SF Creek could see small fix by 2013
Original post made on Feb 29, 2008
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, February 29, 2008, 5:19 PM
on Feb 29, 2008 at 7:20 pm
The following is from the JPA Agenda for 02-28-08:
1. ROLL CALL
2. CLOSED SESSION - None.
3. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 31, 2008 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES. Attachments
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
6. CONSENT CALENDAR-None
7. PUBLIC COMMENT - limited time for public comment on items not on the agenda.
8. FY 2007/2008 QUARTERLY REPORTS. Attachments
9. FY 2008/2009 FIRST DRAFT BUDGET FOR MEMBER AGENCIES REVIEW. Attachment
10. BOARD AND ASSOCIATE MEMBER REPORTS Agendized reports from Board
and/or Associate Members requesting Board action. NONE
11. BOARD AND ASSOCIATE MEMBER MATTERS - Non-agendized comments,
requests, or announcements by Board and/or Associate members, no action may be
12. ADJOURNMENT TO STUDY
It's really hard to see much "creek work" going on here.
This town has spent more than $1.5M (at least) on salaries for people who are supposed to be coming up with a solution. There is precious little to show for this money!
And remember--they wanted us to pay for this person's salary out of our Storm Drain Fees originally!
Sad .. so very sad ..
on Feb 29, 2008 at 8:07 pm
This probably doesn't thrill you but Napa and the Army Corp of Engineers identified flood improvement projects for the Napa River way back in 1969. To this date not all the flood control projects have been completed, only some of them. That's almost 40 years and the projects aren't finished, that's why the Napa River still floods.
on Mar 1, 2008 at 10:40 am
From the recent mess at the Children's theater .. it seems that the City of Palo Alto has been subsidizing the small group of residents and non-residents' children to the tune of $1M+ a year. That means that over $10M has been diverted from the general fund over the last ten years--since the Flood of '98.
$10M would have gone a long way towards fixing this problem. Certainly if Palo Alto had offered $10M, maybe Menlo Park could have seen its way to come up with $5M, East Palo Alto $1M, the County of San Mateo $10M, the County of Santa Clara $10M and Stanford 10M--that would have come to just under half of the oft-quoted $100M needed to "fix the Creek".
Well, the City Council has shown its priorities -- $10M for the children, but not very little for "the Creek" (meaning the residents who are living close to this sometimes overflowing body of water.
Given these modest contributions suggested above, the $100M could have been raised in only 20 years for the governments of the cities/counties surrounding the creek.
If the governments/institutions (which in this case have a lot of money) are not interested in "fixing the Creek"--why should the Federal Government show much more interest?