningsGreenwood Cemetery's bluff crumbing after heavy rainsHCC trustee resigns to move out of stateSecretary of Navy to speak at dedicationMartin Luther King Jr. Center welcomes new managerC.F.'s North Cedar School suffers little flood damageGun challenge has local connection
ozymandias wrote on Jun 27, 2008 3:24 PM:
" It is perfectly legal to build homes in the 500 year flood plain. Unless there was some sort of fiasco where this fact was hidden from the home buyers I fail to see how building there is any sort of problem. "
jcbr wrote on Jun 27, 2008 6:04 PM:
" the jaclyn street housing / shouldbe investicated / the front side were eleveted but the grade on back of lots remained near same elevation / as for big woods lake i think it created problem / that area used to be low land empty of water when made into lake that area already had water like filling a half full bottle / floods of 2008 canbe the correcting point to remendy the flood problems / jaclyn street should never been allowed to be built in i dont think it even passes the 200 year flood plain given the fact the rear side of lots remained same elevation / "
ozymandias wrote on Jun 28, 2008 12:10 AM:
" jcbr:
Please make an effort to communicate more effectively.
I seem to get the idea that you think that by removing dirt and providing a place for water to pool out at Big Woods Lake... the floods were higher?
Aside from that, even if the houses were in a 200 year flood plain (I think this is your complaint --your absolute failure at the English language make this difficult to ascertain) that is legal. So is building in the 100 year flood plain. The only *legal* issue would be if the builders hid this fact from the buyers when they bought their houses. "
Please make an effort to communicate more effectively.
I seem to get the idea that you think that by removing dirt and providing a place for water to pool out at Big Woods Lake... the floods were higher?
Aside from that, even if the houses were in a 200 year flood plain (I think this is your complaint --your absolute failure at the English language make this difficult to ascertain) that is legal. So is building in the 100 year flood plain. The only *legal* issue would be if the builders hid this fact from the buyers when they bought their houses. "
linnea wrote on Jun 28, 2008 4:01 PM:
" It may be legal to build in the 500-year floodplain, but it's certainly not smart. City council is supposed to be doing some planning for future floods; I hope they address this issue.
I wonder if it is required to disclose that property is in the 500-year flood plain. I know if there has previously been flooding to an existing home, it must be disclosed at sale, but I don't know if flood plain status has to be. Houses in the 500-year flood plain aren't required to carry flood insurance, so the buyers may not have been aware. "
I wonder if it is required to disclose that property is in the 500-year flood plain. I know if there has previously been flooding to an existing home, it must be disclosed at sale, but I don't know if flood plain status has to be. Houses in the 500-year flood plain aren't required to carry flood insurance, so the buyers may not have been aware. "
ozymandias wrote on Jun 28, 2008 4:48 PM:
" linnea,
It is not the government's job to protect against each and every form of stupid in the world. The location of a house, in regards to flood plains, is one of the top questions to ask. There comes a point when government oversight is a bit much to solve a given problem.
There is nothing inherently stupid building in the 500 year flood plain. The odds are .002% that water will enter the 500 year flood plain in a given year. The odds against winning the lottery are much, much worse, and I don't see you crying out that the government mandate against the lottery.
Unless the buyers asked and were lied to about the location being in the 500 year flood plain, I fail to see what legal recourse you are expecting to have enacted, and the problem here would be the fact that a buyer was lied to, irrelevant of the fact it was in a 500 year flood plain. "
It is not the government's job to protect against each and every form of stupid in the world. The location of a house, in regards to flood plains, is one of the top questions to ask. There comes a point when government oversight is a bit much to solve a given problem.
There is nothing inherently stupid building in the 500 year flood plain. The odds are .002% that water will enter the 500 year flood plain in a given year. The odds against winning the lottery are much, much worse, and I don't see you crying out that the government mandate against the lottery.
