Results of Stormwater Drainage Survey

Many thanks to all who took the time to take the survey on stormwater drainage.

The complete results are here:  

Results of Drainage Survey

The survey results were sent to the Mayor and Board of Aldermen earlier in the week. 

There is something for everyone in the survey responses. There are people in flood plains that have never had any drainage issues, and people not in flood plains that had four feet of water in their homes in the latest incident. There were reports of City officials acting swiftly to address drainage issues (mostly to remove items from stormwater ditches when residents report them), and reports of broken promises by the City regarding fixing problems. Likewise the blame for issues was put squarely on Mother Nature, or, conversely, on outdated and crumbling infrastructure and failure of the City to keep the drains free of debris. 

First the numbers: Forty-seven percent of the responders reported at least some degree of problems with drainage, while fifty three percent reported having none. That may or may not be comparable to the percentages in the City at large. It is possible that those with drainage issues were more likely to answer the survey than those who have no problems with drainage. This is not a scientific survey and there is no way to know the definitive city-wide figure from this survey alone.

Thirty-five percent of responders indicated satisfaction with the seven years the City plans to take updating and overhauling the drainage infrastructure, while fifty-seven percent would rather see the improvements expedited. The rest were unsure due to not having enough information. 

I was particularly interested in the answers of the discussion questions. What do residents think is the cause of their drainage issues? Obviously the answer is not simply rain. Rain, by definition, is a required feature in any type of naturally caused flooding event, but it is a combination of rain plus the inadequacy the drainage system to handle the storm that turns a rain event of any size into a problem. Ten inches of rain fell over a few hours in one specific neighborhood in the recent floods, and the City stated that the drainage system worked properly, but was simply overwhelmed by the unprecedented amount of precipitation. (see Germantown Crews Assessing Flood Damage After System "simply overwhelmed' by storms).  Because the receding water occurred rapidly in the coves off Brachton, some residents maintain that there must have been a blockage in the drainage system that was very suddenly cleared. (see Germantown Residents Rebuilding after Flooding, blame City for Damages).

The responses on the survey mainly dealt with ongoing issues with stormwater, and these were mostly blamed on the way the water flows from neighbors' yards.  Fixing an issue in one person's yard often affects a neighbor. One person even claimed that the City recommended his taking a specific remedial action for a problem that would have adversely affected his neighbors, so he did not take it. It is counter productive for neighbors to fix their own problems to the detriment of others, when addressing the overall neighborhood issues systemically would be far more efficient and equitable. Also, swimming pools and other structures are currently approved without any thought for drainage issues that these alterations could cause for nearby homeowners. 

Several people reported that they could not make the needed changes to drainage at their homes because they lacked the funds. Indeed, a few reported spending tens of thousands of dollars fixing their home's drainage issues. One respondent was very happy with the result of the expensive improvements, only to find that the problems recurred after further development in the area. 

Recent spring flooding in the Forest Hill area

Development was another major theme in the answers. A number of respondents reported that they had no problems until a development was built close to them. New developments causing drainage issues for surrounding neighborhoods has been a concern of mine since seeing video of flooding yards from Forest Hill area residents. Prior to the building of the school and widening of the road, the residents experienced no flooding. Dramatic video is included in this Daily Memphian article-- Germantown Residents Want Fix to Forest Hill Flooding.

Prior to approval, all development projects are required to submit an expert report on the effects that project will have on  drainage . Of course, the developer pays the expert, and therefore the expert is beholden to the developer. Obviously, there is no separate expert that advocates for the adjacent homeowners whose drainage could be affected. Given the survey responses, the neutrality of the developer-hired experts has to be called into question. The City may need to begin critically challenging the reports that are submitted, because it is unacceptable when a development adversely affects an already established neighborhood.  

The most concerning factor mentioned in the survey was that the ditches tend to become dumping grounds, either from residents or contractors. This, of course, blocks the flow of the stormwater, causing flooding. One person even reported that City street sweepers regularly blow leaves into the drainage system. Some state that the City does not maintain the drainage system as well as in the past. One person said that small trees are allowed to grow in the system, and that the roots are crumbling the concrete. Is this all true? I cannot confirm any of this, but it certainly deserves to be investigated.

