Council must hear public fears on Philips

By KEN MIDKIFF
Columbia Daily Tribune
Published Friday, March 5, 2004

As could easily have been predicted, Elvin Sapp’s mouthpiece - attorney Dan Simon - said his client’s plans for the 489-acre Philips tract were akin in value to sliced bread. In his presentation to the Columbia City Council on Monday night, he reeled off a number of ways this would improve the area and benefit Columbia citizens.

Among other things, he said the interchange between Route AC and the Gans Creek bridge would add an important way for south-town residents to enter and exit Highway 63. He said the amount of money the project would bring in would add greatly to the city’s budget and that the plan to address concerns about pollution of Clear and Gans creeks was the best possible.

Hold on, a number of citizens responded:

• There would be no need for the Highway 63 intersection if this development were not proposed, so why are taxpayers getting stuck for at least half the tab?
  
• There have been a number of large commercial/residential projects in Columbia that promised to fatten our revenues, yet taxes - sales, personal property, real estate and water and sewer rates - have continued to rise. Will the costs outweigh the benefits?
  
• The plans to protect Clear and Gans creeks are meaningless. Rather, the developer apparently intends to use the existing lake to cleanse the runoff and the creeks to carry off any leftover wastes. The amended plan specifically says the developer does not intend to meet water-quality standards.

The last item generated the most concern. Both Clear and Gans creeks carry water into and through Rock Bridge Memorial State Park. Gans Creek is an "outstanding resource water." State and federal laws and regulations stipulate that, as such, it may not be degraded. Failure to set water quality standards for the massive development at the Philips tract ensures it will be degraded. Clear Creek, on the other hand, has no designation whatever, and whatever goes in - as long as it is not putrid, scummy, laden with feces or foamy - presumably is OK.

The big question - one that the developer hasn’t addressed - is the lake. When ownership is transferred, it will definitely be "waters of the state" and, as such, will be required by federal law to be "fishable and swimmable." Well, it is fishable. A number of anglers pay an annual fee for the privilege of casting into the waters. "Swimmable" is the problem. The proposal by the developer would make the lake part of the solution to the water runoff and says the developer would not be responsible for making the lake suitable for water recreation.

That means the city - us taxpayers - would be responsible for meeting federal laws and water quality standards to ensure the lake would be suitable for whole-body-contact recreation. This would be a large task, involving the installation of all sorts of filtering and buffering devices.

Once again, the developer is proposing to place the burden on taxpayers to pick up the tab. He gets the gold mine; we get the shaft.

I would suggest anyone who has concerns about this call, e-mail or write members of the city council. They’re all in the phone book: Darwin Hindman, Almeta Crayton, Brian Ash, Jim Loveless, Bob Hutton and Chris Janku. John John, also a council member, has recused himself because of a conflict of interest, which is interesting in itself.

Give them a call and let them know of your position. After all, they represent you.