I was always a person growing up that would be for a flood wall, much like our neighbors, to control the flooding that seems to be an annual spike in the blood pressure of public works and the media. As I get older, I see the benefit of not having that to look at all the time, and being able to see the river, despite its murky appearance. I think today was one of the best things I’ve heard in awhile, about using an alternative to sand bags. My back began hurting just watching the news with people, including some firefighters, filling sand bags downtown. Ickes, despite my being a little on the fence about her writing after the Trice shooting, wrote a good article about some floodwall technology that may be helpful. Of course, this was all vague, so off to Google I went.
I noticed there are several solutions that seem to be possible replacements for our sand bagging technology that is currently in use. Of course, I am taking this with a grain of salt, as most of the websites seem to be marketing tools which are often sugar-coated. Of the several things I saw, it seemed that one of them had some pretty in depth information, as well as studies by the Corps of Engineers in 1997. The Aqua Levee seemed to be a pretty simple solution to the problem, and comes in cheaper to buy than to be putting out sand bags. There were a couple other solutions I noticed, the Aqua Dam and the Aqua Barrier, all of which operate under the same concept. All of them are water filled devices that hold the water back. The Aqua Levee seemed to be superior to me because it has a plastic outer shell that can absorb impacts from debris, as opposed to the other devices’ unprotected water filled bladders.
I am unsure that the concern Dee has about water flow was that big of an issue, as all of the sites seem to be more concerned with depth. All of the devices come with anchoring options as well, so it would be interesting to look at some of the other data surrounding these. I am a little dismayed that we didn’t look at something like this in the past. The article seems to note that Dee pointed these items out in the past and attempted to purchase them, with little to no backing of the council to get it done. I am all for saving tax dollars, and I think this is a good idea. I think even if we have to replace these items on an occasional basis, it would still be cheaper overall than building a permanent levee.
Aqua Levee Engineering Document
Aqua Levee Video (They actually stop a river from flowing)
Aqua Dam Information
Aqua Barrier Information
QCT 4-28-08 Technology May Replace Sand Bags
Monday, April 28, 2008
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Is It All That Bad?
An article in the Times about housing starts has spawned some interesting comments. Getting past the mindless drivel is easy, to see some interesting comments about the good and bad that is Davenport.
4-6-08 Davenport Leaders Worry About Tumbling Home Starts
Every US city, regardless of region, has good and bad aspects. I currently choose to live here and rather enjoy it. The only point I see in moving away from here is the weather, and after this winter, most of you may be nodding your heads in agreement at this point.
The good…
I like being in a city that has many of the amenities of large cities without the headaches that they present. We have good shopping areas, recreation, a small touch of culture and great attractions and festivals. I can guarantee each and every person enjoys at least one event in the area every year. What we don’t have is traffic jams, minus the occasional bridge delay, a high rate of crime, over priced amenities, and most of the other problems faced by areas with high density populations.
The complaints fly, but what is there to really complain about? Is it really that bad? We complain about parking downtown. Well, I went to the University of Iowa and had to have a vehicle due to the job that I had at the time. I paid almost as much in parking as I did in tuition. At 10-15 minutes for a quarter, that was an expensive day, especially with the lack of residential parking and meter-less areas. Parking ramps are a complaint as well. To eat dinner in downtown Chicago costs over 20.00 at a parking deck. Much more expensive than anything I could imagine paying here.
Police are an issue, always complaining about how the cops don’t do what they are supposed to and are ineffective. Well, I did notice that of all of the homicides in the QC in the last couple years, it seems that the alleged inadequate DPD has had someone in custody within 48 hours. Personally, I think this is a bar that is set pretty high, and one that larger cities couldn’t reach if they wanted to.
We have excellent fire protection. If you have questions about that, ask your insurance man. Mine says we have one of the best fire ratings out there, hence a cheaper policy premium. Though I take exception to some of the rest of the city services as being in need of improvement, if you compare this again to other cities we are doing pretty well. Have you driven in Clinton, Iowa City or other areas during or shortly after a snowstorm? I would say the snow removal we have here is pretty good. Unfortunately, we have Bettendorf next to us that exceeds expectations on this one.
