Jackson Jambalaya

Word I hear is they are not "taking comments" from people opposed to the One Lake Project.

Who will own the new lake side property?

Who is getting rich off tax payer money?

5:22 PM The people getting rich are a small group of people who own or will develop property in the area. Many of them are the same people who complain because poor people getting $70 a month in food stamps.

Thousands of people would benefit from the flood control this project will bring. So what if a few people make money, every development makes some people lots pf money. Flood control is badly needed. Why would anybody be against flood control?

@ 6:13

How exactly is this going to control flooding when the dam is a couple of miles down stream from the most flood prone area ?

Define the flood control please? There is a dam just a few miles up river that would control/controls the majority of the water flowing to the now proposed OLP. What is the water run off between the damn(spillway) and the proposed location that would make OLP a viable flood control project? Remember, not so long ago, the pearl river was cleared along the banks to allow water to flow more easily and the water to get up and out quicker with less obstruction. This isn’t about flood control, this is about taking land and developing it in an area that is bordered by the worst area in the state as it pertains to crime and poverty. This will benefit no one but the person developing it. The inhabitants will be requires to have lender mandated flood insurance, and with this being between the existing river levees, will be extremely expensive and next to impossible to obtain. Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining. Call it what it is, but it’s not flood control.

Wrong. A major flood is one of the few options to make Jackson a nice City again. Completely while it out, and then start over.

Would be a boon to the city of Jackson. But of course they will fight it if even one white guy makes any money. Show me any other property in Jackson that people would line up to buy and develop and create more tax base.

The NE Jackson elites are the ones getting rich... isn't a Oxford condo and a beach house enough and some have the $23 million dollar beach house in the Hamptons... yes renting it to Bush family Obama and so I ton family. No wonder presidential candidates have a dinner plate fundraiser for 10k get person in woodland hills and eastover every campaign. These people control the political establishment.

When will people learn.... it has NOTHING to do with flood control. Just like the reservoir has nothing to do with flood control. It is recreational development and real estate deals. Filling up a second lake and calling it flood control it like having two glasses of sweet tea on the table. If one leaks or spills the other one won't help control the flood...

The main questions that need to answered: 1. Where is the money coming from? 2. Who owns the land in question?

This sounds a lot like "Lutherville" and "Otisburg" from the original Superman movie. Just saying.......

u stupid rednecks spend ur ENTIRE lives worried about SUMBODY makin money---get off ur lazy ass make sum money and u don't worry about/be jealous of sumone else!!

Some of these attitudes impeding any projects which would be a BOON to Jackson and all its citizens are typical of the reason Jackson is not growing anymore. Some people are much more concerned with someone making some money which they are NOT going to make, that they find some sort of SICK enjoyment in keeping any meaningful economic development from taking place. We will never move forward with this sort of self serving thinking. To quote our great President...."sad, very sad" for Jackson and Central Mississippi!!!!!

increase economic development. check
help with flood control. check
increase tax base. check
increase tourism. check
a few people make money. who cares

@7:28

Do your research. The Ross Barnett Reservoir was never designed to be for flood control. It was built to guarantee the City of Jackson would have a water source even during the dry season when the Pearl River is too low. The secondary use of the Rez is for recreation. Due to the fact it has gates that can be opened and closed it can help with flood control to some extent, but that was not how it was designed. It is too shallow to be a flood control reservoir. As for how effective One Lake would be for flood control I do not know, but as a victim of the Flood of '79 I can attest to the fact that it is long past time for something to be done. In my opinion '79 started the downfall of Jackson, especially NE Jackson. Residents feared sinking money into their houses without knowing it wouldn't happen again. Many sold their houses way to cheap to speculators that in turn did minimal work on them and turned them into rental properties. That brought in tons of people with no vested interest in maintaining the properties, thus values continued to decline and the result is now obvious.

