Gee PD, don’t ya know that…….”only someone who still believes in the tooth fairy would expect any real support by the ONCC of Park Ridge’s battle against O’Hare noise – at least so long as Mulder is running the show as her Chicago masters dictate”.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We should, because we wrote it. But if the tooth fairy is all you’ve got, that’s whom you have to dance with.

OK….so how many meetings and opportunities were there in the last….let’s see….you wrote that in June of 2012…that would be 26 months…..how many meetings in the last 26 months where the Mayor might have re-requested the study?

Look, I am hoping they say yes. I am all for doing something and, if they say yes, it will be better than the other administrations you mention, but this was the strategy?? Ask and get a no answer…wait 26 months and ask again??

EDITOR’S NOTE: As we understand it, only recently have FAiR and several other suburbs agreed to join in Park Ridge’s proposal for the supplemental EIS. FAiR in particular has been putting political pressure on Chicago aldermen and Reps. Schakowsky and Quigley who have large affected areas in their districts. Hence, Schakowsky’s first-ever (to our knowledge) letter supporting the supplemental EIS.

The timing of the meeting is also fascinating. 8AM this morning…..what a perfect time to draw the absolute smallest crowd possible!!! People who do not have flexibility in their job (unless counted as a vacation or personal day) will not be there. Beyond that, 8AM is right in the prime time of getting the elementary and middle school kids out the door to school so those parents who have that job will not be there.

Of course this is PR, where we cannot even get CLOSE to half of our of age population to show up and take 15 min to vote. Gonna be a big crowd!!!

EDITOR’S NOTE: We believe they usually are held at 8:00 a.m., most likely for exactly the reason(s) you suspecct.

The crowd, however, will probably be bigger than usual, if only because of the supplemental EIS issue. But that’s like saying that in some particular instance our local school boards are more transparent, or more accountable to the taxpayers, than usual.

I don’t give any of this a snowball’s chance of success, but I applaud Mayor Schmidt for the effort. As your earlier post pointed out, he’s at least willing to tell it like it is about ONCC, Mulder, and the rest of this mess.

And I also applaud him for reaching out to Schakowsky and getting whatever support that letter can provide. It may just be political posturing on her part but it’s still something more than we have had before from our other mayors and councils.

Political posturing comes with the game, but it’s worthwhile to look at Schakowsky’s record of longstanding active support for improving the citizenry’s quality of life and safety before assuming she is “just” posturing. For her, who started her career with legislation making baby food companies show contents and expiration dates, being concerned about the negative impact of the airport on our lives is a logical extension of her concerns. The fact that Chicago is the beneficiary of O’Hare tax dollars doesn’t mean it’s a local political plot. Republicans nationwide appreciate tons of convenient air travel options, too; and the fact that these conveniences hurt us is why politics is a juggling game. I’m sure Mayor Dave doesn’t want to have a beer with Rep. Jan, but he’s adult enough to see where our interest lies and appears to be putting our needs above self-indulgence at this time. This is in marked contrast to the openly disrespectful shunning indulged in by past Councils (some of whom are still in the seats) when our Rep used to attend our Memorial Day parades. Glad to see the grownups are showing up on the O’Hare issue at last.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Oh puh-leeze! Beating up baby food companies to disclose the contents of their products is kindergarten compared to telling her political godfathers – who have bankrupted Chicago and Illinois with their stupidity and corruption and now are scraping for money wherever they can find it – that one of their biggest revenue generators (O’Hare) might have to straighten up and fly right just to make life a little more pleasant for people in a handful of suburbs who can’t even throw her out of office because her district has been so favorably gerrymandered by…wait for it…those same political godfathers.

Belatedly writing a letter beats the NOTHING she has done in this regard previously, but the test won’t be over until Rep. Jan demonstrates how strongly she’s willing to walk her talk.

But since you brought up “our Memorial Day parades” and certain City officials’ “disrespectful shunning” of her, let’s not forget the four just-elected aldermen (Anderson, Cox, Crampton and Parker) who, on Memorial Day 2003, disrespected the City and their new offices by breaking ranks with the then-mayor and the rest of the City Council at the front of the parade where City officials traditionally march and, instead, marching with Congressman Jan and even carrying her banner. No City officials before or since have done something that overtly partisan and/or boneheaded in public – a bit of poltical buffoonery likely sowed the seed for Howard Frimark’s foolish but successful cut-the-Council referendum 4 years later.

