Mayor addresses Argo Dam issue with Ann Arbor rowing community
Mayor John Hieftje called for a truce tonight as he addressed a crowd of nearly five dozen members of Ann Arbor's rowing community gathered at Pioneer High School.
Acknowledging the tensions between competing ideologies over the fate of Argo Dam, Hieftje urged the rowers - who rely on the dam to enjoy Argo Pond - to set aside their differences with environmentalists who are calling for the dam's removal, namely the Huron River Watershed Council.
Crew teams practice on Argo Pond just above the Argo Dam on the Huron River, north of downtown Ann Arbor. Steve Pepple | AnnArbor.com
While the debate over Argo has heavily divided the community, Hieftje, who supports keeping the dam in place, said he believes both sides have good intentions and share common ground - they both care about the river.
"There's a relationship here that you both need. They're the stewards of the river and you want to use the river," Hieftje said. "We're going to see what we can do to get us all back on the same page ... understanding that the thing that's most important to us is the quality of the river and making sure that as many people as possible can enjoy that river."
"We only have one river," he added. "It's the principal natural resource beyond the air that we breathe. Just a little upstream from where you row, that's where we get our drinking water. By the way, we have award-winning water."
Hieftje highlighted new evidence from a study that supports the city's position that there are no structural problems with Argo Dam, contrary to what the state has argued. He said during the evening the city is looking forward to resolving its dispute with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality over the dam.
Hieftje also said he wouldn't be surprised if the City Council voted unanimously to keep the dam in place.
That struck a chord with the audience, which included several of the coaches of local rowing programs.
Charley Sullivan, one of the rowing coaches at the University of Michigan, said he's been rowing on the Huron River for years, and Argo Dam is a blessing to Ann Arbor.
"We couldn't row without it," he said. "For the University of Michigan team at least, if Argo disappears, we have no water closer than Ford Lake that we can train on and that's not a feasible solution for us while our guys are a club. If we were a varsity program, then there might be some very different options, but as a club where these guys have come to U of M as students first and then decided to join a team that is nationally ranked and takes that level of commitment, we couldn't do it without Argo Pond."
Tom Kraft, head coach of Huron High School's men's varsity rowing team, agreed.
"We couldn't exist without it," he said. "There are other places we can row in Ann Arbor, but Argo is the best spot. We've looked at all of the impoundments, we've measured them, and Argo is by far the superior place to row in Ann Arbor, so it's pretty important that we maintain that dam."
Richard Griffith, men's varsity head rowing coach at Pioneer, said he's glad to hear it sounds like the dam will stay in place.
"It's absolutely critical," he said. "If it were to go away, the other bodies of water would not support us, and it would be detrimental to rowing in Ann Arbor. We have two seasons of 70 rowers, Huron has two seasons of the same and Skyline will also have that number. Michigan has that number. Ann Arbor has over 200 on their roster in the summer, so it's a very popular body of water."
Sullivan said Argo Pond has contributed to the prestige that having top-notch rowing teams brings to Ann Arbor.
"We've had an olympian each of the last two times - guys who have walked onto our team and we've taught how to row in the last olympic games," he said. "We've had a huge number of Michigan athletes who have competed at the national or international level. Thirty years ago, no one would have put Ann Arbor as a rowing center and, in fact, now we are. We are one of the major places in the country turning out rowers. The high schools are doing it, too."
One aspect of rowing that seems to get lost in the debate, Sullivan said, is the personal growth component of the sport.
"It's been a major educational and growth experience for huge numbers of people, both at the university and at the high schools," he said. "I think people sort of think we're out there because it's a nice fun thing that we do, but the thing that I think it does more than anything is really direct young people's lives in a really positive way. It teaches them about teamwork, about effort, about not always winning - it's a huge part of some really important education that happens."
Before the night was over, Hieftje recalled first coming to Ann Arbor in 1951, six months after he was born. He said he had family friends who remember a beach that used to be at Argo Pond, noting he'd like to see that again someday.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
Michael Psarouthakis
Sun, Jan 31, 2010 : 11 p.m.
