15 replies to this topic

[AndyN]

OK,

I had a conversation with Chris Hatley and members of the Northwest Tarrant County Republican Club last Thursday. Mr. Hatley contends that the project is purely economic development and it is wrong to take private property from the business owners that will be affected by the new flood bypass channel. How do you feel about it?

From the two sides:

There is a +/-$10 million dollar proposal that meets the federal design guidelines for flood control and environmental improvements along the river (basically adding more dirt to the top of the levees).

The community preferred alternative will cost $435 million dollars. This includes removing the levees from near the convergence of the two forks to just past LaGrave Field so that private land within the horseshoe can be redeveloped as waterfront properties. Removing the protective levees will necessitate adding a flood bypass channel which will wipe out approximately 80 businesses. Assume for the purpose of this conversation that the properties taken along the bypass channel will be used just for the floodway, maintenance access and public recreational trails. The project would reduce the heavy hand of man by returning stream meanders and restoring wildlife habitats that were obliterated by converting the river to a drainage ditch.

Is there a reasonable alternative to building the bypass channel? In San Antonio, a flood bypass tunnel was bored beneath the town to further increase the protection against the potential of unprecedented, catastrophic flooding. A tunnel was built 140 feet below the streets of the city and was completed in 1997 at a cost of $111 million. The tunnel is approximately three miles long. (It's ironic how San Antonio faced some of the same problems as Fort Worth and the different path they took with their river San Antonio History)

[cberen1]

OK,

I had a conversation with Chris Hatley and members of the Northwest Tarrant County Republican Club last Thursday. Mr. Hatley contends that the project is purely economic development and it is wrong to take private property from the business owners that will be affected by the new flood bypass channel. How do you feel about it?

From the two sides:

There is a +/-$10 million dollar proposal that meets the federal design guidelines for flood control and environmental improvements along the river (basically adding more dirt to the top of the levees).

The community preferred alternative will cost $435 million dollars. This includes removing the levees from near the convergence of the two forks to just past LaGrave Field so that private land within the horseshoe can be redeveloped as waterfront properties. Removing the protective levees will necessitate adding a flood bypass channel which will wipe out approximately 80 businesses. Assume for the purpose of this conversation that the properties taken along the bypass channel will be used just for the floodway, maintenance access and public recreational trails. The project would reduce the heavy hand of man by returning stream meanders and restoring wildlife habitats that were obliterated by converting the river to a drainage ditch.

Is there a reasonable alternative to building the bypass channel? In San Antonio, a flood bypass tunnel was bored beneath the town to further increase the protection against the potential of unprecedented, catastrophic flooding. A tunnel was built 140 feet below the streets of the city and was completed in 1997 at a cost of $111 million. The tunnel is approximately three miles long. (It's ironic how San Antonio faced some of the same problems as Fort Worth and the different path they took with their river San Antonio History)

For me it's kind of like when I wear my Nike shoes. I want the shoes. I enjoy wearing the shoes. And as long as I don't think about the 8 year old kid that had to make them I have no feelings of guilt or remorse.

I really want this project to work. If it does, I will enjoy what I think will happen to the near north-side. My hope is that it can all be done without the use of eminent domain. If eminent domain is used, I'll try not to think about it. It keeps me from having to address my own flawed and conflicted character.

Like I said, I hope it can be done without the use of eminent domain.

[Buck]

Hatley's lived here 10 months. Suddenly he's an expert on what's right and wrong for Fort Worth?

It's the best idea for downtown of our lifetimes. Let's make sure the landowners are fairly compensated, and share in the increased property values. But don't criticize the project simply because it will improve downtown's value.

[AndyN]

More info:

In reaction to the landmark Kelo Vs. City of New London, the Texas Senate passed Senate Bill No. 7 last year that generally outlaws the use of eminent domain for economic development.

However, prior to that law being placed on the books, Charlie Geren authored legislation to specifically allow use of eminent domain by the water district for economic development ED in the FWWeekly.

I finally found a copy of the legislation on the Texas Legislature's website - HB 2639.

Of course, in the context of acquiring land for the flood bypass channel, the preferred method for all parties involved is to come to a mutually satisfying agreement.

At this point, I am trying to present information and facts to encourage constructive debate. I appreciate everyone's input.

Timothy Nold

[safly]

I like the idea of a bypass tunnel. It's not entirely sexy, but saving over $200 million dollars (inflation figure) could be.

I wonder where EXACTLY our FW Chamber of commerce stands on this topic. They seem to play the neutral Swiss role in many business projects, as long as it stirs economic development and more memberships in the long run. Our vital interests should primarily be of water conservation, at a regional level. How will this affect property owner's and their rights in more rural areas. What will this particular project reveal for the common farmer(s) or area rancher(s)? To say that using $400 million earmarked for a project would benefit FW and the region with an economic stimulus of 5 times amount that in the first 5 years BETTER be backed by some substantial sources and proven evident by similiar projects in our country, in similiar economic situations. If so, then AT THE VERY LEAST pay these ousted businesses above par compensations. That's all I am saying.

(THIS Coca Cola"COWBOY" on Deal or NO DEAL is KILLING ME!)