Many have seen the picture of the large tree blocking the drainage ditch near Houston High School after the recent storm. That may have caused one of the backups of flood water in the June 7 event. I do not know if it had anything to do with HHS having hundreds of thousand dollars of damage. Why was the tree there, how long had it been there, and where did it come from? Most resident-reported blockages are addressed quickly, but I wonder how much regular inspection and maintenance is happening. What else was lurking unnoticed in the drainage system?  
  

If the City does not have the manpower for regular inspections of ditches, keeping them free of blockages, it needs more funding for the Public Works budget for repairs and maintenance. A ditch is meant to control flood waters, and not meant to be a dumping ground for unused construction equipment and fallen trees.

While I know that the planned overhaul of the drainage infrastructure cannot happen overnight, I hope it will be accomplished in as timely a fashion as possible. Yes, it will be expensive, but these improvements are necessary, and the City can easily postpone expenditures for streetscapes and the Master Parks plan in order to prioritize these desperately needed infrastructure improvements. I also hope that the City will not skimp on these plans, and will taken into account the clear trend for more "unprecedented" rain events. Graphs indicating this trend may be seen at the EPA website. A "one hundred year" or "five hundred year" flood should be based on projections into the future, and not historical data. See this Climate Central website, where you can enter different cities and see trend lines of extreme rain events.. 

From the Cllimate Central website

Here are some other stories about the recent flood, the responses to it by the City, and the heartwarming responses by citizens.


Germantown to Consider Disaster Declaration

$250K set for Germantown Flood Relief; City Looks for More Donations

Flooding in Germantown Costs Houston High School Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars


Germantown Mayor of Board of Aldermen Move to Request Disaster Declaration After Flooding  

County Commission Approves $100,000 for Germantown flood relief  

Germantown Flood Victims Receive Help with Cleanup

Germantown Drainage Survey

The storm water drainage survey is now closed. Thank you for responding. I will be posting the results in a few days.   

Survey: Germantown Drainage

The storm water drainage survey is now closed. Thank you for responding. I will be posting the results in a few days. 

Want to Rent an Apartment in Germantown? Come on Over!

I welcome all new inhabitants to the City. I was one myself a short five years ago, when we downsized and purchased a condominium in Germantown after many years of living in Memphis. We chose a condo over an apartment because there is not a landlord controlling the rent, but for many people renting is the best option. In fact, one of the reasons that we chose Germantown is that a friend of mine at one time lived at Bridges at Germantown, and I came to love the proximity to the Greenway.

Of course we need apartments in Germantown. News Flash! We have them. Another News Flash! There are plenty of openings! 

That may not be news to you, but it would be news to Tonyaa Weathersbee, who in a Commercial Appeal article used convoluted logic to argue that because a family she knows could not find a three bedroom house they wanted to buy (in Memphis, mind you), the Germantown apartment moratorium should be allowed to end.

There may or may not be a shortage of three bedroom homes in Memphis, but one thing is for sure--there is NO shortage of available apartments in Germantown. In fact, Thornwood is resorting to having open houses, food trucks, and incentives to try to lease brand new apartments in an ideal location in the center of the city!

The City is fortunate that most of the apartment complexes here are nicely kept and attractive. I am going to link their websites here so that it will be a handy guide for anyone who wants to rent an apartment in Germantown. Check out the openings, and then try to make the argument that we need more apartments in the City!  Tonyaa definitely needs to get up to speed on our apartment situation here. Tell your friends and acquaintances to come visit and they can probably move in tomorrow. And this is all with the apartment moratorium firmly in place!

The Vineyards  Great location west of Germantown Road on Wolf River Parkway, you will have a choice of fifteen apartments that are listed as being available.

The Retreat  These attractive apartments are near the corner of Germantown Road and Wolf River Boulevard. Their website says, "Move in TODAY". Nice to know if you need to rent an apartment immediately!

Bridges at/Germantown  You can use the crosswalk by this complex for access to the Greenway. You can search for available floor plans and you have no shortage of choices.