Unless the buyers asked and were lied to about the location being in the 500 year flood plain, I fail to see what legal recourse you are expecting to have enacted, and the problem here would be the fact that a buyer was lied to, irrelevant of the fact it was in a 500 year flood plain. "
hillbillytea wrote on Jun 28, 2008 5:23 PM:
" I've been hearing about this 500 year flood thing for the last 2 weeks.tell me, can anyone come up with the records for this area dating back to 1508?or even 1808 for that matter? from what I understand they had two srorms last decade that could qualify in the 100 year catagory.I cant wait to see what the storm of the millinium will look like. "
scoot wrote on Jun 28, 2008 5:59 PM:
" It doesn't have to be disclosed at the sale that it's in a flood plain. All you have to do is grab a flood map, in almost every case your realtor should have it. If not, go to the library and get one. That should be one of the first things you do when you buy a home. If a home is in a 100 year flood plain there are good odds that a little water will enter the area every year. The water has to be a certain depth to be considered a flood. Know this, if the home is in a 100 year flood plain that area will be the first to flood. In fact, if I understand correctly, flood insurance is required in many sections of 100 year areas. That area north of the Cedar floods a little bit every year so you take the chance when you buy a home there. The price is a little cheaper because it's in a flood plain and it's a risk. Really, don't blame anyone but yourselves if your home is flooded. And for those of you stranded, I hardly feel sorry for you because you were warned well in advance so it's your own fault. There was no way that the water could have been contained on the North Side. And if there was such a big concern why wasn't the issue addressed BEFORE the flood? If it rains you don't wait until you're soaked to put on your rain suit, put it on before the storm. "
hillbillytea wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:15 PM:
" interesring loophole scoot.most sales reps will advise their peers to never volenteer imformation.let the buyer beware.in some cases imformation may only be availible online and unfortunatly not everbody owns or knows how to use a computer.but doing business in that manor is still leagle and the reps will play dumd almost everytime as long as nothings in writing.PT barnam laws do apply "
ozymandias wrote on Jun 28, 2008 11:16 PM:
" Hillbillytea,
Your spelling and grammar are slipping.
Anyway, as to the definition of '100 year' and '500 year' flood plains, it does not actually have to do with 100 year periods -- it has to do with the chance a flood will flood in a given year. The 100 year flood plain tends t flood on average, once in 100 years, given each year a 1% chance of having a 100 year flood.
Using models of weather and predicted rainfall, they can calculate the odds that enough rain will fall in short enough time frame, over enough of a watershed to predict how probable floods of a certain height are. It is a childish misunderstanding of the system to assume that a 100 year flood only occurs once every 100 years, and not simply a 1 in 100 chance that a given year will have a 100 year flood.
Interesting aside, but you may have already seen what the 'storm of the millinium(sic) will look like' as I have seen the rating for the flood of 2008 anywhere from a '500 year flood' to a '2500' year flood. In Cedar Falls, for instance, some homes outside the 500 year plain have been hit, making this at minimum a 500 year flood. In Iowa City, due to the extra rivers and tributaries that also flooded, the numbers are higher.
I am a bit unclear as to what loophole you think you found in scoot's post. Care to elaborate? "
Your spelling and grammar are slipping.
Anyway, as to the definition of '100 year' and '500 year' flood plains, it does not actually have to do with 100 year periods -- it has to do with the chance a flood will flood in a given year. The 100 year flood plain tends t flood on average, once in 100 years, given each year a 1% chance of having a 100 year flood.
Using models of weather and predicted rainfall, they can calculate the odds that enough rain will fall in short enough time frame, over enough of a watershed to predict how probable floods of a certain height are. It is a childish misunderstanding of the system to assume that a 100 year flood only occurs once every 100 years, and not simply a 1 in 100 chance that a given year will have a 100 year flood.
Interesting aside, but you may have already seen what the 'storm of the millinium(sic) will look like' as I have seen the rating for the flood of 2008 anywhere from a '500 year flood' to a '2500' year flood. In Cedar Falls, for instance, some homes outside the 500 year plain have been hit, making this at minimum a 500 year flood. In Iowa City, due to the extra rivers and tributaries that also flooded, the numbers are higher.
I am a bit unclear as to what loophole you think you found in scoot's post. Care to elaborate? "
linnea wrote on Jun 30, 2008 9:30 AM:
" At least one resident of Jaclyn Street checked with the county before buying, and was told, "It does not flood there. If you get water, then downtown Cedar Falls will be under water." Yeah, right.