[Buck]

I think most folks favor the project itself.

Some folks are concerned about how the eminent domain process will be carried out.

[courtnie]

Already in the surrounding neigborhoods near the prospective bypass channel there are several houses that have been taken for eminent domain. i dont have a problem with having the channel but i do have a problem with taking businesses that are iconic to fort worth. if it were just a run down part of town that might be different but its a thriving location. The part im not understanding is why we want to remove the levees? Arent they a source of protection? I mean the area flooded in the 20's it flooded in the 40's and they build the levees and benbrook lake to help and yet now they are thought of as out dated? I can post pictures to prove they arent outdated. as of 2 years ago when we had terrible flooding those levees stood strong and tall to defend those of us that live near them. I watched the water rise to 6 feet over flood stage and i shudder to think that if the levees go my home is as good as gone..guess thats why i pay over 800 per year in flood insurance.

[John T Roberts]

Courtnie, not all of the levees are going to be removed. The new diversion channel will have levees on both sides of is plus three flood gates to keep the flood waters in the diversion channel. The areas where the levees will be removed will be along the old Clear Fork and West Fork Channels.

[cjyoung]

i dont have a problem with having the channel but i do have a problem with taking businesses that are iconic to fort worth. if it were just a run down part of town that might be different but its a thriving location.

What business icons are you referring to?

Regardless of whether or not we reach the projected impact for the project, far more value will be brought to Fort Worth than without it.

[drstevens]

Have we not learned anything from Katrina? I still remember when the Trinity River was a natural bottomsland, with trees and wildlife from Benbrook to downtown. Early on, when it flooded, it was a natural event that didn't hurt anyone. Then some people came along and decided that even though they chose to live in a prairie, it would be nice to live in amongst some old the old growth trees taht reminded them of their Eastern or Northern roots. So developers moved in and people built structures in the floodplains. Then a flood came, a big one that people didn't think could happen. So they came in and cut down all the trees, gouged out the river, took out the bends and created a huge, barren, gaping, hideous ditch. And city folk look at it and said, Ooohh look, a river!

Flood plains are nature's cost free way of handling spring rains, it's an important part of the ecosystem. The levees and dikes and channeling we have done will stop most of the floods, but I guarantee that SOMEDAY, more rain than man could comprehend will fall and the levees, if they don't break will simply hold the water out of the river and make things much worse. We were one gully washer away from it in the late 80's when Benbrook lake was 12 feet over the first notch and the channelized river was filled to the top. I hate subsidizing commercial developers stupidity - we weren't masters of nature, we were lucky. If someone wants to build in a flood plane, great, it's a free country, but insurance companies don't need to cover them and I don't need to pay the government to build and maintain a levee to protect them. Look around, there is plenty of high and dry land around here!

I understand the our sprawl and paving habits (increased runoff) have created annual flood plains out of 50 and 100 year flood plains, but that is just and extension of the same short sighted stupidity.

I'm as politically conservative as the next guy (that rarest of species - the conservationist conservative), but it doesn't take a lot of intelligence to see that the best use of such land is parks, farms, and nature preserves. Government policy should reflect the common good. I'm not advocating taking the land away from private owners, but it should serve notice that public funds will not be used to protect this land from the beneficial and normal cycles of nature.

[courtnie]

Have you not read the articles in the star telegram? They are going to take omahs, the lumber yard, and several other places on white settlement rd.


Its all about cash....Fort Worth is changing and soon all of us who love the history and old homes here will be dissapointed in the not too distant future when all of the older homes have been either demolished or turned into a mansion. I admit I live in the river bottom, I look at the levees every day, I also pay for flood insurance, BUT that doesnt mean I want my house to be water front property..Its already been underwater once in its lifetime....will it happen again, probably..unless its taken for Eminet Domain or someone comes in and pays an ungodly amount of cash to get the land it sits on....

[360texas]

ED for private development is not right.

Only ED for public use and betterment is the right way to go.

[courtnie]

where is the fine line between public betterment and eminent domain for private gain?

[Stadtplan]

where is the fine line between public betterment and eminent domain for private gain?

That’s why this is so controversial…it’s more of a marriage between the two rather than a fine line between them. When eminent domain is used to build a new highway, for example, the public betterment is immediately realized because it helps one get from point A to point B easier and the economic growth at point B serves the demand for a bigger better road. With TRV, public betterment is contingent on private development because eminent domain is supposed to make the land more usable physically and economically.

To further illustrate, look at the Dallas N Tollway through Frisco. It is being built in response to a major housing boom in that area. Cause and affect. They didn’t build the tollway hoping someone would build houses and businesses or that it might help farmers in Collin and Denton counties get to downtown Dallas quicker. TRV is being built with the promise that development will occur as a result, but is there any guarantee what is planned for today is going to happen a few years from now or will it become a $435 MM urban lake and recreation area?

[courtnie]

I still dont believe its right to be able to tell someone they are going to take your land just because its for public betterment. If that is the case then why own property? I just dont agree with it.

[Stadtplan]

With some road projects years behind schedule, Fort Worth gets aggressive with landowners By Harrison Mantas

Read more at: https://www.star-tel...l#storylink=cpy