Farmington Gates. These have the advantage of being right on Poplar, and within walking distance to restaurants and other business establishments. What better way to celebrate Germantown's walkability? Not only that, they are newly renovated!  Please hurry as there is a web coupon you can use for the next 12 days. (note to Tanyaa: web coupons are not generally associated with shortages).

Westminster Townhomes  There are rumors of possible redevelopment of these townhomes at Poplar and Kirby, and something seems to have happened to the website (???).

Thornwood  What can I say? If you want a place where everything is included then this is your spot! I haven't checked if concierge service means they will bring you a toothbrush at 10PM because the airline lost your luggage and your only toothbrush along with it. Does any other apartment complex in the City include this much stuff--internet, cable, phone, etc.?  At best, about half of this brand new complex is leased, and some apartments are still being finished. I predict more food trucks and open houses in the future. Please visit!

Come one, come all. Come rent an apartment in Germantown, and WELCOME TO THE CITY! When we fill these, hey, we might need to add another complex.

No Fiscal Impact Analysis in Apartment Moratorium Report

I attended the work session last night on the apartment moratorium, and was greeted with an impressive and detailed list of statistics, none of which addressed the fiscal impact of residential development.  Here is the 300+ page study.  

Apartment Moratorium Study

The original moratorium, put into effect in December of last year stated,  

WHEREAS, the purpose of the temporary moratorium is to allow the City an opportunity to study, research, analyze and/or assess the likely impacts and nature of any future apartment and apartment building development in the Smart Code Zoning Districts, including, without limitation and as the City deems appropriate, development and demographic trends, aesthetic qualities, burdens upon and access to City services, resources, schools, infrastructure, utilities, parks, public areas/facilities, and emergency and police services, traffic congestion, public safety, and neighborhood characteristics;

I guess I was naive to think that the City would actually look at the fiscal impact.  That didn't happen.

Q: How does this affect the Germantown taxpayer?  

A: ?????????  Who knows?????

There were assumptions made about the number of apartments and single family homes that would be built in the next ten years, based on current zoning, and how various departments were affected-- e.g. how many more police calls, fire calls, students in GMSD, etc. This can be useful information, but the failure to take this analysis further was surprising, and not in a good way. The obvious and most glaring error was the failure to put dollar figures to the analysis.   
 
Obviously I challenge many of the assumptions made in the forecasts, and would certainly do so if I felt this study merited that detailed level of analysis. I am sorry, but the number of ambulance calls expected in ten years may help the City plan for the number of EMTs and vehicles needed, but failure to take into account both the costs associated with those, and mainly the revenue generated from EMT calls really doesn't remotely answer the basic question that Germantown taxpayers want answered: How does residential growth affect the fiscal health of the City?

If you are wondering why I singled out EMT calls, it is because when Rocky Janda was asked about the study, he concluded that it was senior citizens and not apartments that disproportionately used City services-- 

"Peel down the numbers and see how it affects.. but as far as I'm concerned, as far as the impact on our ambulances and stuff like that... we're seeing it's the retirement community and not the apartments,” said Janda.    

Oh, my gosh, Alderman Janda, don't you know that senior citizens PAY for EMT services? Obviously not. But how much? We don't know, because it was not within the scope of this study to consider that. 

Remember the fiscal impact study that the City originally commissioned back in 2015?  (please see the Tischler Bice study analysis discussed in my March 24 2018 post). The City at one time was curious enough about the fiscal impact of development in the City to spend over $85,000 for the analysis. However, when the results were in, the City did not present the results, obviously because the conclusions were not what it expected or wanted. All new residential growth, whether single family or multi-family, negatively affected the fiscal health of the City. Although the net fiscal cost per unit of multi-family growth was less than per traditional housing unit, I demonstrated in my post about development in the Forest Hill Heights area that the per acre cost of multi-family development had a larger negative fiscal impact on the City than that of traditional housing.  Can we please have the data in that format? When we consider whether to entertain costly residential development, the question should be, "If we develop X plot of land, which density that we approve will have the most desirable (or least undesirable) fiscal impact?"