I am so tired of suffering stupid. We are last for a reason. Name a city with a river that hasn't taken advantage of the river. We are hopeless, provincial rednecks and deserve to be last. Most of the above comments are so stupid. GD we are redneck, country, unsophisticated, ignorant Chris McDaniel, Tate Reeves, Feel Bryant stupid. What is wrong with having a lake....phuck never mind. People on this GD blog against this game changing project are too stupid to even argue with.

Its a no-brainer. Get it done. Look at what is going on around any body of water within 800 miles of here. Instant economic development. Retail activity, commerce, dining, recreation...in other words tax base.

And if we get a tad bit of flood control also, that's gravy.

@7:17
Actually Meadowbrook lake John McGowan development... the guest houses are larger than most people's houses... on a lake as well. There are several wealthy families that live and have nice properties in Jackson. Of course in talking about the very very wealthy Cspire family... and Barksdale vandevender family... worth 100's of millions and that's a low ball estimate... I could list plenty more and there are people about to develop alot of great ideas into reality. I wish I had the money these people have I would join them .

I see the haters have come out in force with their lies and imaginative stories.

The 'landowners won't get rich off this project - in fact much of the land is already publically owned. The largest private landowner - McGowan - has promised to GIVE his land to the HRM district to allow for the development. The Commission will own all of the lakefront property - similar to the land around the reservoir so it won't be occupied by those individuals you all love to hate.

A good honest discussion of the project is a good thing. Disagreement is ok. But just flat out lying and populist baiting has no legitomato place in this, or any other, discussion.
But when that's all you've got, I guess it's what you do.

I am tired of redneck, stupid people.

8:41 you ROCK!

I moved to Jackson in 2006... I was moving from Georgetown to UMC for residency... I was really shocked at the people from the burbs... they all sounded completely uneducated and almost wanted to live in a bubble. My thought was they're very sheltered and just didn't know otherwise. You people need to travel and see how most people live in this country. Your exactly what I thought of when I heard Mississippi... you are so delusional... not knocking Mississippi... simply the mentality of some on the blog posting negative comments about city.

Have any of you ever been to this stretch of the pearl river? It is the most trash filled, polluted body of water you will ever see. A lake here would be disease filled and disgusting. Not to mention the old landfills in the area that are already leaching chemicals into the water. Anyone that claims this lake would attract people to the area has never seen the area.

Yet the streets of Jackson are crumbling and they want to widen a river into a lake. Like how my tax dollars are spent.

Amazing how so many people wallow in ignorance. This project will include widening, dredging and straighting the river from the lake north to the spillway at the reservoir which will eliminate most flooding. All people have to do is read but this is Mississippi after all.

I don't have a dog (or even a fish) in this purse-swinger, but I would point out that people making money is pretty much the definition and raison d'etre for "economic development." Some may not like the "who" but it really isn't "economic development" if the total monetary loss exceeds the gain. That would be "economic regression," or as might be said around these parts, "Bubba, you done fucked that shit up, boy" (equally acceptable would be "Jackson," "Mississippi," or "State Government").

And what flood control does it provide to the rest of the river basin?

Honest answer is no one knows, because it has not been studied. Talk about getting the cart before the horse.

The rez already screwed Columbia once, let's get em again.

6:31, because they are moving it 4 miles downstream.

8:49, love to hear what proof you have that it has not been studied. Do share.

@5:49 You were at UMC for residency and you don't know the proper use of your and you're?

@9:17 I have the report. I have read it. It only covers Hinds, Rankin.

Next.

Yeah and to hell with all the communities South of the lake. Coastal Parishes and counties have just begun to fight this. Let’s go ahead and wipe out the oyster industry by increasing the salinity from reduced flow. But hey, as long as some people in Jackson make some money who cares if you put people out of work in another part of the state.

10:02 PM

McGowan never promised to give any land to anybody. He moved it into LLCs which are hard to trace but rest assured McGowan did not get rich by giving anything to anybody.

