I was asked to remove the top part of this post and I am honoring that request.
I will keep my own remarks about the sudden attention that is being given to Lake Como:
First of all I have no confidence in Paul Calebrese or Maser Engineering anymore. These are the same people who told us that $7 million was a good price for two simple buildings that by all accounts should have cost no more than $4 million. They are also the same people who wanted $1 million in engineering fees to oversee the construction of them and then sent out a letter a week before the special election endorsing the project. If we were to hire an engineer who didn’t overcharge us and interfere in our elections, and if we can prevent Mayor Doherty from bringing back the “responsible bidder” ordinance (by not re-electing him), we could probably get the project done for around $3.5 million instead of Mr. Calabrese’s projected cost of $6.1 million.
But is it even the right project? Mike Seebeck has discussed Mr. Celabrese’s proposal at length with a civil engineering official in Virginia Beach, a city with long experience dealing with hurricane related flooding. This person was an expert in exactly this sort of thing and he had serious reservations about what Calabrese planned to do. We can disagree about politics and about whether you like Jim or Matt but can we all agree that if we’re going to spend millions of dollars on this project that we better make absolutely certain that the thing is going to work? I invite Mr. Seebeck to share with us what he has learned when he has time.
And please consider this: Whether or not Calabrese’s plans are the right plans, why is he working on them this year instead of last year? It’s because last year he was busy designing rooftop golf, bathhouses and a 2nd story banquet hall. This year is a mayoral election year so this year Mr. Calabrese has been asked to work on something the people actually want.
This past spring the Council voted 4-1 to pass the $7 million pavilion bond. Jim Bean cast the sole “no” vote. He always explains his vote when he votes no and what he said was that while he would have been happy to vote to fund construction of the 10th Ave safety building, he could not vote to spend money on a community center/tourist attraction until the flooding of Lake Como was addressed in a serious way. Just thought you should know that.
5 Comments
I would gladly send emails to the officials …. However, I would not drop a $ number or lock into a fixed design because other alternatives have not been evaluated. (Haven’t we learned a pavilion lesson?)
SMRSA looked at several alternatives in a lengthy report on long term solutions and some are better than a big bore pipe….
I especially like the idea of a box culvert under Ocean Ave with an adjustable weir/tide gate. (similar to the newly constructed box culvert on Belmar Blvd …. just west of Rt 35)
The advantages are many:
• Open channel flow w/greater hydraulic capacity
• Restoration of the former Poly Pod Brook with “daylighting”
• Tidal flushing of Lake Como – environmental enhancement
• Timely and easier regulatory path
• More funding sources
• Better sell …. everybody in NJ wants their flooding problem fixed
• etc…..
From what I heard they did an excellent job on the Silver Lake to Shark River Drainage Project. We need to get the same people involved.
What about the Lake Como sewer water fouling the water and closing our town beaches? Wreck pond type sewage issues, will the outflow pipe cause a flow on to Belmar or Spring Lake beaches? A tidal gate sounds better,cleaner and cheaper.
I’m not against everything. I’m just not for everything.
Everybody in town supports our neighbors near Lake Como in their efforts to remain dry. What most people don’t support, or appreciate, are the methods by which they have been played and are somewhat held hostage by political maneuvering.
Post a Comment