Town Square

Council approves new plan for McKelvey Park flood basin

Original post made on May 15, 2013

In a major turning point following years of discussion, the City Council approved a redesign for McKelvey Park Tuesday to allow it be used as a flood basin for Permanente Creek.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, May 15, 2013, 5:17 PM


Like this comment
Posted by Brenda
a resident of Shoreline West
on May 15, 2013 at 5:48 pm

It would have been better if the city or water distrcit bought those houses next to the park before they were occupied. There would have been more room for all those uses and there would have been no neighbors adjacent to it.

Like this comment
Posted by NW Resident
a resident of North Whisman
on May 16, 2013 at 9:26 am

In regards to the parking comments in the article, it is also kind of St. Joseph School to allow their parking lot to be used for events at Mc Kelvey on the weekends. Without those spaces, even more cars would be forced onto the streets. The school could just as easily close off their parking lot on weekends, unless they are holding events of their own. I think they deserve some recognition for being a good neighbor to Little League baseball for many years.

Like this comment
Posted by YES!
a resident of Blossom Valley
on May 16, 2013 at 2:23 pm

YES YES! Flood it all! Hu Jin Tao will be proud! I love you all! America!!!!!!!!

Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Sylvan Park
on May 16, 2013 at 2:44 pm

"all of will be paid for by the water district"
WRONG! All of it (and more!) will be paid for by taxpayers, meaning you and me. Government funding doesn't just magically appear, those dollars are extorted from us all.
How ironic: the water district flushes them down the toilet.

Like this comment
Posted by Chris
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on May 16, 2013 at 4:30 pm

The Water District has spent $20 million of taxpayer's money redesigning this project because of their inflated costs - and their own incompetence. What does Mike Kasperzak expect? That we should actually trust SCVWD - an agency that doesn't use its own historical data but makes it up as they go along? Jac Siegel is right on this one. Again.

Like this comment
Posted by Old Steve
a resident of Rex Manor
on May 16, 2013 at 4:31 pm

Hardly extortion, given the passage rates of Water District Bond Programs. Could it run better, Absolutely, so feel free to run for the seat next time. Money for Flood Insurance does not magically appear either.

By using local bonds for local construction, many local residents will in the future avoid sending local money away in the form of Flood Insurance Premiums (required for many mortgages).

Like this comment
Posted by Rich
a resident of Blossom Valley
on May 18, 2013 at 11:57 am

I discovered while trying to get "permission" to add a couple of hundred square feet to my kitchen that the Water District already has modern data that would remove a great many houses from "flood insurance" requirements that are based on data (and computer programs) more than 40 years old. They just need to submit it to FEMA, but they aren't willing to do that until they finish all their big projects. Hmmm. Wonder why? Is it really a cost savings measure, or do they get more political leverage by having a lot of people feeling the pain of flood insurance?