We still have time before the apartment moratorium ends, and we deserve more. The Mayor's main platform when he ran for re-election was his instituting the apartment moratorium, a moratorium that would not have been necessary but for his policies, and his stacking the citizen commissions with friends of developers and land owners who were also hefty donors to his campaign. Let's do the gold standard of studies-- cost-benefit analysis, and not just collect statistics which alone are useless in trying to project future fiscal impact of residential growth.  If that is done, then we can dig down deeper into the assumptions made in coming up with the projections.

Tennessee Education Voucher Bill--Were Germantown taxpayers sold down the river by Brian Kelsey and others?

I don't have a copy of the school voucher bill that has been passed by the state legislature, but as explained to me, the bill has the ultimate potential to cost the award winning Germantown Municipal School District millions of dollars--dollars that will likely have to be made up by City taxpayers in the future. And that apparently could happen without a single student opting to leave the system in favor of using a voucher for a private school!

While Sam Stockard of the Daily Memphian asked the right questions of Brian Kelsey and other Republicans, he may not have asked all the right people. From the Daily Memphian   

Asked if funding for the Germantown Performing Arts Center amphitheater, known as the Grove at GPAC, was a reward for his vote in support of the governor’s education savings account bill on Thursday, Kelsey said, “I find that to be a highly offensive question. We don’t operate that way.”

Furthermore, according to the paper, "Republican leaders" reported that such trade-offs do not go on with important bills.

Oh, really? Sometimes all we need to do is look at some different reporting. According to Pork or politics? Behind the scenes as Tennessee voucher-backers lobbied House members to pass bill  in the Nashville Tennessean, both David Hawk-R of Greeneville and Bob Ramsey-R of Maryville, who voted against the voucher bill, reported being approached and asked what they wanted in exchange for their votes.   

Do we believe the anonymous "Republican leaders" sources reported in the Daily Memphian, or do we believe the named Republican sources in the Tennessean who voted against the voucher bills? 

And, if Brian Kelsey did not get a little something (such as a $2.5 million dollar grant for GPAC) in return for his vote, wasn't he being remiss in his representation of Germantown?

Brian Kelsey's largest campaign contributions can be found here. One thing I noticed is that the largest contribution, $11,000, was from BOW-PAC, a PAC started by Bo Watson, a state senator from Chattanooga. Is this pot of money just another way of keeping Republican legislators in line? Reading between the lines, it appears so from this article.  Oh, and guess what? Yet another Republican state senator, Yager, R-Kingston, has his own PAC, KEYPAC, which contributed $5,500 to Kelsey. Apparently it is a "thing" now for Republican Senators to have their own PACs.  Where is all this money coming from? In 2011, Bill Haslam signed a bill allowing corporate contributions to PACs.

Kelsey also received $5,450 from "The American Federation for Children", a pro-voucher organization.  StudentsFirst PAC contributed $5000 to Kelsey. StudentsFirst was begun by Michelle Rhee, the controversial ex-leader of Washington DC schools, and an advocate for school vouchers. Tennessee First, a PAC started by two lobbyists, gave him $3000.

In a post on Twitter, Gabby Salinas, who lost a close election to Brian Kelsey, reported that the only votes that Kelsey made against school vouchers was in an election year.

Now it is up to the citizens to decide: Was our award winning GMSD sold down the river by Brian Kelsey in favor of a single grant to GPAC? 

There are plenty other characters to blame in this mess, mainly Governor Bill Lee, who it seems forced this bill on only two counties, Shelby and Davidson. Guess what? The rural counties know better than to starve their school systems of funding. 

Gabby Salinas in her Twitter account pointed out that a clause was added to the bill which disallows lawsuits against the state by Boards of Education over this bill. That clause likely will be tested in court if this passes.

House votes (from Salinas Twitter account)



The bill goes to a conference committee now, as different versions were passed by the House and Senate.

Dogwood Cell Tower Foes Fighting Powerful Financial Interests

Thanks to recent news coverage of the City by mainstream sources, I have been able to continue to take a bit of a breather with this blog. In particular, Abigail Warren of the Daily Memphian must be commended for going the extra mile by attending many of our various commission meetings. Corrine Kennedy of the Commercial Appeal has authored informative articles about the Germantown Country Club property. I recommend that citizens consider supporting both the Commercial Appeal and the Daily Memphian by purchasing online subscriptions. Please also make it be known that you appreciate the local coverage. For now, I will not concentrate on breaking news but on commentary or in-depth reports of issues that interest me. 

