tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8060586523627520040.post8730850096013917607..comments2024-01-21T18:21:57.720-08:00Comments on Shining a Light on Germantown: BMA Retreat--Water Tower, Sales Taxes, Purchase of GCC, and Update on Apartment MoratoriumUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8060586523627520040.post-15709671725388941272019-03-18T10:35:06.498-07:002019-03-18T10:35:06.498-07:00Do you oppose a water tower? Why does it seem the ...Do you oppose a water tower? Why does it seem the main Germantown water tower is celebrated, and yet building an additional water tower to provide guaranteed uninterrupted water service to residents is a bad thing? Water towers are iconic staples of 'small town' life and that's what all the hopping and hollering over apartments is in support of. When does the hypocrisy endSeth Greenbergnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8060586523627520040.post-62910401642006479682019-03-06T12:53:12.426-08:002019-03-06T12:53:12.426-08:00You're playing fast and loose with your descri...You're playing fast and loose with your description of much of the water tower recap. First, you say that "Mr. Mills wants a water tower on the highest part of the City," but that's not entirely accurate. It's not about what Mr. Mills personally wants. As he explained, water flows downhill as a result of gravity, so placing the tower along the higher ground allows for a shorter tower to be built, which is safer for water system components, more cost effective for taxpayers, and has the least aesthetic impact. You also omitted the fact that a tower along Winchester would need to be taller than any other structure in Germantown today. Would residents want such a tall tower? It would also cost much more to build and maintain than a shorter tower.<br /><br />You also neglected to mention the reason a tower was even recommended in the first place. A tower was recommended primarily because of public safety. Currently, if something were to happen to the primary tower, our entire water system would be compromised. We would need many underground pumps at extreme cost to replace one tower. As it stands today, when the main tower is taken out of service for TDEC required maintenance, we are forced to rely on the older tank. The older tank holds 75,000 gallons of water. On the days of our lowest water demand, we use 6 Million gallons. So, leaving the current system unchanged or even installing one underground pump station still forces us to rely on a very old backup tank and risks contamination to our water system.<br /><br />Something else you neglected to mention is that the cost-benefit analysis that Alderman Massey is asking for is a huge undertaking. We can't just install one underground pump station instead of a tower and still have a safe water supply. We would need many pump stations scattered throughout the city (each requiring about about an acre of land, plus excavation costs, plus electrical service, plus many other costs) to achieve the same result as a tower (and that still wouldn't have the safety). Massey's analysis would require months of work by an engineering firm, real estate analysis, construction estimates, and excavation estimates. The analysis alone could cost close to $100,000. Is that a reasonable expense on the taxpayers? It looks like Massey is hoping for some paralysis by analysis (asking for such complex and expensive analysis that nothing gets done).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com