In the end, this has come down to cash flow, period. The council and city have to go with what will cost the least amount of cash now. Once it was shown that the mill race berm was not in danger of failing all arguments pro and con became irrelevant in my opinion. The actual dam was and is in perfect condition and never the issue regarding safety and so the immediate cost of fixing the berm issue was the only real deciding factor. As I was writing this I a song called Right Here Right Now started playing on my iTunes and really struck a chord with me and causing a major edit to what I was planning to write. I think everyone should look for what they can do right here and right now to enjoy and/or help the river. Maybe there is overlap between the two Argo dam sides, maybe not, but lets not waste time and energy on what is basically a done deal. Plenty of people will undoubtedly keep an eye on the situation so we can all join in on the fight again if/when this issue reappears. So instead of going on regarding my views about Argo dam here are my thread hijacking right here right now ideas, throw some others on here if you want: 1) Get behind the removal of the Peninsular dam in Ypsilanti. From what I have heard the removal of the Peninsular dam has broad community support (depending on funding of course) would open up a fairly long stretch of water and also has support from US Kayak/Canoe Association regarding a potential fast water park in the Peninsular dam area. 2) Get a community wide effort to take down more buckthorn along the Huron. The high school crew teams have worked on this in Argo Park in the past, but there is still a lot of work to be done. 3) Write your congressman and senator about the Asian Carp issue in support of shutting down the Chicago River locks so these fish dont get into the Great Lakes and decimate the game and native fish populations as they have done in the Mississippi river. If they get into the Great Lakes they will eventually get into our inland lakes and rivers (just like the Zebra mussels have done). 4) Come to a learn to row class offered on Argo Pond, or come to the Michigan Club Invitational (MCI) regatta this summer. Hundreds of Michigan, Midwest and even Canadian rowers come to Argo pond to compete. Yes even you dam out folks, come see what causes such passionate emotions from rowers, parents of rowers and those lovable wacky rowing coaches. I bet you will be surprised by the passion and love these people have for the river. While not agreeing about what should be done with Argo dam, I know there are many common overlapping interests that you will likely find compelling. 5) Rent a canoe or kayak and discover the river from a different point of view especially if you are a rower or never been on the river before. 6) Join HRWC or attend an HRWC event, yes even you dam in folks, come see what causes such passionate emotions from environmentalists, and dam despising river lovers. Events like the Mill Creek Film Festival, River Roundup, summer temp extravaganza (crew teams could do this easily) etc. I bet you will be surprised by the passion and love these people have for the river. While not agreeing about what should be done with Argo dam, I know there are many common overlapping interests that you will likely find compelling. 7) Take a long walk along the river and pick up one piece of trash. While you are at it say hello to someone you see during your walk. 8) Just go out and enjoy the river, yes even in the winter. Time to get back to enjoying the river and working on things that can be accomplished.
bg
Sat, Jan 30, 2010 : 4:56 p.m.
If you relocate the AA rowing club, 3 high school teams and U of M's team to another location, then supporting decentralization of our fragile American cities would cause all these people to have to drive farther, thus polluting the environment in other ways. If keeping the dam is so bad, then you pick your poison.
Charley Sullivan
Sat, Jan 30, 2010 : 3:52 p.m.
So, it will indeed likely go up for a vote, in City Council, which is how something of this level is handled in our city, and as the mayor said in the meeting, it is quite likely that the dam will be retained. And, if you don't like the way your city council people or the mayor vote on this, or any other issue, you are free to vote against them in the next election, or even run against them in the next election, and have your voice heard. Welcome to representative democracy. But good luck getting elected in Ann Arbor with "Remove Argo Dam" as your principal campaign issue...
braggslaw
Sat, Jan 30, 2010 : 8:45 a.m.
so it comes down to the HRWC and a "handful" of canoeists and fisherman versus the "vast majority" of rowers and city historians? Put it up to a vote and let's resolve this.
BobR
Sat, Jan 30, 2010 : 7:36 a.m.
Argo Pond is a great resource. The expense of removing the dam now seems to be much larger than the original pitch said it was. There is a lot of use of the Pond. User fees make the livery self-sustaining, largely or entirely without tax dollars.
townie54
Sat, Jan 30, 2010 : 12:35 a.m.
Put it up for a vote Majority wins.
Steve Hendel
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 9:32 p.m.
Whether the rowing community consists of 70 people or 300, it's still very small. I can't speak for anyone else, but when I vote in an election, I expect the Mayor and Council members to make decisions on these issues (such as Argo Dam) based on their perception of the good of ALL the people whom they represent-and to pay less attention to small but organized pressure groups (i.e. the 'rowing community'). Nobody would fault the 'rowing community' or any other group from pressing it's case when an important issue like Argo Dam arises; it's the job of our elected representatives to consider not just the interests of a vocal minority, but also the interests of the people of Ann Arbor as a whole.