He personally met with people about this topic and McGowan called those people who asked about the ownership of the land "communists" for asking. Nevermind it is McGowan who is using and wants to use "common money" from the people for a project to benefit one person - McGowan. Who is the communist?

This thing is DOA

Second meeting in one week about the project designed to stifle any public comments.

Last week, The Honorable Virgi Lindsay presented a resolution urging the USACE to hurry up the project. It was done so after amending the previously published agenda; Stamps mentions that in his comments and was given pause by the urgency with which they were to vote given there was no looming deadline. I'm sure that had zero to do with trying to discourage public input. Virgi couldn't just tell those in attendance to write the questions down or email and they'd get back to them like Rankin Hinds did last night. Pretty clever. So, not a bunch of opposition in the room. Then the Pearl River Vision Foundation does all the talking after an introduction by the Chamber. Go pull the 990s for the Vision Foundation. That phone number rings in the lobby of McGowan Working Partners.

And back to last night's meeting. The Honorable Virgi Linsay was conspicuously absent, despite implementation of the plan being a de facto raise of her constituents' taxes. And despite Rankin Hinds being, at least ostensibly, a government entity...why were our comments to go to a gmail address? Your website is http://rankinhindsflooddistrict.ms.gov/. Seems almost logical that your email addresses should end x.ms.gov. Were the same 'potential logistical issues' that prevented public, town hall type commenting by the public to the public the same that prevented you from setting up a .ms.gov email address for comments?

If so, perhaps you're the wrong outfit to be getting tens of millions, changing the flow of rivers, seizing property under eminent domain, deciding upon whom to heap new taxes, determining which endangered species should live or die, and all the while winking and telling us to trust you. Nah, I don't think it was incompetence, and I typically default to Hanlon/Heinlen's Razor. I think you want to memory hole the opinions you don't agree with and if they're not sitting on a .ms.gov email server, you can make them disappear at your pleasure.

You guys are trying to play Boss Hogg in the internet era. Too much information you can't suppress.

Why would it not be a lot less expensive and effective to widen an deepen the existing river, if this is for flood control?

Mississippians are so ignorant when it comes to economic and real estate developments.

As a real estate developer at of ATL, let me quickly break it down for you.

The One Lake scheme is this:

1. Develop a private project and make it "public use" by attaching it to an infrastructure improvement project such as flood-control. Why? Because this will be the only way that the developer and partners can get the following:

A. Tax-payer dollars for this so-called public-private partnership. The developer doesn't have the capital to make this project 100% private so let's partner with the government.

B. Eminent Domain- The landowners along the borders can't be bought out by the developer, so he uses the public-partnership to force the government to take the private owners' land in the name of public infrastructure and environmental improvements. Please read the condition for taking of private property. There's a short snippet in the state's ED laws regarding levees aka One Lake.

C. Real Estate Investing 101" By low, sell high- The developer's land values can be significantly increase with said project via speculation, anticipation, and supply and demand. As is, the developer's land to not worth much. With the lake project, a whole lot more. Develop it and sell to highest bidder.

D. Psychology- Convince the residents of a welfare state like poor Mississippi that you are doing them some good. The state is desperate for economic development, any economic development, even if it's against the interest of the people. They "don't know any better." It's only Federal, State, County, and/or Local taxpayers dollars, right?

12:45am and 8:27am are both right.

One can't just dig it deeper and wider and call it flood control. The depth will retain water, because one will not be digging that depth all the way to the Gulf.

How this works as flood control is that it creates time, by creating more area for the water to backup and flow out.... over time.

Higher levees create faster flow and worse flooding downstream, since the overall water level is higher. A lake takes that volume of water and spreads it horizontally over the surface and holds it (time).

Higher levees creates higher water levels that backup into the creeks from Jackson, which is what actually causes the flooding in Jackson.

Monticello, et. al are wrong. They see no benefit, economically, so they will oppose it when it will actually help with downstream flooding just as it helps with Jackson flooding.