Ozymandias writes: "It is not the government's job to protect against each and every form of stupid in the world." In that case, why do we have building codes, speed limits, drunk driving laws, etc.? Why not just let everyone fend for themselves and take the consequences of their own "stupid"? Because, those consequences affect us all.
We all pay, through our taxes, for the emergency boat rescues of people who lived where it "doesn't flood". We all pay for hauling away the ruined belongings of those who live where it "doesn't flood." If we were smarter, we'd protect ourselves from other people's stupidity.
Scoot writes: "And for those of you stranded, I hardly feel sorry for you because you were warned well in advance so it's your own fault." Some people's first warning came when they got home from work on Monday and found a notice on their doors. Hours later, water was in their houses.
For those who weren't flooded but were cut off from the rest of the world, there was no outreach from the city whatsoever. I went to the city's website Monday night, and there was a list of roads that would be closed, but no indication of where exactly the closings would be. I know that one end of my street has flooded, but I didn't realize that both ends were going to be cut off. Did anyone hear any advance warning that the Route 218/57 interchange would be closed? I know I didn't.
By Tuesday morning it was clear to me - more from word-of-mouth than anything else - that my nieghborhood was going to be cut off. I chose to stay home instead of getting out, and I have no problem with that. But, I do think the city could have been a lot more pro-active about contacting people: put it out in the media which areas were being evacuated and exactly what roads were expected to go under, and set up an automated calling system to warn people, instead of just going door to door. "
Ozymandias writes: "It is not the government's job to protect against each and every form of stupid in the world." In that case, why do we have building codes, speed limits, drunk driving laws, etc.? Why not just let everyone fend for themselves and take the consequences of their own "stupid"? Because, those consequences affect us all.
We all pay, through our taxes, for the emergency boat rescues of people who lived where it "doesn't flood". We all pay for hauling away the ruined belongings of those who live where it "doesn't flood." If we were smarter, we'd protect ourselves from other people's stupidity.
Scoot writes: "And for those of you stranded, I hardly feel sorry for you because you were warned well in advance so it's your own fault." Some people's first warning came when they got home from work on Monday and found a notice on their doors. Hours later, water was in their houses.
For those who weren't flooded but were cut off from the rest of the world, there was no outreach from the city whatsoever. I went to the city's website Monday night, and there was a list of roads that would be closed, but no indication of where exactly the closings would be. I know that one end of my street has flooded, but I didn't realize that both ends were going to be cut off. Did anyone hear any advance warning that the Route 218/57 interchange would be closed? I know I didn't.
By Tuesday morning it was clear to me - more from word-of-mouth than anything else - that my nieghborhood was going to be cut off. I chose to stay home instead of getting out, and I have no problem with that. But, I do think the city could have been a lot more pro-active about contacting people: put it out in the media which areas were being evacuated and exactly what roads were expected to go under, and set up an automated calling system to warn people, instead of just going door to door. "
linnea wrote on Jun 30, 2008 9:45 AM:
" "I fail to see what legal recourse you are expecting to have enacted"
What I would like to see is a change in the rules for future building. There are other flood-plain developments under consideration, and if we're smart, we won't proceed with them. "
What I would like to see is a change in the rules for future building. There are other flood-plain developments under consideration, and if we're smart, we won't proceed with them. "
ozymandias wrote on Jun 30, 2008 10:35 AM:
" linnea,
Every example you provided (drunk driving, building codes, speed limits) is a case where the government protects someone from someone ELSE'S stupidity. If the only people ever hurt by a drunk driver were the people choosing to drive drunk, the odds are the laws would not exist. The same goes for speed limits, the person speeding is more likely to cause an accident, be it with another car or a pedestrian. Even if the speeder did not make accidents with others, or others property more risky, they make the accidents worse. Building codes are the same way. A builder cutting corners, such as putting the studs 32 inches apart rather than 16, or using non-fire retardant insulation are things that should not be the buyers responsibility to investigate. The hidden construction components on the house, those that would require tearing out walls to inspect, are not something that a buyer can easily check themselves. A houses status in regards to a flood plain, yeah, that is simple to check. Besides, when your house burns down the neighborhood due to shoddy wiring, that effects everyone -- not just the person that accepted the risks.
