Address Opponents' Concerns, But Don't Abandon Dredging Plan

Published: Dec 17, 2007

The mud is likely to fly when Tampa City Council holds a public hearing Tuesday on a plan to clean clogged canals in South Tampa neighborhoods.

Champions of the plan, who have complained of silting for years, are desperate for relief. It's nearly impossible for boats to navigate many of the 15 canals in West Shore neighborhoods and Davis Islands.

But other homeowners are vehemently opposed to the $8,000 assessment the city would impose on affected properties. And they question whether the dredging plan would even work.

Council members need to address critics' concerns, but they also should resolve to find an equitable way to ensure the long-neglected canals are cleaned.

The city, which developed the dredging plan after working with homeowners for several years, would use a $1.3 million federal grant and a $1 million city match to partially fund the dredging.

The rest of the funding for the $6 million project would come from the assessment on about 500 landowners. According to the current proposal, if the council ultimately approves the details after additional hearings, a simple majority vote of affected homeowners would determine the project's fate.

Opponents say the federal grant was intended to improve estuaries, not man-made canals. Any cleanup, they say, should be funded entirely by the city, since runoff from its streets causes most of the silting.

That's not realistic. Taxpayers at large would go ballistic if the city, at a time of budget cutbacks, funds a costly project to benefit homeowners in some of Tampa's wealthiest neighborhoods.

The city has tried to make the assessment affordable. Homeowners could pay in a lump sum, over 20 years with interest or accept a lien that would be paid off when the property is sold. The amount does not seem unreasonable given the benefits - and increased property values - that should result from the dredging. The $50 to $75 annual maintenance fee the city would charge to keep the canals clean is fair.

Likewise, the objection to the use of the federal funds seems overstated. City officials say federal officials have assured them that their plans are appropriate.

But opponents, who complain they were ignored while city officials huddled with canal proponents, also make some strong points.

They say some canals need far more work than others - yet everyone would be charged the same. Council should investigate whether there should be different assessments for different canals.

Opponents also question if the plan to dredge the middle of the canals but let homeowners decide whether to pay to have the area around their docks cleaned will do any good. The undredged sides of the canals, they say, will erode into the middle, refilling the canals.

Council members need to make sure city engineers are confident the dredging and follow-up maintenance will be effective. And there must be accountability if this ends up being an expensive failure.

And the critics rightly argue that a simple majority doesn't represent consensus. A matter with such a profound impact on a person's home should not be decided by a mere 50 percent plus 1 vote. The 60 percent margin required to pass a state constitutional amendment would be more reasonable.

Another alternative would be to let homeowners on each canal vote whether to have that waterway dredged, rather than having everyone vote on the entire project.

Of course, the fewer people who participate, the more costly the project becomes for others.

Council members should not be afraid to modify the plan. Members will not be able to please everyone, but they should strive to find a way to proceed with the dredging that satisfies most residents. The alternative is to simply let these waterways go to ruin.