As far as cost, I think we are on the level with most places in the area, and certainly living a lot cheaper than other areas of the country. If you want to point to Bettendorf all the time, remember, they are the first ones to charge more. They were the first to charge a garbage fee, the first to charge for yard waste pick-up and has more city fees. And for all that, here’s what you don’t get… Bettendorf has been horribly behind on fire protection. That blew up in their face recently in the major house fire, that likely wasn’t the fire department’s fault. To have fire protection where you must rely on other cities, including Davenport, to fight a simple house fire, is not an amenity that I would like to sacrifice. I think I would rather have a little snow on my street than have to worry if the fire department could put out a fire in my home. Bettendorf, though on the surface looks to have better amenities, it is evident that they are cutting corners where Davenport does not.
The bad…
Streets. But look at a statement in the article. Bettendorf has done better on development starting in the 1970’s since the town was all new. New streets, new infrastructure, and after all, we all like new things. But look at Bettendorf now. I would argue that the streets in Bettendorf, once new and attractive to development, are deteriorating to levels that are at or worse than Davenport. The problem becomes keeping up with maintenance and replacement of deteriorating streets, especially in a region with weather that is horrible in relation to heating and freezing, rendering havoc on pavement. I think that in the very near future, Bettendorf is going to need to address the issues of their deteriorating infrastructure, just as Davenport does, causing a cutback in amenities that currently exists due to Bettendorf’s seemingly minimum expense in this area.
Crime. For the density of population, crime is a little high. But I see many positives here. The crime free housing program seems to be having an impact, at least in the public eye. It would be interesting to talk to some of the officers and see if they are seeing impact with this program at all. I know that comments have been made in relation to crime and its source being in rental housing. Hopefully the new chief, with experience in other areas of the country, will provide a vision of how some mitigation in the department can help improve efficiency and maybe even prevention strategies.
Infrastructure. I think a serious lack of good decision making in the past has led to a situation in a couple areas that are now at just short of crisis level. The sewer situation and the fact that we have a large business park along I-80 that doesn’t have the infrastructure to support it. I am hopeful that the current council has the priorities right to get some of these critical projects underway. I am not upset at the investment in Centennial Park, as it has been years of planning and countless hours of public input. There does have to be a balance between attractions and necessities. I am interested to see if the council, mayor and Malin are able to secure federal funds for some of these projects. I think that if the city gets aggressive in securing outside funding, this may come out in the end as a relatively significant win for Davenport.
So that’s what I have off the top of my head. Maybe someone can add to the list. Here is the challenge. Instead of complaints like are present on the Times. Try this. If you list a bad, also list a good. It’s worth thinking about good things on occasion.
4-6-08 Davenport Leaders Worry About Tumbling Home Starts
Every US city, regardless of region, has good and bad aspects. I currently choose to live here and rather enjoy it. The only point I see in moving away from here is the weather, and after this winter, most of you may be nodding your heads in agreement at this point.
The good…
I like being in a city that has many of the amenities of large cities without the headaches that they present. We have good shopping areas, recreation, a small touch of culture and great attractions and festivals. I can guarantee each and every person enjoys at least one event in the area every year. What we don’t have is traffic jams, minus the occasional bridge delay, a high rate of crime, over priced amenities, and most of the other problems faced by areas with high density populations.
The complaints fly, but what is there to really complain about? Is it really that bad? We complain about parking downtown. Well, I went to the University of Iowa and had to have a vehicle due to the job that I had at the time. I paid almost as much in parking as I did in tuition. At 10-15 minutes for a quarter, that was an expensive day, especially with the lack of residential parking and meter-less areas. Parking ramps are a complaint as well. To eat dinner in downtown Chicago costs over 20.00 at a parking deck. Much more expensive than anything I could imagine paying here.