Wystan Stevens
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 8:47 p.m.
ARGO POND: LET'S TAKE THE LONG VIEW The pond now called Argo has been a fixture of the local landscape since 1832, when Anson Brown erected a grist mill beside an early wooden version of the Broadway Bridge, and built the first dam to hold water back to power the mill. (Born a New Yorker, Brown started the settlement known as Lower Town Ann Arbor, calling Broadway and Wall Street after thoroughfares in New York City. Brown owned the mill, but was not the miller, and he died in the cholera epidemic of 1834.) An internet search wont find early 19th-century references to Argo, because the pond didnt have that name until 1892, when a group of Ann Arbor businessmen, investors in the Michigan Milling Company, took over the operation (then known as the Sinclair Mills) and rebuilt the structure that they named the Argo Flouring Mills. The dam and pond took their name from the mills, but no one knows where that name came from. Did the mills golden grain suggest a comparison to the brave ship Argo of Greek myth, which bore Jason and his men in search of the Golden Fleece? (The Michigan Milling Company had its offices at the Central Mills on First Street, where the Blind Pig is now and where, Im told, a certain golden liquid flows a beverage made from grain.) Through the decades, the dam was rebuilt a few times (and probably made a little higher, after the Eastern Michigan Edison Company acquired the water rights). But in a freak calamity that drew a crowd of spectators, the Argo mill exploded and burned on January 4, 1904. Firemen came, and the water that doused the flames left a white pall of icicles on the tall buildings ruined skeleton, a scene captured in dramatic photographs. The companys plutocrat investors decided not to rebuild, and a picturesque milling era we might call it the Flouring of Ann Arbor came to an end. From Argos ashes rose the Phoenix of a new era of power generation. Within a few years, the company later known as Detroit Edison had erected a power generating station on the mill site, running its turbines and generators with water from the millrace. Three weeks after the mill disaster, on January 27, 1904, the Ann Arbor Railroads trestle collapsed, dropping a heavy freight train and its cargo onto the ice of Argo Pond. In the days that followed, parties of gawkers turned out for that spectacle too, including small boys like the late Ray Spokes, who went out onto the ice and looted water-soaked crates of Beemans Pepsin Gum. The inadequate early trestle which stood close to the dam got replaced months later with another of thick steel, on massive concrete piers, a landmark still in place. (That year, 1904, was a bad one at both ends: on the last day of December, the Ann Arbor High School burned to the ground.) Throughout the 19th century, and early decades of the 20th, winter ice was harvested on Argo Pond, and stored in great blocks in straw-lined ice houses on the Main Street riverbank. Some of the ice buildings were owned by downtown caterers like Jacob Hangsterfer, whose big emporium depended on a steady supply of ice to preserve meats and other perishables, and to refresh thirsty customers at his ballroom, year round. Another enterprising German immigrant was Paul G. Tessmer, who in 1898 sold his grocery business and opened a boat livery the U. of M. Boat House on the ponds Main Street side. By 1906, Tessmer had a stock of 160 canoes and 40 rowboats, all built by himself. He and his big family lived in a house on Sunset hill, overlooking the pond a building that became the Elks Pratt Lodge. Tessmers docks and boathouse later were moved across the pond, to the foot of Longshore Drive, and became William J. Saunders canoe livery, then Jack Wirths, until 1969, when the Ann Arbor parks department took over. On moonlit evenings in June, the pond was jammed with U-M students in canoes, boys in blazers treating their sweethearts to a mandolin serenade. Around 1900, these romantics began calling the path along the headrace embankment Lovers Lane. (In the 1930s and 40s, the embankment became part of Ann Arbors hobo jungle.) One of the citys public works projects during the Depression years was the building of a public bathing beach at the foot of Longshore Drive, where the canoe livery is now. Tons and tons of Lake Michigan white sand were hauled in and spread around, to make the beach comfortable and pretty. Repeated summer polio scares in the 1940s eventually led to its closing. The pond was drained in 1930, when Edison built a new dam, and again in the early 1970s, when Joe ONeals construction company built the present dam for the city a project completed in 1972. Treasure hunters prowled the muck for artifacts, and collectors found old Ann Arbor bottles for their collections. Construction workers pulled a particularly heavy souvenir out of the mud: a set of ribbed steel wheels, from one of the boxcars that fell off the old railroad trestle in 1904! Argo Pond is an essential element of the history of Ann Arbor; it helps define our citys character. In historical terms, Ann Arbor has always had that pond, has grown up around it, and would not be the same without it. Some folks have called it stagnant, but of course that is absurd. It is a dynamic