There is reference in this artical about a place at the bargaining table. Exactly what bargaining table was that? As noted the OMP was a brainchild of Richie Daley. I do not recall him ever offering anyone any opportunity to bargain about any project he ever proposed. Just read the language in the bill passed by Illinois congress and signed by convict and ex-governor Ryan. No protections were allowed for residents east and west of OHare. The ONCC has never represented the intersets of those affected by airport moise unless being a prisoner in your own home is considered a success. I do applaud Mayor Schmidt and FAiR for their efforts at this late stage to make the best of a very sorry situation.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The “place at the bargaining table” we were referring to was the ONCC, which was ostensibly/purportedly/ridiculously created to give the affected suburbs input into the OMP process. Had we had a competent mayor and a supportive council back in 1996-97 who saw membership in the ONCC as useful instead of as a rival to SOC, that mayor and that council might have had some input into the process – in the way Mayor Schmidt and this Council might be having, albeit at such a late stage.

nobody had done anything so partisan because it was as much as one’s life was worth to have a “D” sign in the yard until the Anderson 7 showed up. Just because the Dems were in hiding then didn’t mean they didn’t exist. And as for gerrymandering, the R’s have it all over the D’s for that stunt. But beyond that, may we look forward to your supporting a referendum to undo the “foolish” move of Howie’s and get the full complement of aldermen back?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Balderdash! Abandoning the rest of the city council to carry Jan Schakowsky’s banner during the first month those clowns were in office sent the loud and clear message that they were more concerned with “D”/”R” partisan politics than about City government – an issue we addressed in our 06.01.05 post (https://publicwatchdog.org/archives/2005/06/01/republicans-v-democrats-a-red-herring/)

As for gerrymandering, we’ll put Mike Madigan’s frankenstein-like 4th Congressional District map carved especially for Li’l Luis Gutierrez (D.Puerto Rico) – which has to be seen at http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2012/01/22/4th-district to be believed – against anything the most twisted Republicans have devised.

This editor opposed Frimark’s cut-the-council coup back in 2006 and still sees no reason why 7 is better than 14. So unless somebody comes up with better reasons than Frimark proffered back then, we would support a referendum to restore a 14-alderman council. We would suggest that “the Anderson 7” come out of hiding and lead that referendum drive, except that would probably doom it to failure.

OK, OK, I agree they should have stayed with the crew. But maybe, just maybe, they were trying to make up for the lack of civil behavior shown the highest-ranking elected official on the premises, and at an event that is s’pozed to be where we unite and rise above partisanship? Huhhhhhhh? I wasn’t there, but based on what I’ve seen since, it’s entirely possible. Let’s just leave it that Jan is to be commended for being the Rep of those who didn’t elect her as well as those who did, and Dave is to be commended for putting all of us ahead of his partisan agenda.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This editor WAS there, and it was a stupid and petty display of partisanship by four one-and-done aldermen whose principal accomplishment was sticking us with the economic black hole Uptown TIF.

Found this on city of park ridge website. Looks like schakowsky supported park ridges request (at least wrote a letter) back in 2011.
https://www.parkridge.us/assets/1/Documents/LettertoFAA-RepSchakowsky.pdf

EDITOR’S NOTE: Yes it does.

This one too in 2012 about O’Hare is by schakowsky

http://www.parkridge.us/assets/1/Documents/LetterfromJSchakandResolution12212012.pdf

Several news articles about the Ohare noise commission meeting today. Apparently police were there too as large group swarmed the meeting to complain.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Yes, which causes us to suspect that maybe Rep. Jan’s support of a supplemental EIS consists of nothing more than basically the same perfunctory letter.

So jane has supported it before…..so why the 26 months??? And why the gymnastics to make it seem like the Mayor has “excelled” on this issue??

EDITOR’S NOTE: Because he has “excelled” – compared to his predecessors who were MIA on this issue, with the lack of results to prove it.

………..and what exactly have been his results??? What were his results between your post of 6/12 about his meeting until today?? Now that we know that this was not some fantastic new thing from jan as a result of Mayor Dave’s negotiations…..what exactly has he done on this issue??? WHat have been his results on this issue?? Unless you can point to something….the answer is zero.

