We bought on the Mendenhall in 2001. Nothing was disclosed to us at the time of sale. No foul. We knew there were always inherent risks buying waterfront property; an examination of the bank deemed it stable. What no one could have predicted (nor the rest of Juneau) was that we would routinely encounter the recent multiple 100 year plus flooding events annually, that are having an unanticipated major effect on some residents.
The NRCS 30 plus year project offers a permanent solution at a $3:$1 cost share. That’s 75 percent of essentially free money to us and CBJ, vice an uncertain “let’s dump a bunch of rocks on the riverbank and hope that holds for awhile” solution. No disrespect to those that did so, they were in imminent danger and had to take some action — good for them.
I’m on a straight stretch of the riverbank, and my property shows no signs of erosion. The NRCS solution will significantly cut into my property. I don’t like the ominous bill having just helped put my kids through college, yet I’m supportive of my fair share to eliminate the ambiguity surrounding my property should I want to sell, or to mitigate the obvious accelerated negative impacts to mine and my neighbors’ property should a stabilization project upriver go forward.
To their credit, Tom Mattice and CBJ engineering found a possible way out for the most affected residents through the NRCS. About a year ago, the rest of us were brought in for this one-time cost share project. Given the NRCS study information, it seemed prudent to consider.
I’m a federal civil engineer with some understanding of the predicament, the design, and am intimate with government contracting. I’m objective and think this is an opportunity to put this predicament to rest permanently, but I think some previous postings on the subject to be driven by avoiding the higher cost of a worthy solution. None of us in agreement with that, but most are not in the position of getting out, nor want to leave our property vulnerable, nor leave ourselves and our neighbors to the whim of the river and paying more for resolution. So the minority is apparently dictating what the majority wish.
A possible way forward: 1. Accept the $3 to $1 federal subsidy (the project is not even a pinprick for the feds and more worthy than many others). 2. Provide a cap and cost share to the $80,000 asked of each of the 28 residents. 3. Amortize the $80K as an additional property tax to residents (similar to a condo or homeowner fee, vice due and payable as a lien upon sale). In a similar way, CBJ’s share could be handled as a property tax reduction during the same amortization period. Residents have unanimously indicated previously that they would be willing to pay at least half of the $80K, and this approach seems more reasonable than asking a homeowner to pay the full freight for a 30 year benefit if they need to move in two years.
The amount of time that this imminent threat has dragged through CBJ deliberations puts us on the cusp of losing the $3 for $1 funding offered by NRCS (they are scheduled to pull up stakes and abandon the project if an agreement cannot be made in 3 months – who can blame them?).
The NRCS are the professionals – they offer their expertise and 75 percent funding towards a permanent solution. So let’s take advantage of this opportunity, find a solution, or sit back and let the neighbors and neighborhood rot. Left to their own, 28 neighbors with differing perception of risk/value will never agree on a solution. I’ll take my losses and move on, as it will not be the community I thought I was joining when I moved here. To paraphrase a supportive Assembly member, “If a wildfire was raging through the valley, would we sit back and do nothing?”