body, as dynamic as the city itself. The waters of the Huron have flowed since time began, and they have been flowing through the pond and over the dam, ever since Ann Arbor was a tiny village in the wilderness west of Detroit. By all means let us maintain momentum, improve the ponds surroundings, clear out shabby factory buildings on North Main Street, and replace them with an attractive multi-use facility, one which includes cafes and a dining terrace that overlooks trees and water. It is a view to be enjoyed in every season. But let us not rashly sacrifice our beloved Argo Pond, Ann Arbors urban waterfront. Argo is an asset, an amenity of the type that other communities long for. We should consider every means of enhancing access to it, and keeping its shining surface intact. Dont pull the plug on Argo dont let it go down the drain. My enjoyment of the river has been passive. I havent been out in a boat, havent stopped to watch the oarsmen, never even dipped a toe in Argo Pond but I appreciate Argos contribution to the quality of life in this place, and I like to see it now and then, and know that it is there. I hope that it will forever remain in the heart of our city, where it has been bubbling and rippling for 177 years.
Number6fan
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 4:01 p.m.
Productive and healthy human enterprises, including rowing, have grown around the current Huron River profile, including, of course, the Argo Pond Dam. I personally believe it adds to our quality of life and I know, as someone briefly involved with the PHS rowing program in its infancy, that it has engaged many teenagers to become positively involved with interscholastic sports and, most importantly, physical fitness. If it were a natural dam, would we have environmental concerns because of the altered water flow? What is the cost - benefit to habitat for various species currently thriving / surviving with Argo Dam in place if it were to be removed? And, finally, if there is specific benefit to a small segment of the community (e.g. rowers), is there the possibility of either additional private funding or, through taxes, "designated usage" of individuals' tax dollars to help maintain the dam? I don't row, don't have kids that row, don't have close friends or relatives who are part of the rowing community - but, in lieu of some devastating ecological problems, I support the rowers and others who want the dam to stay.
treetowncartel
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 3:51 p.m.
Why not turn the city hall pond into a wave pool and then there can be simulated rowing there.
Kayaked
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 2:18 p.m.
Shame on this author. He took what he knew was a controversial subject, and wrote an entirely one sided article, with lots of quotes from rowing coaches and nothing from the Watershed Council. And now all these comments are here bashing the Watershed Council. They should have had the opportunity to provide a contrasting viewpoint within the article itself, or else this reads more like an editorial.
Rork Kuick
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 2:05 p.m.
Not even handed reporting, but perhaps that is unavoidable when covering what seems like a campaign event. For example: "to set aside their differences with environmentalists who are calling for the dam's removal, namely the Huron River Watershed Council." There are many people beside the HRWC who want that dam to go. MI Department of Fisheries had advocated removing that dam since 1995. One would think it would be an easy sell to the environmentally friendly town full of people capable of long-term thinking, and we just need to educate more.
63Townie
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 1:57 p.m.
As an Ann Arbor Taxpayer, I think the city should do whatever makes the most sense for the taxpayers, those who ultimately end up paying. The emotions need to be eliminated from the debate. Not everyone who lives in Ann Arbor utilizes the rowing facilities, Argo livery or Bandemere Park. However, every taxpayer ends up paying for the dam and the facilities around it. If it costs less to maintain the dam (given that it is not leaking or requiring millions for maintenance) and retain the status quo than taking down the dam, leave it alone. However, if it's cheaper to take it out and restore the river, do that. What I don't think the city should do is take out the dam, pay to create a new rowing center at Barton Pond AND create a whitewater park. The golf courses can't support themselves even with liquor licenses, how could anyone think a whietwater course could be self-sufficient as well?
Soothslayer
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 1:52 p.m.
I understand its not as close & convinient but it really is a short haul to Ford Lake. There are some preliminary plans for a shared launch area and boathouse facility which, if all the teams pitched in, should be cost effective and work well. EMU and Saline Crew are already here. Long term goals and benefits should be carefully weighed and considered foremost with regards to any changes (additions, maintenance or removal) of impoundments to our waterways and tributaries.
pragmatic
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 1:42 p.m.