Police are an issue, always complaining about how the cops don’t do what they are supposed to and are ineffective. Well, I did notice that of all of the homicides in the QC in the last couple years, it seems that the alleged inadequate DPD has had someone in custody within 48 hours. Personally, I think this is a bar that is set pretty high, and one that larger cities couldn’t reach if they wanted to.
We have excellent fire protection. If you have questions about that, ask your insurance man. Mine says we have one of the best fire ratings out there, hence a cheaper policy premium. Though I take exception to some of the rest of the city services as being in need of improvement, if you compare this again to other cities we are doing pretty well. Have you driven in Clinton, Iowa City or other areas during or shortly after a snowstorm? I would say the snow removal we have here is pretty good. Unfortunately, we have Bettendorf next to us that exceeds expectations on this one.
As far as cost, I think we are on the level with most places in the area, and certainly living a lot cheaper than other areas of the country. If you want to point to Bettendorf all the time, remember, they are the first ones to charge more. They were the first to charge a garbage fee, the first to charge for yard waste pick-up and has more city fees. And for all that, here’s what you don’t get… Bettendorf has been horribly behind on fire protection. That blew up in their face recently in the major house fire, that likely wasn’t the fire department’s fault. To have fire protection where you must rely on other cities, including Davenport, to fight a simple house fire, is not an amenity that I would like to sacrifice. I think I would rather have a little snow on my street than have to worry if the fire department could put out a fire in my home. Bettendorf, though on the surface looks to have better amenities, it is evident that they are cutting corners where Davenport does not.
The bad…
Streets. But look at a statement in the article. Bettendorf has done better on development starting in the 1970’s since the town was all new. New streets, new infrastructure, and after all, we all like new things. But look at Bettendorf now. I would argue that the streets in Bettendorf, once new and attractive to development, are deteriorating to levels that are at or worse than Davenport. The problem becomes keeping up with maintenance and replacement of deteriorating streets, especially in a region with weather that is horrible in relation to heating and freezing, rendering havoc on pavement. I think that in the very near future, Bettendorf is going to need to address the issues of their deteriorating infrastructure, just as Davenport does, causing a cutback in amenities that currently exists due to Bettendorf’s seemingly minimum expense in this area.
Crime. For the density of population, crime is a little high. But I see many positives here. The crime free housing program seems to be having an impact, at least in the public eye. It would be interesting to talk to some of the officers and see if they are seeing impact with this program at all. I know that comments have been made in relation to crime and its source being in rental housing. Hopefully the new chief, with experience in other areas of the country, will provide a vision of how some mitigation in the department can help improve efficiency and maybe even prevention strategies.
Infrastructure. I think a serious lack of good decision making in the past has led to a situation in a couple areas that are now at just short of crisis level. The sewer situation and the fact that we have a large business park along I-80 that doesn’t have the infrastructure to support it. I am hopeful that the current council has the priorities right to get some of these critical projects underway. I am not upset at the investment in Centennial Park, as it has been years of planning and countless hours of public input. There does have to be a balance between attractions and necessities. I am interested to see if the council, mayor and Malin are able to secure federal funds for some of these projects. I think that if the city gets aggressive in securing outside funding, this may come out in the end as a relatively significant win for Davenport.
So that’s what I have off the top of my head. Maybe someone can add to the list. Here is the challenge. Instead of complaints like are present on the Times. Try this. If you list a bad, also list a good. It’s worth thinking about good things on occasion.
Friday, April 4, 2008
First Questionable Move From the Mayor's Office...
The brief fizzle from a potential fiasco came in a little article in the Times the other day. I have to agree with many naysayers that are not in favor of any action to raise taxes for the Davenport Promise program. I will follow that statement, with the fact that I am not for using tax funds for this program and it should be privately funded.