While I do not for a second dispute that his predecessors had no results, that would be a tie score….zero to zero. That does not translate into excelling on this issue.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The point you’re missing is that Schmidt’s predecessors DIDN’T EVEN TRY, which guaranteed there would be no “results” for their constituents during the 14 years they held the mayor’s office while the ONCC was in existence.

Unlike his predecessors, Schmidt has led the three councils he has presided over (2009-11, 2011-13 and 2013-present) in thoroughly exploring various legal options for O’Hare noise relief before rejecting them as a bad investment (too expensive and unlikely to be successful) – unlike the ridiculous “investment” of 650K of taxpayer dollars directed by then-mayor Wietecha (and supported by then-ald. Marous) in 2002 that ended up lost on the harebrained scheme to build a third Chicago airport near Peotone.

And unlike his predecessors, Schmidt has actively sought meaningful voter input concerning the possible expenditure of taxpayer funds on O’Hare-related issues, such as the November 2, 2010 referendum that gave more than 13,000 voters a voice in whether the City should spend up to $500,000 of their money in battling O’Hare-related noise and pollution – with almost 7,600 saying “no.”

Unfortunately for Park Ridge, noise and pollution from O’Hare is a federal matter about which the ONCC can only advocate and lobby its members’ federal legislators, like Schmidt has done with Schakowsky. Schmidt knows that, and he knows that it’s an uphill battle when a bankrupt Chicago needs to squeeze as many flights – and as much revenue – out of O’Hare as is inhumanely possible. Unlike his predecessors, however, he IS making the effort – by attending more ONCC meetings than his 3 predecessors did, cumulatively; and by putting aside his Republican partisanship for the good of his constituents and coaxing three letters of support out of Rep. Schakowsky.

But if you really want “results,” round up all your Democrat friends and start dialing up and writing Jan and senior Senator Dickie Durbin to inquire why THEY are so powerless to provide noise relief for Park Ridge and the other affected suburbs.

Is it me, or this all a waste of time? The ONCC doesn”t decide where the runways go – I’m not sure if they even decide who gets soundproofing??? It’s just window dressing. The Mayor wants the new report so the “line” gets redrawn and more PR homes become eligible for soundproofing? You live next to an airport – soundproof your own home. You get sewer back up – put in a check valve.

EDITOR’S NOTE: See the Editor’s Note to the preceding comment.

While we generally disfavor the pawning off of one person’s problems on another person, especially when that other person hasn’t caused the first person’s problems, in this case our local noise problem is being CAUSED by flights regulated by the Feds in and out of an airport regulated by the Feds. So if those same Feds have money to ameliorate that problem, we’re all for Park Ridge getting it.

More importantly, we support any actions that might actually reduce the amount of that noise – such as by the FAA’s making of “Fly Quiet” mandatory, directing more flights to those runways whose approach and departure patterns go over less-populated areas, and any operating requirements that reduce noise over Park Ridge.

Schmidt has achieved nothing on this issue. As you always say PWD: dont confuse activity for achievement.

You may want to see a chiropractor because you are really reaching to try making a case for excelling.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We aren’t confusing activity with achievement.

Asking Schakowsky for a letter is activity: getting the letter – or, in this case, 3 of them – ia an achievement.

Speculating on whether a majority of Park Ridge votes want to spend $500K on fighting O’Hare is activity: putting a referendum on the November 2, 2010 ballot and getting a measurable vote on the question is an achievement.

Kvetching about ONCC doing nothing to support an SEIS is activity: getting an SEIS action item on the October ONCC agenda is an achievement.

Are these the ultimate achievement/”result” of actual relief from O’Hare noise? No. But they are all positive steps that measurably move the ball toward that ultimate goal.

Ball nowhere near goal. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Agreed re ball v. goal line. Disagree re implied lack of progress.

We calls ’em as we sees ’em, based on seeing ’em for the last 24 years.

For those who want to take a look at hard facts look at the Mayors own words…..http://www.electdaveschmidt.com/mayor%20of%20park%20ridge/DaveWorkingforYou/PressRelease010509OHareRunway/tabid/71/Default.aspx and judge how much he had achieved the areas that he himself suggested almost 6 years ago.

EDITOR’S NOTE: And your point is what exactly?