Look at smoking for a perfect example of this: smoking is still allowed, even though it is cancer causing, and stupid. The recent legislation limiting it is entirely based on the damage that smoking does to those around the smoker.
If you choose to buy a house in a 500 year, or 100 year flood plain, that is fine. Ideally, that is a decision you make, and should only effect you. It is only when you choose to compound stupidity and require a tax-payer funded rescue that it becomes my problem.
Choosing cheap housing now, and the risk of flood over expensive housing now and less risk of flood is a decision that people make, and they are free to make that choice. There are much much stupider things to legislate against before someone taking a gamble with their housing becomes an issue. "
Every example you provided (drunk driving, building codes, speed limits) is a case where the government protects someone from someone ELSE'S stupidity. If the only people ever hurt by a drunk driver were the people choosing to drive drunk, the odds are the laws would not exist. The same goes for speed limits, the person speeding is more likely to cause an accident, be it with another car or a pedestrian. Even if the speeder did not make accidents with others, or others property more risky, they make the accidents worse. Building codes are the same way. A builder cutting corners, such as putting the studs 32 inches apart rather than 16, or using non-fire retardant insulation are things that should not be the buyers responsibility to investigate. The hidden construction components on the house, those that would require tearing out walls to inspect, are not something that a buyer can easily check themselves. A houses status in regards to a flood plain, yeah, that is simple to check. Besides, when your house burns down the neighborhood due to shoddy wiring, that effects everyone -- not just the person that accepted the risks.
Look at smoking for a perfect example of this: smoking is still allowed, even though it is cancer causing, and stupid. The recent legislation limiting it is entirely based on the damage that smoking does to those around the smoker.
If you choose to buy a house in a 500 year, or 100 year flood plain, that is fine. Ideally, that is a decision you make, and should only effect you. It is only when you choose to compound stupidity and require a tax-payer funded rescue that it becomes my problem.
Choosing cheap housing now, and the risk of flood over expensive housing now and less risk of flood is a decision that people make, and they are free to make that choice. There are much much stupider things to legislate against before someone taking a gamble with their housing becomes an issue. "
linnea wrote on Jun 30, 2008 11:38 AM:
" Ozymandias,
Okay, then, how about seatbelt laws? The only person a seatbelt protects is the person wearing it. But, they are a benefit to all of us, in that they diminish the number of people who are so seriously injured that they become a burden on society.
Typically, when new legislation is introduced, there is resistance to it, but once it's in place, people get used to it. I haven't noticed anyone actively lobbying against seatbelt laws lately.
Also, some of the things covered in building codes *are* easily checked by the consumer: number of exits, size of doorways, heights of stairs, etc. But we as a society apparently think it's better to regulate these things - in the case of new construction - instead of letting the buyer beware. Likewise, I'd like to see stronger legislation about building in flood plains.
You write, "It is only when you choose to compound stupidity and require a tax-payer funded rescue that it becomes my problem."
What about trash removal? "
Okay, then, how about seatbelt laws? The only person a seatbelt protects is the person wearing it. But, they are a benefit to all of us, in that they diminish the number of people who are so seriously injured that they become a burden on society.
Typically, when new legislation is introduced, there is resistance to it, but once it's in place, people get used to it. I haven't noticed anyone actively lobbying against seatbelt laws lately.
Also, some of the things covered in building codes *are* easily checked by the consumer: number of exits, size of doorways, heights of stairs, etc. But we as a society apparently think it's better to regulate these things - in the case of new construction - instead of letting the buyer beware. Likewise, I'd like to see stronger legislation about building in flood plains.
You write, "It is only when you choose to compound stupidity and require a tax-payer funded rescue that it becomes my problem."
What about trash removal? "
ozymandias wrote on Jun 30, 2008 2:04 PM:
" Linnea,
Sorry, I also forgot that some people didn't move things out or up prior to the flood.
