Residents in Harlow, opposed to the idea of a permanent berm, stand by the temporary berm on the boundary of one of the properties on Finlay Court. They say a permanent berm in this location will devalue their property, block their view and reduce privacy. Ten of the 14 property owners affected by the berm have signed a letter saying they do not want it. From left are Ryan Shrives, Dave Baron, Therese Bullin and Rick Smith.--NEWS PHOTO GILLIAN SLADE
gslade@medicinehatnews.com@MHNGillianSlade
The majority of the residents in Harlow that have been given a temporary flood berm and are told there will be a permanent one built soon, do not want it.
Mayor Ted Clugston recently told the News that while residents in the area had previously not wanted a berm, now 90 per cent do.
“This is incorrect, in actual fact we have a signed petition (given to municipal works some months ago) where 10 out of the 14 homeowners affected are against the berm being built,” said Ryan Shrives, homeowner on Finlay Court.
In response to a request for an interview with Clugston about the 90 per cent quote, he provided an emailed statement.
“We have heard concerns from some residents in the Harlow area, but overall our residents understand the need for flood mitigation efforts. While some may not be happy about temporary or permanent berms that impact their neighbourhood, our mandate is to protect the community from high-water events. Not all decisions will receive 100% support.”
Dwight Brown, general manager municipal works, says the department’s “mandate is to protect the community.”
Brown says there is the potential for a flood to affect up to 57 properties because homes on Harris Street could still be impacted because of where the existing berm ends.
In 2013 when the city hastily put in temporary flood protection for homes on Harris Street, nothing was done for these 14 homes.
Ryan Shrives says only three of the 14 were impacted in that flood. His home was one of them. They demolished the house, designed and built a new one to protect them from future floods. The house also takes advantage of the view.
This is the first flood season that a temporary berm was put in place to protect the 14 properties.
Regarding the vast majority being against the permanent berm, Brown says there is no requirement to take a vote. If the berm was not extended temporary berms would be required every time there is the threat of a flood.
Shrives says property owners on Finlay Court, Link Court, Seventh Avenue and Eighth Avenue, specifically bought their properties because of the location. They back on to a greenbelt with plenty of wildlife, birds and in the distance is the South Saskatchewan River.
The homes on Harris Street, where the berm was built, are separated from the berm by the road. The 14 homes now in question back onto the greenbelt.
“We don’t want to sit in our backyard and look at a pile of dirt,” said Therese Bullin.
Shrives points out the berm will be quite close to the actual houses. People walking along the top of the berm, as they do on the existing one, will now be level will the upstairs windows of the 14 homes and just a few feet away. They see the value of their properties falling.
Brown says there is no talk of any compensation.
Rick Smith, one of the 14 properties owners, says all efforts to voice concerns at municipal works have fallen on deaf ears.
Dave Baron, also one of the property owners impacted, says he does not feel the city is being honest with them.
What was supposed to be an open house event to meet with the city was changed to a one-on-one interview with municipal works representatives.
Bullin says she left that believing no trees were going to be cut down, the berm was not going to be very big, and there would be no impact on wildlife. Now, she says, she knows differently.
They want a meeting with city officials and councillors to discuss their concerns before anything further is done.
Shrives says it would be considerably cheaper for the city to put the muscle walls in place, which the city already owns, if and when the city feels it is needed. Since 2013 it has not been needed and there is no current flood warning raising questions about the temporary measure even now.