 Mixed Feelings Among Residents Near Planned Dogwood Cell Tower in the Daily Memphian fits the bill as an issue that interests me.  

The cell tower has passed all levels of approval except the development contract, which will be voted on by the BMA in May.  

While I, too, have mixed feelings, I sympathize with the parents that do not want the cell tower to be located on the Dogwood school playground. Many want it relocated to another part of Dogwood Park, and still others say a cell tower should not be in a residential neighborhood at all. Due to the financial interests, the need for better cell coverage, and the lack of other locations for the tower, the parents should probably hope for the tower to be moved to a different part of Dogwood Park.

Before I discuss specific financial interests in Germantown, I will provide some background. 

First let's take a look at the location: See the red X. I am told that the footprint is large enough that the field day at Dogwood will be affected. It is less than 200 feet from the school. The area is already marked off, so you can stop by and take a look at the area.

I have read that GMSD will receive about $22,000 per year for the lease of the land. Many parents state that if this tower is placed in this location, they will either home school their children or send them to private school. If as few as three children are removed from GMSD because of the cell tower, the funding lost from the state will be greater than the financial gain from the tower. 

The petition against the cell tower at Dogwood has collected over 500 signatures.  

In September 2018, the measure to approve the cell tower at Dogwood was approved by the GMSD Board, with little fanfare and no objections. Jason Manuel notes that cell coverage in the area is poor, and concerning. He also states that the location was vetted by neighbors and stakeholders. Most likely the surrounding neighbors would prefer that the tower be close to the school and away from their backyards. I note here that I have no personal knowledge of the negotiations or players involved. My question would be, were the families of school children at the discussion table? For instance, was the PTO of Dogwood School asked for any input?



The vote was unanimous to allow Tower Ventures to put a cell phone tower on the Dogwood playground.  Let this be a lesson to all Germantown citizens-- please do your best to follow the online posted agendas of meetings, so that you can voice your opinions at the earliest opportunity.  

Since that September passage, a much publicized event has heightened the concerns of parents. There were a number of children and teachers diagnosed with cancer at a school in Ripon, California, and due to the concerns of parents--hundreds stormed the school board meeting-- a cell tower was removed (Sprint Tower Removed, Soil Also Being Checked). The Ripon health issues could be due to an old Nestle plant that polluted the groundwater, but cell tower radiation is also being investigated as a possible cause. But a tower testing the newer, not-yet-rolled-out 5G technology at San Diego State several years ago almost certainly relates to cancer cases. You can see this news report for more details. Many of the victims centered around activities near a certain room on campus. The little-studied 5G technology that will soon line our sidewalks will allow us to use self driving vehicles, have "smart" homes, etc.  At the latest BMA meeting, a qualified citizen spoke about the dangers of 5G technology, and after him, other concerned citizens spoke against the cell tower as well:  

Much of the science on "non-ionizing" radiation, the type emitted by cell phones, cell phone towers, and wireless routers, is controlled by the industry. This is particularly true in the USA. It is telling that the scientists here who are most vehement about the possible dangers of the technology generally have "Emeritus" (retired) in their titles. They are thus immune to the wrath and power of the wireless industry. Consider the experience of Henry Lai of the University of Washington. He found DNA breaks in rats from non-ionizing radiation: UW Scientist Henry Lai Makes Waves in the Cell Phone Industry, And yes, the industry attempted to have him fired from his job: 

After Lai and Singh’s research finding an effect on DNA was published in 1995, Lai learned of a full-scale effort to discredit his work. In an internal company memo leaked to Microwave News, a publication that examines health and environmental effects of electromagnetic radiation, Motorola described its plan to “war-game” and undermine Lai’s research.

Lai was shocked by the war-game memo, and calls for more research. All his research funds looking into non-ionizing radiation dried up. He advocates a precautionary approach to the technology: 

"European countries generally believe you need some kind of precautionary approach,” says Lai, who does not own—or use—a cell phone. “What else can we do? Obviously, we don’t know the answer at all. But, then, there is a cause for concern. We need to take some kind of precautionary action.” 