As to seatbelt laws, you are missing a very important part of them. If you were to run a red light and hit someone that choose to not wear a seatbelt you would be accountable for damages to that person. Requiring seatbelts means that they are less likely to get seriously hurt. That makes their choice whether or not to wear a seatbelt impact very heavily onto you, so in effect that seatbelt protects their body, but your finances.
Back onto building codes, I think that the intricacies of building safety justify the existence of building codes, as it is not a simple, nor obvious idea that you will need multiple egresses in the case of a fire, or that a window of a certain size may be fine for one person, but not another. You are comparing a think listing of non-obvious rules, from egress from bedrooms, to the amount of natural ventilation in a given room, to a requirement that bedrooms have a source of natural light, to locations of smoke detectors, to gauges of wires allowed in the wall to something as simple as location in regards to a flood plain.
You are also trying to compare things on a continum to a binary question. How wide should doors be? 60 inches? 48? 302? 30? 20? 4? what about weight limits on floors? should each room be required to support a total of 100 lbs? 200? 6,000? 60,000? What is an adequate gauge for home wiring? These are all relatively arbitrary, and dependent on the user. Some people might be able to get by with a 20 inch door frame, but what happens when there is a fire and the 6 foot tall, heavily muscled fireman can't get through with all his gear? Are you expecting buyers to consider all of these things when building or buying a house? Contrast that with "Is this house in a flood plain", which is a yes or no question. It is simple to answer. There is not a whole lot of wiggle room on it.
You are also missing a huge argument for building in a flood plain: It's cheap. No, seriously, it is. I know of more than one person that bought in the flood plain for that very reason. They decided that living in a flood plain was worth it to own their own home, and raise their children in their own house, rather than a rental. They were able to get a nice home in North Cedar, much larger than anywhere else in town. I am not sure what exactly you have against the lower-income people who either own, or wish to own their own home, but it is really sad that you are trying to take away part of the American dream from your fellow citizens.
You are arguing to limit building in the flood plain, why exactly? You think that people are too stupid to realize "Hey, I live in a flood plain, I might get water in my house when it floods" and are basing your argument off the fact that not every home buyer in the world is an electrical engineer and thus we have building codes? I think I am missing something somewhere. "
Sorry, I also forgot that some people didn't move things out or up prior to the flood.
As to seatbelt laws, you are missing a very important part of them. If you were to run a red light and hit someone that choose to not wear a seatbelt you would be accountable for damages to that person. Requiring seatbelts means that they are less likely to get seriously hurt. That makes their choice whether or not to wear a seatbelt impact very heavily onto you, so in effect that seatbelt protects their body, but your finances.
Back onto building codes, I think that the intricacies of building safety justify the existence of building codes, as it is not a simple, nor obvious idea that you will need multiple egresses in the case of a fire, or that a window of a certain size may be fine for one person, but not another. You are comparing a think listing of non-obvious rules, from egress from bedrooms, to the amount of natural ventilation in a given room, to a requirement that bedrooms have a source of natural light, to locations of smoke detectors, to gauges of wires allowed in the wall to something as simple as location in regards to a flood plain.
You are also trying to compare things on a continum to a binary question. How wide should doors be? 60 inches? 48? 302? 30? 20? 4? what about weight limits on floors? should each room be required to support a total of 100 lbs? 200? 6,000? 60,000? What is an adequate gauge for home wiring? These are all relatively arbitrary, and dependent on the user. Some people might be able to get by with a 20 inch door frame, but what happens when there is a fire and the 6 foot tall, heavily muscled fireman can't get through with all his gear? Are you expecting buyers to consider all of these things when building or buying a house? Contrast that with "Is this house in a flood plain", which is a yes or no question. It is simple to answer. There is not a whole lot of wiggle room on it.
You are also missing a huge argument for building in a flood plain: It's cheap. No, seriously, it is. I know of more than one person that bought in the flood plain for that very reason. They decided that living in a flood plain was worth it to own their own home, and raise their children in their own house, rather than a rental. They were able to get a nice home in North Cedar, much larger than anywhere else in town. I am not sure what exactly you have against the lower-income people who either own, or wish to own their own home, but it is really sad that you are trying to take away part of the American dream from your fellow citizens.