I agree with writers who say I have achieved nothing. That is absolutely true if you measure achievement in terms of getting the FAA to reconsider runway use, making Fly Quiet mandatory and getting a bigger chunk of soundproofing. What I (with a lot help from Jim Argionis) have been able to do is keep the issue of an SEIS alive long enough for federal elected representatives and surrounding municipalities to begin rallying around the cause. Will it lead to any tangible gains for us? I just don’t know, but I’ll keep trying until I am convinced we have run out of options.

Careful mayor dave. Set the bar any lower and you will trip over it.

EDITOR’S NOTE: And what do YOU propose the mayor do instead?

“I agree with the writer that I have achieved nothing (related to flooding). That is absolutely true if you measure achievement in terms of keeping water out of basements and keeping street corners from filling with water”.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Wrong again, but at least you’re consistent.

It is absolutely true. It is the perfect comparison. The Mayor himself admits that if you measure him against hard goals on the airplane issue he fails. When he hammered on this issue during the election he did not say “if you vote for me….. will keep this issue alive…”. That is not what the people for whom ohare noise was a major issue voted for. Now you and he want to give/take “credit” for some subjective thing.

So it is with the flood issue. Read the Mayor’s words on the flood issue, sympathizing with the poor people who flood. The people for whom this was the main issue voted to keep water out of their basements or keep their street passable during a big storm. On this score card he achieved nothing. Yet you want to give points for committees and engineering studies.

Your score card is situational and personal. In some areas (teachers and the ISAT for example) there are no gray lines of fuzzy grading. I also find it perposterous to think system that you (or the Mayor) would agree with prior Mayors if they were using the argument you and the Mayor appear to be making.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Our score card is, and always has been, solely policy and issue based, which obviously is hard for folks like you to grasp.

Just like you don’t seem to have an accurate grasp of local political history if you are suggesting that Schmidt ever campaigned on the promise of throwing taxpayer money willy-nilly at these problems. He promised to address them and he has, devoting countless hours to trying to come up with real (rather than illlusory) cost-effective (rather than profligate) solutions to very expensive and not perhaps not even entirely solvable problems.

And substantial progress HAS been made, albeit primarily in the form of studies, engineering plans and cost estimates that have shown that these problems cannot and should not be “solved” with the typical “ready, fire, aim” tactics that brought us the Uptown TIF.

Unfortunately, the total do-nothingness of “prior Mayors” on these issues makes such a comparison impossible, through no fault of Schmidt’s.

http://www.weather.com/weather/alerts/localalerts/60068?phenomena=FF&significance=A&areaid=ILZ014&office=KLOT&etn=0004

I am sure all those folks who have flooded for years and were given “hope” by the Mayor are grateful for all he has done!!

Truth is there is not a thing that has been done under his administration that changes a thing. AAs you have pointed out the do not even have an accurate map of our sewer systems. what progress has been made on that?

As this storm approaches people will still be checking their basements and saying a prayer.
What it comes down to is will we be in the 2in area or the 5in area. If it is the later the same folks that have flooded and received sympathetic reference in the campaign will flood again……nothing has changed.

Of course there is one winner in all this. Burke engineering.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Since Schmidt has become mayor we have finally learned – through the volunteer efforts of the Flood Control Task Force he created and through the not-inexpensive efforts of Burke Engineering, a respected flood control consultant – that the cost of providing flood relief to all areas of Park Ridge that need it will be astronomical. THAT is an accomplishment that none of his predecessors achieved because none of them even tried.

Several smaller flood control projects already have been done, with positive results according to the City’s Director of Public Works. And Schmidt is leading the Council toward (a) what appears to be a Special Service Area (“SSA”) that would provide 100-year protection for Mayfield Estates; (b) 100-year flood remediation at Northwest Park that also might involve an SSA; and (c) preliminary support for Ald. Mazzuca’s proposed community stormwater utility to address ALL flooding issues. THAT, too, is an accomplishment that none of his predecessors achieved because none of them even tried.

The notion that we have done nothing about flood control is patently false. There have been a number of projects completed which helped affected areas. We restored the maintenance and sewer relining budget, and we were able to purchase a special vactor truck which helps clean out clogged sewer lines. There are many more projects left to do, which is why the Council is embarking on establishing a stormwater management utility which will help fund many projects throughout the town over the long haul. But the simple fact is there are certain areas of town which defy an easy or inexpensive solution.