Brussels. Belgium, in a "precautionary action", has banned the newer 5G technology until studies on health can be done.  

An example at the power of the cell phone industry is found in 1996 federal legislation. 

No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the regulations contained in this chapter concerning the environmental effects of such emissions.

According to Director of Economic Development Cameron Ross, speaking in the  February meeting  (link to video) of the Planning Commission, the only allowable reason to reject a request for a tower is aesthetics. The Planning Commission Chair used that as a reason to attempt to censor citizen-speakers who wanted to focus on possible health issues.  It is also important to note here that there are also safety concerns due to the lack of cell coverage in the area, which are noted in the meeting by two citizens that favor the tower. They point out that health monitoring devices are sometimes dependent on coverage, and children need to be able to use their cell phones for safety reasons. However, developing children and pregnant teachers are those potentially most at risk from the technology being present within 200 feet of a school. The citizens who are against the tower location realize that they are prohibited by law from using environmental radiation concerns as an issue to disallow the tower, and are now concentrating on talking about the legitimate concerns of possible declining home values in the Dogwood Elementary School zone. According to Cameron Ross, though, home values are also not allowed as a reason to disallow the tower, due to a sixth Circuit Court opinion. I have not looked at the court cases. A recent decision by the California Supreme Court upheld a San Francisco ordinance which requires towers to pass an aesthetics test.

About a year ago even more draconian federal laws about the placement of the newer 5G towers were passed. As a result, small 5G towers will be lining our sidewalks soon. Generally websites either point out the opportunities of 5G networks, or the risks, but rarely both. European explanations of 5G, such as this, are the only sources that I feel comfortable linking to explain the technology, because it points out the benefits as well as the real potential risks. Municipalities are now virtually forced to allow the new 5G towers on utility poles. The new 5G rules, along with the 1996 Act, were the drivers of a recent City ordinance change (Ordinance 2019-6) to the Wireless Transmission ordinances. This change removed the decisions on cell tower location from the elected BMA.  Here is the November 6 Planning Commission discussion of the ordinance:  



Dean Massey was the only alderman who voted against this ordinance change when it came before the BMA earlier this year. He has been posting articles about the possible health concerns of 5G networks (such as this) on his Massey for Germantown Facebook page. He feels that the science is not definitive and he does not want school children to become guinea pigs.

The upshot of the new federal and state laws is that municipalities are severely limited in their ability to disallow or even control the placement of the coming 5G technology. The industry will be able to seek approval for up to twenty towers at a time, and there is a strict limit on the amount of time a municipality has to disapprove a tower, and very little leeway to turn down an application!  We will soon be swimming in frequencies that have very little scientific study.    

It is powerful financial interests that drive federal law, state law, and funding for scientific studies. These interests also likely donate heavily to otherwise trusted 501(c)(3) organizations that purport to combat various diseases.  As a result, these organizations may spin the research results in ways that favor the industry. For that reason, I steer clear of using 501(c)(3) organizations as a source of good overall interpretation of scientific studies. 

The tentacles of the cell phone industry also reach deep into Germantown political circles. Here is the "team" at Tower Industries: Tower Ventures website  

Here are 2018 Tower Ventures team's donations to Germantown administration-supported politicians through September 30 of last year: 
  
Mayor Mike Palazzolo, 

Craig Weiss, Principal $1000.00
Steve Chandler, Executive VP $1500.00 
Sharon Chandler (wife) $1500 
William Orgel $1000
 
To Mary Ann Gibson: 

Steve Chandler Executive VP $500 
Sharon Chandler (wife) $500 
William Orgel President $1000
Craig Weiss Principal $1000 

To Brian White:

Steve Chandler, Executive VP $1500 
Steve Chandler, Executive VP $500 
Michael McLaughlin, Controller $100 

To the Germantown "Values" PAC (see Oct. 21 2018 post)

Steve Chandler $1500  

*******

Additionally, Controller Michael McLaughlin sits on the Financial Advisory Commission and the Industrial Development Board.