Return to Front Burner

MORE ON JIM SCHUTZE AND THE TRINITY (SPECIFICALLY THE LAKES)

Jim volleyed yesterday afternoon--and again missed. And I'm not just saying that because he called me Wick's "worthy acolyte" [shudder]. I have two beefs with Jim's latest:

1. He just the other day criticized the mayor for making "simple assertions about the [Trinity Project] without any evidence." Jim does the same in his latest, only more so. He writes:

Mr. Allison and his worthy acolyte, Tim Rogers, are excited because tomorrow [meaning today] the city council will be asked to vote on an appropriation of some $9.6 million to begin the design of the lake or lakes we are supposed to get as part of this project--something we voted for eight years ago. I too am gratified that the city has leapt ahead to begin designing this project that we authorized eight years ago. I am somewhat concerned that the amount to be awarded for design is fully one-third the total amount available in the project budget for the chain of lakes--supposed to cost $31 million at completion. So I guess it’s roughly $10 million for design and $20 million for construction. Sounds like how we re-did our house.

Talk about simple assertions without evidence. Look, this is complicated stuff. The bigger of the two lakes will be something like 800 feet wide. They'll be fed with 50 million gallons of water per day, pumped from the Central Wastewater Treatment Plant (don't worry; it's cleaner than river water). To get floodwaters to the river from downtown, we'll need to bury pipes under the lakes. And, by the way, the lakes will create a reverse flow to the river, such that you'll be able to canoe in a continuous loop, without having to get out and portage.

Is $9.6 million a fair price for all that engineering work and so forth? Is 1:2 a good ratio for design-to-construction costs for such an undertaking? I really have no idea. And neither does Jim. But I do know this: it doesn't sound anything like how Jim re-did his house.

But let's move on.

2. Jim implies we're paying too much to design the lakes and that it has taken too long for the design work to begin. On the lakes. Which, to be clear, are being designed. But a few graphs later, he writes:

So, no, none of [the Trinity Project planning] happened in secret. It was all right out there in the fine print. And that’s why I’m sure the overwhelming majority of the public knows that we won’t be getting a lake with sailboats on it, but we will be getting a toll road.

I'm confused. Does Jim contradict himself there, saying we won't get a lake? Or does he merely intend to say that we won't have sailboats on the lake? If the former, I'd ask Jim to be a bit more careful, or else this debate can't be productive. If the latter, well, then, you have my word: the day the lake opens, D Magazine will be down at the Trinity giving sailboat rides.

As always, Jim is welcome.

Tim Rogers · September 27, 2006 12:28 PM