I am very disappointed in the mayor's position on this issue, particularly coming from a man who has strong environmental credentials. If he were instrumental in removing Argo Dam and the stagnant pond behind it and returning it to a free flowing river, it would be the crowning achievement of his tenure as mayor and would be a legacy that that he could be proud of and something future generations of Ann Arborites would be grateful for.
Ryan J. Stanton
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 1:34 p.m.
Since the Watershed Council and Pioneer High are both subjects of this story, perhaps it's worth noting that the Watershed Council has a report on its Web site today about the "Big Dig" happening at Pioneer High -- an apparent $3.1 million project to improve the quality of storm water entering Allen Creek. From the report: "The project, when complete next year, will intercept and treat water runoff from 308 acres of the Allmendinger and Dickens neighborhoods before sending it to Allens Creek."
Lokalisierung
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 1:33 p.m.
Sorry but the rowers shouldn't have all the say in this. Tear that sucker down.
SemperFi
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 1:33 p.m.
@Wolverine81 To say that, "The rowing community alone is over 300 people. When you add in the hundreds of fishermen, nature hikers around the perimeter, and kayakers and canoers who like the slower water, it's probably in the thousands" is silly. Why? Because the fisherman, nature hikers, kayakers and canoeists will still use the river and the surrounding area. It's only the rowers that will be effected by the dam's removal. And, "How about the thousands of people each year who walk over the pedestrian bridge on top of the dam?" It'll still be a pedestrian bridge, except that it will be over a scenic river instead of an impoundment. To compare the recreational use of the pond to driving on the Huron Parkway bridge, a public highway, is absurd. A more accurate comparison is to other city maintained recreational facilities like, Fuller pool, softball and baseball fields, soccer fields and Vets Ice Arena. All those users pay a fee to take part in those city sponsored recreation facilities. If the dam is unsafe, it should be repaired or removed. If its repaired, then there should be an active response and financial backing by the people who want to keep it. The environmental damage caused by dam failures is extensive an far more costly than removal or repair.
braggslaw
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 1:05 p.m.
Let's address a few of the issue. The fisherpeople want the dam torn down. As a member many fishing organizations, the fisherpeople all know that stagnant silt filled water is only good for carp. We want high gradient oxygenated water that is food for mayflies, caddis, stoneflies, hellgrammites etc. Second: the science provided by the Huron Watershed Council should trump the special interests of a few rowing clubs. Third: the economic impact of high gradient white water would be a net plus to the area. IT would be one of the few areas in southeast michigan and would attract thousands of paddlers to the area.
Arboriginal
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 12:35 p.m.
The only reason to keep the dam is if it is generating a large amount of electricity. If this is not feasible then the dam should come down.
81wolverine
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 12:15 p.m.
Chucho and Ruth S.: There are MANY others who use Argo Pond and the Dam than just rowers. How about the thousands of people each year who walk over the pedestrian bridge on top of the dam? Asking the rowers to pay for the dam maintenance is like charging a toll to everyone who crosses the Huron Parkway bridge over the river. After all, I don't drive across the bridge ever - why should I have to pay for its maintenance? It's the same reason you don't have a fence around Burns park and have a booth to charge admission to everyone who uses it. It, like Argo Pond/Dam is a public resource that should be paid for with general public funds. It's simply way too impractical to try and match revenue from individual users to offset specific expense items.
Chucho
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 11:55 a.m.
I don't really care what they do with the dam. I just think the crew teams should help pay for it especially u-mich, why should my taxes go help um when they pay no property tax and the athletic dept has a budget surplus and they can pay for a whole new basketball facility and chrisler arena reconstruction, um should pay to use the pond, not keep saying we taxpayers should.
hiker1546
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 11:52 a.m.