You are arguing to limit building in the flood plain, why exactly? You think that people are too stupid to realize "Hey, I live in a flood plain, I might get water in my house when it floods" and are basing your argument off the fact that not every home buyer in the world is an electrical engineer and thus we have building codes? I think I am missing something somewhere. "
ozymandias wrote on Jun 30, 2008 2:10 PM:
" Linnea,
I also forgot a huge flaw in your plan to ban future construction: Even if you ban future construction in the flood plain, unless you buy out all these people, or otherwise forbit them from selling their houses, buyers would still have this issue, and would still need to know if it was in the flood plain, only now many of them would assume that they were safe, since the city would not allow building in the 500 year flood plain, under your plan. "
I also forgot a huge flaw in your plan to ban future construction: Even if you ban future construction in the flood plain, unless you buy out all these people, or otherwise forbit them from selling their houses, buyers would still have this issue, and would still need to know if it was in the flood plain, only now many of them would assume that they were safe, since the city would not allow building in the 500 year flood plain, under your plan. "
Wolves-Lower wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:49 AM:
" linnea wrote:" It may be legal to build in the 500-year floodplain, but it's certainly not smart. City council is supposed to be doing some planning for future floods; I hope they address this issue.
Sure they should address it! Perhaps the City of Cedar Falls should look at the biggest developer in the 500 year Flood Plain...THE CITY OF CEDAR FALLS!
Please tell me why it is ok for the City to build a new Public Works office right on Dry Run Creek? Who pays to clean that up? Who pays for the higher insurance rates? I find it quite ironic that the City will be busy banning private home re-building because of possibilities of future floods, but they slog away building in flood zones unnoticed!!! People live in North Cedar because it is cheap. We all can't afford nice houses in newer developments. When the City tells me I can't re-build then it will be time to leave Cedar Falls. I for one am tired of the un-equal treatment by the City depended on your economic status. It is fine and dandy with the City that the Brown Bottle re-builds, but if average Joe North Cedar wants to elevate and re-build the City has all kinds of new flood codes to abide to. "
Sure they should address it! Perhaps the City of Cedar Falls should look at the biggest developer in the 500 year Flood Plain...THE CITY OF CEDAR FALLS!
Please tell me why it is ok for the City to build a new Public Works office right on Dry Run Creek? Who pays to clean that up? Who pays for the higher insurance rates? I find it quite ironic that the City will be busy banning private home re-building because of possibilities of future floods, but they slog away building in flood zones unnoticed!!! People live in North Cedar because it is cheap. We all can't afford nice houses in newer developments. When the City tells me I can't re-build then it will be time to leave Cedar Falls. I for one am tired of the un-equal treatment by the City depended on your economic status. It is fine and dandy with the City that the Brown Bottle re-builds, but if average Joe North Cedar wants to elevate and re-build the City has all kinds of new flood codes to abide to. "
linnea wrote on Jul 1, 2008 5:58 PM:
" Ozymandias writes: "Sorry, I also forgot that some people didn't move things out or up prior to the flood."
Those foolish people, what were they thinking, not taking along every stick of furniture, plus their appliances, and the sheetrock and insulation in their walls, when they evacuated? Or moving them up out of reach of the water?
How do you move things up in a one-story house?
I have more responses to what you say about building codes, but I don't have time right now. "
Those foolish people, what were they thinking, not taking along every stick of furniture, plus their appliances, and the sheetrock and insulation in their walls, when they evacuated? Or moving them up out of reach of the water?
How do you move things up in a one-story house?
I have more responses to what you say about building codes, but I don't have time right now. "
ozymandias wrote on Jul 1, 2008 9:44 PM:
" linnea,
I am eagerly awaiting your non-red herring reply as to why we need to have the government regulate against decisions that you feel are bad, such as the desire for lower income people to own a home. "
I am eagerly awaiting your non-red herring reply as to why we need to have the government regulate against decisions that you feel are bad, such as the desire for lower income people to own a home. "
linnea wrote on Jul 2, 2008 12:28 PM:
" Okay, I'm still pressed for time, but I'll take a stab.