To the idiot that suggested a lake will "reduce flow". How is it going to reduce flow? Once the lake is at level, the amount that comes in up stream will be the amount flowing downstream. The only thing that occurs is that when the amount flowing in from upstream is extreme, the lake level rises (over a greater area than just the width between river levees) and gradually releases downstream.

I'm just an uneducated redneck farmer with no land affected, but I have heard those in Monticello et al and this shit ain't that hard. If people would put more effort into listening and learning vs simply complaining because they don't think they benefit, everyone would be better off.

At 10:57AM. If horizontally is the answer than we don't need anything. The Rez should do that. Problem is a flood control rez or lake needs to be deep vertically, so it can take on more water when heavy rains come. But I am just an engineer that does not know, well I don't talk like that but you know what I mean.

Redneck Farmer, I think I'm the idiot to whom you were speaking. I never said 'reduce flow,' but rather, 'change flow.' The latest plan has a gate in the lower weir. If the gate can open and close, then by default, the flow can change. It can increase, or lower. That was me listening and learning before I complained.

By your logic, a small lake is sufficient for flood control for a '79 type event. Were that truly the case then why didn't the exponentially larger lake already in existence during the '79 flood to the north of the new lake proposed handle the event?

Monticello, et. al see no benefit, so they oppose it despite the fact that it will help with downstream flooding? Maybe they believe there will be other tangible detriments to their area. The downstream communities have spoken at length about them. That's me listening and learning before I complained.

And not to put to fine a point on this, but if you truly aren't going to be impacted by this either way, then why are you chiming in?

And why do so many of these proponents, most of which live in big houses that sit beneath this Sword of Damocles that is the river that is going to flood any day now continue to invest in the area without any flood control? For forty years. If they truly believe that the floods are imminent, why do they build gated communities with fake lakes a stone's throw from this river just waiting to flood them out? For forty years. How did they get flood insurance if it's coming any day now?

They remain there understanding the statistical risk of another '79 flood occurring, as do the actuaries that issued their flood insurance. Why do they spend millions of their own money trying to make this happen? They remain because it's safe. They spent the millions because it's a safe bet and they expect a return. This is me listening, reading, researching on the internet, and synthesizing the data before complaining.

And all of these are points I would have been willing to share at the last meeting if you wouldn't have been too chickenshit to allow us to speak. And you would have known who said what. Seriously, you've been at this conspiracy for damned near 20 years. You're the worst villains ever.

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah and to hell with all the communities South of the lake. Coastal Parishes and counties have just begun to fight this. Let’s go ahead and wipe out the oyster industry by increasing the salinity from reduced flow. But hey, as long as some people in Jackson make some money who cares if you put people out of work in another part of the state.

July 25, 2018 at 1:17 PM

I don't know to which commentor you suggest you are, but 12:05, An anon stated "reduced flow" yesterdity at 21:17

Now that we have pointed out that you won't take my advice and listen to anyone other than yourself talking....

Dude, life really isn't complicated. Any time you can increase the surface area of an impoundment, you increase the volume that can be impounded.

The Rez was not designed as flood control. If it were not for the Rez, the 1979 flood would have been much worse over a larger area, though.

Allow me to sharpen that fine point for you, sport. I chimed in because you and your ilk are wrong. You are flat out lying because you don't see a personal benefit and are yelling the sky is falling based on falsehoods.

I don't know what other bullshit sword and blather you thought you were attempting to convey, but it's obvious a logical thought has avoided your thought process with overwhelming accuracy.

And I do apologize for my tone and for calling you "sport". I should have said "missy"

At 10:57AM. If horizontally is the answer than we don't need anything. The Rez should do that. Problem is a flood control rez or lake needs to be deep vertically, so it can take on more water when heavy rains come. But I am just an engineer that does not know, well I don't talk like that but you know what I mean.

Woah... wait a minute. I had something all typed out then I read "I am just an engineer that does not know"

Damn, son, you got that right.