Let me get this straight. There are federal dollars availabale to remove Argo Dam but the regular on-going maintenance to dredge when the pond gets filled in, etc. must be paid by the taxpayers of the City of Ann Arbor with no fees paid by the rowers. On the other hand, our city owns a golf course, Huron Hills, where the golfer fees cover the ongoing maintenance and actual costs (just not the overhead allocation of city administration that the city is tries to tag the golfers with paying). And people are in favor of eliminating the golf course because they say golfers are elitist (which may be true but at least there are a whole bunch of them and they are paying their own way), but for some reason we have to cater to the small number of rowers who are not paying their own way and this is not elitist? The city is already in financial staights and recreational and other services that benefit large numbers of people are being cut. I do not support using my taxes to keep a dam that isn't necessary while cutting other services for the sole purpose of letting rowers maintain the status quo. In this difficult economic time, lots of Ann Arborites, including myself have had to bite the bullet and not expect others to continue to provide things for free that we have taken for granted. It is tiime for the Argo rowers to do the same. If you want the dam kept in place, then raise the money to pay ALL the annual costs; otherwise let's take the federal money and take Argo Dam down NOw.
81wolverine
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 11:50 a.m.
Ruth: The user group of Argo Pond is MUCH larger than 70 people. The rowing community alone is over 300 people. When you add in the hundreds of fishermen, nature hikers around the perimeter, and kayakers and canoers who like the slower water, it's probably in the thousands. And the cost to remove the dam AND restore infrastructure and land that will be eliminated in the process will cost in the millions - an expense the city CAN NOT afford right now. Mr. Schmidt: the rowing community has no problem with the HRWC. In fact, the community has volunteered on numerous occasions to help clean up the pond and river. The problem was with the director of the HRWC and the way she tried to ramrod the dam removal plan down everyone's throat while being completely insensitive to the needs and feelings of everyone who uses Argo Pond. She continually made statements which were not scientifically based to justify the removal of the dam. There's a right way to advance agenda like this and a wrong way. She chose the latter. The contentious debate was a natural byproduct. Still I applaud the mayor for his offer to help heal the rift that was initiated by the director of the HRWC. Her efforts have hurt the image of the HRWC within segments of the community, not helped them. We all want a clean, healthy river for our children and their children. So in the future, let's work together on it and reach solutions that make everyone better off.
Gary Schmidt
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 11:19 a.m.
As usual, Alan Goldsmith is so eager to polish his grievances that he gets his facts wrong. The mayor was never the leader of HRWC. He was an alternate board member with no voting rights--one of about 40 board members from around the waterpersonal shed. Was HRWC "totally dishonest" about the condition of the dam? Not even close. The DEQ's dam safety office did an inspection of the dam in 2004 that concluded water was seeping from the dam's foundation. Such seepage leads to "piping," in which water tunnels through an earthen dam. This is the second most common cause of embankment dam failure. The DEQ's report was the only science available on Argo until the city finally decided to commission its own study. It is good news that the new study seems to show the dam is safe, but when the state's dam safety office finds evidence that a dam embankment is getting saturated and leaking, HRWC's concern was entirely justified. HRWC owes no one an apology. But the rowing community ought to think long and hard about the ethics of their systematic, anti-factual campaign of personal attacks.
johnmc
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 10:05 a.m.
Sounds like a fair and balanced coverage of the issue presented in a neutral forum by a representative sample of the community by a courageous and farsighted politician by those who only have the best interests of the community in this regard.
Barb
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 9:58 a.m.
"Hieftje also said he wouldn't be surprised if the City Council voted unanimously to keep the dam in place..." Yeah, big shocker there.
Steve Hendel
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 9:04 a.m.
I'd believe the State MDEQ before the Mayor and the City's 'experts.' The State has no axe to grind, no local constituencies to placate, and is not running for office. Can the Mayor or the Council ever actually make a decision on these contentious issues? It seems the response of choice is to fiddle away time by forming yet another committee or hiring yet another consultant.
Ruth
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 8:59 a.m.
A small user community wants to keep this dam (70 people?) and all user groups mentioned other rowing sites within a reasonable distance. I find it hard to believe that the city would even consider trying to keep Argo given the cost of retaining it and the environmental benefits and one time cost of dismantling it.
Gill
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 8:46 a.m.
If the rowers want to keep the Dam, fine, but make them pay for its maintenance.
BartonHills
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 8 a.m.
An alternative for rowing above Argo dam would be to put up a water activity center just above Barton pond. The rowers would use Barton, and the city could create a white water kayaking course (such as our rivals in South Bend have done), on the retaining wall next to the dam. Barton pond would be a great place to row, boy is it long and I have never seen a whitecap on the body of water.
logo
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 11:06 p.m.
The mayor spoke very well and from the heart. As a rower and environmentalist I commend him for this effort. I also appreciated his straight-forward talk about the budget situation and the way he tied it all together.