PDA

View Full Version : Buying waterfront land? Be sure



MNeagle
10th August 2010, 06:54 PM
http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/502*376/1WHISTLE0808.jpg
Don Radzak, 89, of Brooklyn Park stands near the weedy pond that used to be the pride of the Glen Echo development.



Buying waterfront land? Be sure

Don Radzak learned the hard way that a pond's water doesn't belong to the neighborhood's residents.


A year after he moved to Brooklyn Park, Don Radzak wanted to make sure the picturesque little pond outside his townhouse stayed wet.

So Radzak and a neighbor stacked four sandbags in a culvert, raising the water level a few feet. For the next 11 years, Radzak says, the Glen Echo development had a sparkling water feature frequented by ducks and egrets.

Then some residents around another pond just downstream complained that Glen Echo was hogging the water. Last fall, the city of Brooklyn Park removed the sandbags and other obstructions. By this spring, weeds were springing up where the Glen Echo pond had receded and clumps of algae had broken out on the rest.

Radzak and his supporters learned the hard way that even though the pond is on Glen Echo property, the water doesn't belong to them. Instead, it's part of a network of 250 ponds and 200 miles of sewers maintained by the city of Brooklyn Park to keep water clean and prevent flooding.

Kevin Larson, Brooklyn Park's city engineer, admits that the little dam didn't seem to cause any trouble. Still, he said, the city can't let residents monkey with the system for their own needs.

"If we allow people to start doing that, then the whole system ... what are we doing to that? Does this get out of control?" Larson said.

But the city acknowledges that by solving one problem, it has created another.

"You don't even see a turtle pop its head up," Radzak, 89, said last week, pointing his cane at the shrunken pond. "It's terrible, just terrible."

Brooklyn Park Mayor Steve Lampi has tried to moderate the water squabble. Lampi said it's not the only time residents have been surprised to find out the truth about their neighborhood pond, which is often featured prominently in real estate listings.

"Sometimes the [real estate] agent will allude to the fact that water is going to be there forever," Lampi said. "When it's part of a stormwater management system, there's no guarantee of that."

Indeed, other stormwater ponds not far from Glen Echo resemble a lumpy basin of weeds, with no water visible at all. From the perspective of city stormwater engineers, that's not a sign of trouble.

Developers in many jurisdictions are required to build ponds to allow sediment to settle out and to catch runoff from roofs and driveways. They're not built for swimming, boating or even beauty, according to Jim Hafner, Blaine's stormwater manager and chairman of the Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition.

Radzak's townhouse, which he bought in 1997, backs up to a broad lawn that ends at the pond. The association keeps the grass mowed up to the banks. Radzak never thought that putting out the sandbags to hold back more water would cause any harm.

When they saw the city workers removing the sandbags and a tree last fall, residents of Glen Echo immediately suspected the folks across Edinbrook Parkway, where Glen Echo's pond drains into a much larger impoundment. Larson, the city engineer, said the amount of water being trapped in the little triangular Glen Echo pond wouldn't make much of a difference to the neighboring pond.

Nevertheless, Larson admitted, neighbors across the road who met with him earlier this year were "pretty wound up" about the idea of Glen Echo's taking their water. Radzak and others at Glen Echo feel the same way about those downstream. "They're stealing our water," he said.

Knowing the intensity of emotions about the pond, Lampi came to Glen Echo's National Night Out celebration wondering whether he would be welcome. He said the city plans to dredge Glen Echo's pond this fall, although Larson said that the city hasn't made a decision on that yet.

"I wouldn't tell you that everybody's 100 percent happy," Lampi said. "Most people have accepted that as a good compromise."
Rose Mary Thielman is one who's dubious that the dredging will solve the problem. She said she paid extra five years ago to get a townhouse next to the pond.

"That's our pond, we thought," she said.

James Eli Shiffer • whistleblower@startribune.com

http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/208*147/11whistle0808.jpg
The Glen Echo pond as it looked until last year.


http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/208*137/12WHISTLE0808.jpg
The Glen Echo pond after the city of Brooklyn Park's drainage work


http://www.startribune.com/investigators/100156009.html?elr=KArks:DCiU6:5DiaPQEacyiUiD3aPc: _Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUs

Joe King
10th August 2010, 08:51 PM
Simply one more case of people assuming as opposed to actually knowing what they're in fact getting.

That said, I don't see what the problem is by raising the elevation of the overflow because once the water reaches the new level all the new water coming in will flow out over the dam.
Same as it did before they added the sandbags.

However, if they actually dredge it out it'll probably be better in the long run for everybody.

Saul Mine
10th August 2010, 09:26 PM
Just another case of people assuming they somehow own everything they can see. Sometimes they assume they own stuff without even looking at it. When American Express proposed a new headquarters building in Phoenix, residents squawked that the building would obstruct their view. The newspaper published a picture of the view in question: city water tanks!

Phoenix
10th August 2010, 09:41 PM
When American Express proposed a new headquarters building in Phoenix, residents squawked that the building would obstruct their view. The newspaper published a picture of the view in question: city water tanks!


I'd rather look at city water tanks than a bankster compound, too.

Glass
11th August 2010, 03:14 AM
Those 2 photos are not even taken from the same position so it's hard to tell. They should be going after the realtor/developer for fraud if they are that concerned about it.

Still it's interesting. People assume a lot and incorrectly as well.

horseshoe3
11th August 2010, 07:11 AM
That said, I don't see what the problem is by raising the elevation of the overflow because once the water reaches the new level all the new water coming in will flow out over the dam.
Same as it did before they added the sandbags.


Except for the increased evaporation due to the larger surface area of the pond. It may seem insignificant, but it's not.

ShortJohnSilver
11th August 2010, 09:05 AM
Kevin Larson, Brooklyn Park's city engineer, admits that the little dam didn't seem to cause any trouble. Still, he said, the city can't let residents monkey with the system for their own needs.


Yes, we must worship the system and all those who control it, and place its idiotic, bureaucratic desires above all other priorities.

Joe King
11th August 2010, 11:25 AM
That said, I don't see what the problem is by raising the elevation of the overflow because once the water reaches the new level all the new water coming in will flow out over the dam.
Same as it did before they added the sandbags.


Except for the increased evaporation due to the larger surface area of the pond. It may seem insignificant, but it's not.


In this case, the water only serves to increase the downstream ponds surface area, thereby causing the same thing but in a different place.
Besides, it's just stormwater. What dif does it make from where it evaporates, and if it's been 11 years apparently flooding hasn't been a problem either.

I was just suggesting a way that would allow people on both ponds to continue to enjoy them as they had been.