As an engineer, let's say you had a gigantic track hoe and was able to dig the Rez 2000ft deeper. What would that accomplish?

It would not temporarily store any more water "when heavy rains come". The reason is the surface level of the Rez with reference to sea level would still be nearly 300ft. It would just have 2kft more water below it. When the rains come, it still has to go above the nearly 300ft surface level, because.... well hell it ain't magic.

One could increase the surface area of the Rez by the same amount that this lake thing would create and accomplish the same thing.

Look, the whole point is to keep the water levels below a certain point relative to sea level. You don't change the water level at the surface by increasing the amount of water impounded below that surface level

engineer indeed

No need to argue! If the fine citizens of MS have to pay any tax monies for this holy one lake project, it's not going to happen. We need to increase the quality of life in this damn backwards state and culture. Priorities people!

I’m the “reduced flow idiot” redneck farmer is referring to. Let me point out how idiotic your statement s are by your very own words.

“To the idiot that suggested a lake will "reduce flow". How is it going to reduce flow? Once the lake is at level, the amount that comes in up stream will be the amount flowing downstream. The only thing that occurs is that when the amount flowing in from upstream is extreme, the lake level rises (over a greater area than just the width between river levees) and GRADUALLY releases downstream.”

A gradual release from a normal flood discharge is a REDUCTION OF FLOW.. Water exiting the lake may be higher in dissolved salts or have lower oxygen levels than would be the case for a free-flowing river. Dams change the timing, amount and chemical composition of a river's flow, which can lead to dramatic changes to groundwater-storing floodplains and wetlands.

Fisheries within the Mississippi Sound and Louisiana Marsh are dependent on the volume and timing of the nutrients and freshwater discharged by the Pearl River as well as on estuary habitats. Almost all the fish and shellfish caught along the US coast of the Gulf of Mexico live in estuaries for at least part of their lifecycle. The Pearl River is the fourth largest river emptying into to Gulf of Mexico East of the Mississippi River.

Who is the idiot?

Mr. Farmer I won't call you a redneck, I don't like that term. A flood control reservoir is built deep, and it is not filled to the top so it can take on more water. Hence why the Ross Barnett does not work well for flood control.

Little history lesson for you, the land that was taken by imminent domain on the rez was taken for flood control, however when Rez was built it was not built that way, rather for water supply and recreation.

So excuse the people downstream for being weary of what happens up north.

Also when was the last time you came down south on the river and seen first hand the sloughing of the river banks?

You can spout all you want, however sir on this issue you are wrong.

Flood control is not "built deep." That's just being ignorant. The water level at the surface is a factor, it doesn't matter how deep it is. If it's 2kft deep but the outlet is at 80ft deep, then you have 1920ft of stale impoundment. This shit ain't rocket surgery.

Little history for you, You lied. The land that was taken to make the Rez was taken to provide a steady water supply for the City of Jackson.

Never, ever has it ever been stated as a flood control measure.

See what I mean about lies?

Ma'am. I know I'm not wrong and I know you are lying. And I fish the pearl below Rockport. Wanna know why there is sloughing? It's because of the high levees that were put in place that speeds up the water flow.

Same thing is happening on big rivers like the Mississippi. So, guess what? This little lake plan will have a positive impact on reducing the sloughing because the water is not sped up in it's delivery.


Typing this, I missed the idiot posting about dams changing the timing, like floods and or droughts don't affect the flow. It's just silly the things that people will type out and just completely sad that they might actually believe it.

Mr. Farmer go back and read my post. I said go research the imminent domain cases that took the land. It says it can be taken for flood control. However you are correct it was not built for flood control.

Again a flood reservoir is built deep, than not kept full, so as it can take on more water. That sir is not rocket science, but fact.

The Ross Barnett Reservoir (I still hate that name) was not designed for flood control. It was designed for recreation and development. The other supposed uses (flood control, water supply) were the justifications for the taking of private land for. “Public purpose.”