“…that the cost of providing flood relief to all areas of Park Ridge that need it will be astronomical”……PD

“But the simple fact is there are certain areas of town which defy an easy or inexpensive solution”……Mayor Dave

First of all let me ask, do we have an number??? I mean how much would it cost to address all areas that need it?? Hell, have we even identified every area that needs it?? As far as I know we have some dollar amounts for some projects but these projects will not address every issue. I know of no number that would encompass all the issues in PR. is it 100 million….200…300??

Here is what frustrates me. I moved here 10+ years ago and shortly after we unpacked we flooded. I waded out into the middle of the intersection by my house and, standing in the middle of the street, the water was mid-thigh. Some really dim witted people were trying to drive through the water only to have their cars stall. At that point I did what any sane person with money in the bank would do…..buy a flood control system. Thankfully, that has kept us dry ever since but the neighbors have not been so lucky. Now we have folks who never flooded previously who are getting water because so many of the rest of us got flood control systems.

But years ago, standing in a lake in the middle of the road, I could have told you the cost to even make a dent in this issue would be astronomical. As I recall, in conversations with my neighbors, I used the term “s%$t load” of money. I could have also told you that much of the problem would “defy an easy or inexpensive solution”.

So I read your responses and I think now wait a second. While I do not know wither of you personally, I have read enough and listened enough to know that you are both very smart men and your “defense” is that it is really expensive and really complicated……..DUH!!!!!

Mayor Dave, related to the already completed projects, I hope you are correct that they have helped. I have heard differently but nothing would make me more happy that to eat crow on that one.

But I bet there are a bunch of people (the ones who you said lost personal items etc) who are going to have sleepless nights tonight as the storm approaches. I think rather than have this be a test of how affective those projects have been we would all be better off if it took a sharp turn south.

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, we DON’T have “a number” for the cost of flood control because we don’t know “all the areas that need it” – with emphasis on the “need.”

As you noted, the more people (including your neighbors) who eventually pull their heads out of wherever they are wedged and get their own private flood control systems, the more basements will be taken out of the City’s unofficial water reservoir system – and the more water will be in the streets and moving overland. That means areas which currently don’t NEED flood control WILL need it in the future. And that’s why the Council has moved beyond individual catch-as-catch-can flood control projects to looking into the City-wide flood plan that may ultimately cost $200-300 million – which is well beyond what most people would consider a “s%$t load” of money for flood control.

Want to write that check? Want to lock the City into that much long-term debt? If so, show up at a Council meeting and say so. Maybe you can convince the Council and your fellow citizens.T

I NEVER said I wanted to write a check but then again I did not run for Mayor on “modernizing and repairing our existing sewer lines in an effort to prevent potential catastrophic flooding problems in the future”.

My position from the time I was up to my knees in the intersection was that there was no way that the citizens of PR were ever going to vote for the 100’s of millions to make headway on this issue….period. I have stated on this blog many times (hard to tell as I post anon, I know).

My position has been consistent. What I do not get is that you and the Mayor seem sooooo surprised that this was going to be cost prohibitive. What did the Mayor think modernizing and repairing existing sewer lines to address the issues he had witnessed and seen with own eyes was going to cost?? I realize he is a lawyer, not an engineer but I am not an engineer either. He had to know seeing the amount of flooding, and knowing his own views on the budget and debt along with his supporters, that there was no way people were ever going to support spending the kind of cash necessary to make a dent in this issue.

All that said, to be crystal clear on one point, I DO NOT IN ANY WAY BLAME THE MAYOR FOR THE SEWER ISSUES IN PR……can I be any clearer?!?! This issue was 50+ years of neglect in the making.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We have seen no evidence that ANYBODY had any credible idea how expensive it would be to make any meaningful “dent” in the flooding problem prior to the Schmidt-created Flood Control Task Force and the first Burke study. The Wietecha, Marous and Frimark administrations and councils didn’t care enough to even try to figure it out; neither Schmidt nor “his” councils expressed any knowledge; and nobody on City staff, including the Public Works Dept., expressed any knowledge.

Nor do we remember ANYBODY showing up at a Council meeting “10+ years ago,” or 5+ years ago, or even 2+ years ago and warning the assembled multitude that meaningful flood control will cost $100-200 million, or even a “s%$t load” of money. So either you didn’t have any more of a clue than anybody else back then and are just engaging in revisionist history now, or you were derelict in your duty both as an ordinary itizen and, apparently, as Park Ridge’s version of the Delphic Oracle (or Carnac the Magnificent).

What exactly is it that you “have stated on this blog many times (hard to tell as I post anon, I know)”?

Before you attempt even more revisionist history, however, if you can’t cite chapter and verse of what you claim to have commented here(i.e., the date of the post, the date and time of the comment) then you’re clearly all wet – figuratively and literally – once again.

“If we heard Zingsheim correctly, protecting all of Park Ridge against just one of those “10-Year Floods” could cost us in the $240 million range”…..that number was stated by the PW Director on 7/29/09 (5 yrs ago) and reported by you on 8/3.

That would seem to me to qualify as a “warning” at a council meeting…..by someone a hell of a lot more qualified than I am.

As for me, I posted the figure “hundreds of millions” but as of now having a hard time finding the post. FOr now you will just have to take Zingsheim as evidence.

EDITOR’S NOTE: That “warning” was issued only AFTER the first Burke report was published in July 2009, not “10+ years” ago. So you’re still playing revisionist history, or you were indeed derelict in your good citizenship duties.

As for Zingsheim’s qualifications, we’re not 100% sure but we recall that he may not even be a licensed engineer. So if we believe anonymous people when they tell us they’re not engineers, for all we know your qualifications might be better.

And we’re shocked, shocked, that you can’t give us chapter and verse for all your comments containing your Delphic or Carnac predictions about the cost of flood control.

BINGO…..I found one!! I am sure there are more as well. On 9/14/08, during a discussion about the police station I stated the following in reply to a poser…..

“I do have to point out that your first statement intimating that this is an A or B choice is lucicrous. I am on board that the station issue needs a great deal more review related to space and cost – I agree completely!! But you seem to be indicating that if we would just keep the police in their old station we could take the 15-20 million and spend it on sewers and then what happened this weekend would never happen again. Bullshit!! If you think that 15-20 million would even scratch the surface you are delusional. That would be like trying to put out the Chicago fire with a squirt gun”.

As to having a clue, I have a few observations about that.

1. We still do not have a clue…not as of today. You admitted as much your self. We are no closer to what “the number” is now than we were then for the very reasons you stated in a reply above. Now the council is taking a completely different direction, looking at this comprehensive approach but we still have no clue what the number or the comprehensive plan is. In an earlier reply you asked if I want to write that check. Funny that you are no closer to knowing for what amount than my “s&%t load”. You said ultimately may well be 200-300 million, which is kind of like saying 15-20 million would be like putting out the Chicago fire with a squirt gun.

2. I do not need to be an engineer or have an exact diagram of every inch of pipe in PR to have a general feel for the HUGE amount of dollars involved in fixing this issue. I was once visiting a friend in southern California and was walking along the beach in Mailbu when I saw this huge ocean front lot. Now I could have hired an architect and a real estate agent and gotten exact figures about what a home on that site would cost or could acknowledge to myself that that place would be way beyond financial reality.

What I find so amazing is that we not only have not gotten closer to what number you would even put an a referendum (for example), but we have not even gathered important data that would be good for the city in the process. You have pointed out here that we do not even have accurate data or a map of our complete sewer system. Is that issue being considered?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Sorry, but that was sent from a different IP address so your anonymity prevents us from confirming that was you.

The City DOES have “a clue,” it just doesn’t have the ultimate City-wide “number” because it never commissioned anyone to actually come up with one – although the City IS significantly closer now than it was then because it already has done some smaller projects and DOES have “numbers” for Mayfield Estates, Northwest Park and West-of-Greenwood on which it could go to referendum except that none of the folks in those areas want to because they are certain it would lose.

And you’re misquoting us about the City not having a map of our complete sewer system. We believe our criticism of the City on that point is that there is no sewer system map that fully identifies important data like: when each distinct section was built, each date each section was inspected, each date each section was repaired or re-lined, etc. That deficiency supposedly is being remedied on a going forward basis, but that’s a question for the Public Works Dept. Show up at a Council meeting and ask them.