It appears the mayor is testing the waters, along with Joe Seng, on options to fund this project, that has potential to have more of an economic impact on the area than most anything we have done in the past. I am thinking that simply testing the waters was the undercurrent of this whole legislative attempt, but I could be wrong. In this case, the undercurrent may have turned into a riptide when the idea of raising taxes was mentioned. After all, as I recall, most of the anti-Gluba sentiment was the “He’s just going to raise my taxes” argument, and that may or may not be true. I was pleasantly surprised to see the budget float through so seamlessly, with no additional taxes. I am hoping that this flow continues.
Now on to the Times article. In reading the comments, I think everyone that made the aforementioned tax statement came out of the woodwork to beat the ‘I told you so’ drum. Well, to those people I would ask them to wake up. Look at what actually happened…
Gluba lobbied, a.k.a. asked his friend Joe Seng, to take to a committee to discuss and see how a bill would do at the state level that would allow a sales tax increase. Both of them admit that this bill would likely not pass, and all the bill would do is send this issue to voters, yet another likely definite thumbs down from the voters of Davenport. Gluba doesn’t seem to want to raise taxes, but I would question whether or not there is an alternative motive. Why would Gluba want to test the water with this type of bill? My only thoughts on that are, does he want to actually raise taxes in the future, or does he want to leave the impression that he is doing everything he can to ensure the Promise Program gets off the ground. I don’t know, but I think there are many other ways he could show his support.
The other fun thing about this is the guy that pointed it out, our little pitbull Hamerlinck. Another one of the misguided comments in the Times column points this out. It seems he may be a little jaded since he got slapped by the mayor for the last little stunt about putting police in college classrooms. I think Hamerlinck may have gotten a small token of revenge here, but I really think these two situations are very different. Remember, this was going to a committee to be discussed, the way the process is supposed to work. The last Hamerlinck stunt was an attempt at circumventing committees and bringing an issue that appeared to be totally disorganized.
Speaking of that, can someone tell me what happened to the police in the college classrooms by the way? It appears to have just disappeared.
4-3-08 Bill would give city ability to ask for tax increase to fund Davenport Promise
It appears the mayor is testing the waters, along with Joe Seng, on options to fund this project, that has potential to have more of an economic impact on the area than most anything we have done in the past. I am thinking that simply testing the waters was the undercurrent of this whole legislative attempt, but I could be wrong. In this case, the undercurrent may have turned into a riptide when the idea of raising taxes was mentioned. After all, as I recall, most of the anti-Gluba sentiment was the “He’s just going to raise my taxes” argument, and that may or may not be true. I was pleasantly surprised to see the budget float through so seamlessly, with no additional taxes. I am hoping that this flow continues.
Now on to the Times article. In reading the comments, I think everyone that made the aforementioned tax statement came out of the woodwork to beat the ‘I told you so’ drum. Well, to those people I would ask them to wake up. Look at what actually happened…
Gluba lobbied, a.k.a. asked his friend Joe Seng, to take to a committee to discuss and see how a bill would do at the state level that would allow a sales tax increase. Both of them admit that this bill would likely not pass, and all the bill would do is send this issue to voters, yet another likely definite thumbs down from the voters of Davenport. Gluba doesn’t seem to want to raise taxes, but I would question whether or not there is an alternative motive. Why would Gluba want to test the water with this type of bill? My only thoughts on that are, does he want to actually raise taxes in the future, or does he want to leave the impression that he is doing everything he can to ensure the Promise Program gets off the ground. I don’t know, but I think there are many other ways he could show his support.
The other fun thing about this is the guy that pointed it out, our little pitbull Hamerlinck. Another one of the misguided comments in the Times column points this out. It seems he may be a little jaded since he got slapped by the mayor for the last little stunt about putting police in college classrooms. I think Hamerlinck may have gotten a small token of revenge here, but I really think these two situations are very different. Remember, this was going to a committee to be discussed, the way the process is supposed to work. The last Hamerlinck stunt was an attempt at circumventing committees and bringing an issue that appeared to be totally disorganized.
Speaking of that, can someone tell me what happened to the police in the college classrooms by the way? It appears to have just disappeared.
4-3-08 Bill would give city ability to ask for tax increase to fund Davenport Promise
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)