Fargo in the next 10 years??

[bisonaudit]

How do you rehabilitate this park/recreation area after diversion is put into use??

Not saying it can't be done but are they keeping most of it higher elevation (I know they're probably not putting everything at the bottom). Don't have inforum subscription and refuse to sign in just to read stories either do didn't read the article.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL on a bullet train from Hillsboro.

The same way you do Edgewood now.

[Hammersmith]

How do you rehabilitate this park/recreation area after diversion is put into use??

Not saying it can't be done but are they keeping most of it higher elevation (I know they're probably not putting everything at the bottom). Don't have inforum subscription and refuse to sign in just to read stories either do didn't read the article.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL on a bullet train from Hillsboro.

I think the idea is that the greenway will be built in the diversion right of way along the inside of the diversion boundary. So from west to east you would have the diversion channel, an embankment that functions as a levee, an open area for these greenway projects, then eventually the cities as they grow to meet the diversion.

IOW, these projects are not planned to go IN the diversion, they're proposed to go NEXT TO the diversion on the inside.

[Grizzled]

You’re going to grow and people are going to want parks and recreation. This is an opportunity to leverage a giant piece to permanent infrastructure to provide those resources. I’ve seen this work in my own backyard. Bishan Park transformed a neighborhood by replacing an ugly concrete lined canal with a great urban park.

https://www.asla.org/2016awards/169669.html


There are other examples here as well, a nice linear park built on top of a decked over section of the Anderson Canal in a different part of town, and I’ve seen good examples of integrating flood control and park land in Japan as well.

I, like a majority of voting citizens don’t even want the diversion. Let’s figure out how the true cost of that will be paid off before adding more to it.

[Hammersmith]

I, like a majority of voting citizens don’t even want the diversion. Let’s figure out how the true cost of that will be paid off before adding more to it.

How do you figure that? There have been multiple votes to pay for the diversion and they've all passed easily. I think some passed by as much as 80/20. How are you managing to define "voting citizens" to even come close to suggesting that most don't want it? That statement smells of some pretty ripe bs.

[Grizzled]

How do you figure that? There have been multiple votes to pay for the diversion and they've all passed easily. I think some passed by as much as 80/20. How are you managing to define "voting citizens" to even come close to suggesting that most don't want it? That statement smells of some pretty ripe bs.

The special assessment vote to financially back the project would not have passed if only votes of actual homeowners would have been counted. The initiative was passed before even going to vote with the way the system was rigged.

[1998braves64]

The same way you do Edgewood now.

Edgewood is much smaller area/acreage than what is being talked about here.

I was thinking this was more inside the levees but see my next post. So my concern probably is not ever going to be an issue.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL on a bullet train from Hillsboro.

[1998braves64]

I think the idea is that the greenway will be built in the diversion right of way along the inside of the diversion boundary. So from west to east you would have the diversion channel, an embankment that functions as a levee, an open area for these greenway projects, then eventually the cities as they grow to meet the diversion.

IOW, these projects are not planned to go IN the diversion, they're proposed to go NEXT TO the diversion on the inside.

Think you're right I dug up an old article (inforum) on Google that showed the cross section image I partially remembered seeing way back. I was thinking right of way would have been closer to the levee.

https://www.inforum.com/news/4182607...romise-not-sue

I just pulled the link on this article based on Google images (didn't sign in to find it)

They should put up a winter resort on the interior embankment like Winnipeg did on theirs.

https://www.springhillwinterpark.com/

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL on a bullet train from Hillsboro.

[TAILG8R]

The special assessment vote to financially back the project would not have passed if only votes of actual homeowners would have been counted. The initiative was passed before even going to vote with the way the system was rigged.

So only homeowners should get to decide on whether the city they live in is protected?

That smells a lot like not wanting to pay taxes to go for schools because you don't have kids.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[EC8CH]

So only homeowners should get to decide on whether the city they live in is protected?

That smells a lot like not wanting to pay taxes to go for schools because you don't have kids.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

So by majority of voter, he means majority of property owners?

[Grizzled]

So only homeowners should get to decide on whether the city they live in is protected?

That smells a lot like not wanting to pay taxes to go for schools because you don't have kids.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

In my opinion a vote shouldn’t be weighted so it’s decided before ballots are cast. When a vote of citizens and property owners wouldn’t pass without setting it up that way it certainly doesn’t seem right.

I have no problems with new schools. Can’t remember the last time I voted against one. Not sure what your point is as it’s a poor comparison.