Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Proposed river access point would be expensive to clean up

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 12:00 am | Updated: 5:47 am, Tue Sep 20, 2011.

This is in response to the letter suggesting a kayak launch at city-owned property on the Mokelumne River (Sept. 8 by Mary Fuhs). There are some serious errors in the logic.

Although there have been some problems with transients, just ask the residents of River Meadows what might happen if the area were open to public access. We don't need another mess like the Woodbridge Regional Park. The calls to the police would probably triple if the parcel were to become an even greater magnet for unsupervised access.

She suggests that property values would go up, but I can't imagine how they would increase if there were 200 to 300 more vehicles routinely traveling through a quiet residential neighborhood; not to mention the problems of cars and trailers in an area where there is very limited parking.

The city has not been negligent by keeping this parcel closed. It has large quantities of lead in the ground from its use as a shooting range, as well as unknown quantities of battery acid, solvents, paints, tires and who knows what other hazardous waste when the property was a dump. It would be negligent for the city to open it under these conditions.

The city sold the property in the 1980s, but had to buy it back because of the contamination issues. The city cannot afford to pay the hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of dollars that would be required to clean up the site, or the legal fees if lawsuits resulted from making it public access.

If opened, the parcel could be a real 4-D property — Drunks, Drugs, Debris and Dangerous!

Bart Morrison

Lodi

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

6 comments:

  • Brian Dockter posted at 1:23 pm on Sat, Sep 24, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    Brad wrote:

    The city cannot afford to pay the hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of dollars that would be required to clean up the site, or the legal fees if lawsuits resulted from making it public access.

    -Hmm,

    Sounds like the City of Lodi is more worried about someone or some group finding out how much contaminants there are in this location and how much of it has leeched into the river and the eco-system of the area. This is only speculation on my part. But, sooner or later, the City of Lodi will have to deal with the issue of these contaminants before they face a huge environmental lawsuit.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 5:55 pm on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2239

    Maybe they should turn it back into a rifle range. This town could use a good range and the ground is already contaminated.

     
  • Sunny Samuels posted at 8:51 am on Wed, Sep 21, 2011.

    Sunny Samuels Posts: 56

    When the river meadow residents moved in/bought their houses were they guaranteed that the public would have no river access? If not, they really have no reason to complain. Maybe one them should buy it and fence it up. As it sits, it is owned by the city of lodi and they will decide what is going to happen to it.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:19 pm on Tue, Sep 20, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4485

    200-300 vehicles? Is this daily, "weekendly," weekly, monthly, yearly?

    Just curious - I have no stake in this issue.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:51 am on Tue, Sep 20, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    I think this is a great letter to address the concerns people have... what is in the proposal that addresses these potential problems. What remedies will Lodi put in writing that will prevent these things from happening? If their fears come true, what will the city of Lodi committ themselves to legally that will shift the consequences to the city instead of the home owners. Too many people would disrupt the homeowners. What guarantees would be offered from the city to avoid too many people? it is not enough to say there will be peace and quiet... how will it be enforced?

     
  • Mike Bennett posted at 4:22 am on Tue, Sep 20, 2011.

    mbennett Posts: 4

    Whoa, back up the hyperbole wagon pardner! 200 to 300 vehicles-they don't park that many at Lake Natomas kayak put in on a big weekend. You already have the drugs and drunks-how about phasing that type of use out. Again your focus is not based in fact. What about the positive aspects for the neighborhood. Resident access for those not blessed with river frontage, a low key well maintained and properly used park instead of an eyesore, the cleanup and/or cap of toxic waste(unknown at this time). Why not wait for testing and a draft plan?

     

Recent Comments

Posted 7 hours ago by Andrew Liebich.

article: Letter: Obama may be protecting his chi…

There are 29 sources cited at the end of the video Christina.[sleeping] Can I waste 30 minutes providing you with documented and verifiabl…

More...

Posted 8 hours ago by Jerome Kinderman.

article: We won’t repost Sandy Hook hoax comments

"Troll" defined: "In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting ar…

More...

Posted 8 hours ago by Mike Adams.

article: Letter: Many states allow guns in schoo…

Simon didn't print the original post which was much better than this one will be: What part of "nah" don't you understand? Why s…

More...

Posted 8 hours ago by Andrew Liebich.

article: We won’t repost Sandy Hook hoax comments

First, the fact that you were "offended" does not make me wrong Mr. Barrow.[lol] Second, the LNS's poll indicates that the major…

More...

Posted 8 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Letter: The people are better off becau…

Thank you Eric But don't worry about that stock market when the stocks get too lofty they'll split and get more affordable. Mr Taves and …

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists