By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
Local developers are trying to kill a key part of KC's green solutions for its $2.3 billion sewer repair problem. Here's the backdrop to this story:
KC officials on Friday told the state and feds how the city would include more green solutions in the sewer plan. However, one of the biggest initiatives pledged by the city, at this point, is a sham.
The city has promised to adopt a stream buffer ordinance as part of a planned development code.
Yes, a strict new law is needed to prevent development from occurring too close to streams. By preserving additional natural areas, the city would prevent more water from entering local waterways.
This initiative is supposed to be one of the key reasons the Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency would allow the city six more months to develop its sewer repair plan.
The city's proposal was outlined Friday in a letter by John Franklin, acting director for the Water Services Department.
Here's the big problem with it.
A group of developers has steadfastly opposed the positive stream buffer plan promoted by the city staff, the taxpayer-funded consultant for the city and by the citizens group overseeing KC's entire wet weather program.
In fact, the development group is leaning on City Council members to pass a far less positive stream buffer plan.
The developers essentially want to keep more land available for housing and offices.
The DNR and the EPA should not grant the six-month extension unless City Council members pledge in writing to approve an effective stream buffer program.
On Monday, City Council members are scheduled to take up the stream buffer plan and other ideas included in the extension letter signed by Franklin.
We'll see then whether the council members will be cowed by the developers -- or will forge ahead with a truly green initiative.
Delicious
Digg
stream setbacks
and adequate floodplains help prevent the all-too frequent and expensive flooding we've witnessed in the Midwest of late.
But, jphnqpublic
there is much more to a stream setback ordinance than 'green'. It prevents developers from building in floodplains. When developers build in floodplains, they not only subject the buildings they build to frequent flooding, but they also increase the danger of buildings upstream of being flooded. Then, your tax dollars pay to cleanup and rebuild those flooded buildings. I would prefer to keep the flood zones free of buildings so that we, the taxpayers, are not continually asked to help out those poor owners who should never have been there in the first place.
Yes, it is also green. Leaving undisturbed areas along the streams provides a filter for stormwater so that the stormwater reaching the stream carries less sediment and other contaminants into the steam. This is NOT related to combined sewer overflows exclusively; it applies to all stormwater running off your yard, the streets and other places where it picks up things we really don't want in our streams.
As for the Plan, I personnaly would trust the professionals who are trained to deal with such issues to develop a reasonable plan more than I would trust a group of developers whose ONLY motivation is to put more money in their pockets.
Final note, I guess we are beginning to see just how serious some of the Council members are about their committment to a greener Kansas City. They cower at the first request of a developer. So much for committment.
Keep the green nuts out of my waste
I am sick to death of all these high dollar green plans. Now you come along wanting to do all this stuff with piles of....stuff. Please do keep it out of our streams and public places but don't go overboard. I swear, you guys would spend billions more to say something is green. It's poop for God's sake, leave it alone and go plant a tree.
Line Creek Flooding
It's no wonder after Ed Ford won't go by the Area Plan and keeps overbuilding, and takes away flood plains.Just look what happen at Liberty and 68th St a few weeks ago. He didn't do anything his first 8 years in office, and it looks like people in the line creek area won't get any help for this term.
Stupid post
Yael, this is the craziest post I have seen from you.
Either the headline is diseaving and intended to grab attention, or, you are trying to distort the facts.
The letter to MDNR and EPA, and the current Plan, do NOT contain a sham. I repeat, neither contains a sham.
Developers are trying to work council members to take the teeth out of the proposed stream setback ordinance -- but that is NOT what has been proposed to the regulatory agencies as far as I can tell. I believe it is the intent of staff, the consulting team, and the Wet Weather Community Panel to pusue a meaningful stream setback ordinance that will accomplish the intended purpose. It remains to be seen whether the council has the backbone to stick to its publicly stated "green" position, or will it sucomb to the pressures of a few self-serving developers.
Come on Yael, at least present the facts fairly.