I'm making a distinction between houses that are already there in the flood plain, and new construction. There are houses that have been there for decades, and now for whatever reason (some or all of the following: changing climate trends, the effect of highway and levee construction, and the roll of the annual-rainfall dice) they are flooding more often and more severely, at great cost (monetary and otherwise) both to the flooded individuals and the community at large. What to do with them is a thorny problem. I'm in favor of voluntary buyouts; it's not a perfect solution, but the best compromise I can think of between the needs/rights of the individual and those of the community.
So, with one thorny problem to deal with, why create more by building new houses in the flood plain? That violates the first rule of holes: when you're stuck in one, quit digging.
Are you familiar with Jaclyn Street? The houses there were built between 2000 and 2002, replacing a flood-prone trailer court. As far as I know, it was a private land deal: the developer bought the land from the owner of the trailer court, put in enough fill to bring the ground above the 100-year flood level, and built houses. Each house is valued between $100,000 and $200,000. Don't tell me those are people who can't afford to buy anywhere else.
As for low-income people being able to buy houses, I'm all for it. Let's spend our public money assisting them to buy safe houses, instead of giving them aid to clean up after they buy unsafe ones. "
I'm making a distinction between houses that are already there in the flood plain, and new construction. There are houses that have been there for decades, and now for whatever reason (some or all of the following: changing climate trends, the effect of highway and levee construction, and the roll of the annual-rainfall dice) they are flooding more often and more severely, at great cost (monetary and otherwise) both to the flooded individuals and the community at large. What to do with them is a thorny problem. I'm in favor of voluntary buyouts; it's not a perfect solution, but the best compromise I can think of between the needs/rights of the individual and those of the community.
So, with one thorny problem to deal with, why create more by building new houses in the flood plain? That violates the first rule of holes: when you're stuck in one, quit digging.
Are you familiar with Jaclyn Street? The houses there were built between 2000 and 2002, replacing a flood-prone trailer court. As far as I know, it was a private land deal: the developer bought the land from the owner of the trailer court, put in enough fill to bring the ground above the 100-year flood level, and built houses. Each house is valued between $100,000 and $200,000. Don't tell me those are people who can't afford to buy anywhere else.
As for low-income people being able to buy houses, I'm all for it. Let's spend our public money assisting them to buy safe houses, instead of giving them aid to clean up after they buy unsafe ones. "
hillbillytea wrote on Jul 2, 2008 8:07 PM:
" ozzy I was referring to scoots opening statment 06/28/5:59 "
ozymandias wrote on Jul 3, 2008 8:15 AM:
" Hillbilly, I still don't see a loophole. I see standard, everyday real estate. "
hillbillytea wrote on Jul 3, 2008 4:05 PM:
" well as long as the developer/realestate lobbyists can alter or even write the realestate disclosure laws thats ok then.like you said ,"it's all standard practice". In the sales world let the buyer beware. "
ozymandias wrote on Jul 4, 2008 7:36 PM:
" hillbillytea, it is not like this is a hidden, dirty secret. It is one of the first things you ask a real estate agent, or person showing a house : Does it ever get water in the basement? I can't believe how many of you people feel the need to be government hand held through these sorts of things. "
Due to the amount of spam and negative comments received, the Courier implement a registered-user system for participation in the comment portion of our site. In doing so, the Courier reserves the right to ban any user(s) at any time without notice if we feel they are not following the terms of agreement.
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
~ADVERTISEMENT~
NEWS |
SPORTS |
COMMUNITY |
BUSINESS |
ENTERTAINMENT |
FEATURES |
OPINIONS |
OBITUARIES |
CLASSIFIEDS |
PRIVACY POLICY |
CONTACT US |
CARRIER PAGES
|
linnea wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:06 PM:
What I want to know is why on earth people were allowed to build houses on Jaclyn Street, adjacent to the NC playground, in an area that was known to have flooded in the past. They built the houses up higher than the 100-year flood level, but not the 500-year. I think the developers who profited from them and the Planning and Zoning and City Council members who approved them should be required to come shovel out the muck.
Those houses are also part of the reason the water got so deep and stayed so long in the playground. Every time you build something higher, you make the water deeper somewhere else. "