Also see: Pearl River Archive

Two weeks ago, in a story about the continued saga of flood control on the Pearl River, we quoted Downtown Jackson Partners President Ben Allen on an aspect of the story and then, as a parenthetical, noted that he owns property (specifically, his home) on the edges of the flood zone, where it would likely benefit from the Two Lakes development.

While this is the sort of fact that one would expect to find in a responsible newspaper story, its inclusion netted us an angry e-mail from Allen when the story published, chiding us for not doing "our homework." If we had, we'd know that both he and Two Lakes principal John McGowan are not pushing Two Lakes for personal gain, he wrote.

For the record, we did not intend to insinuate that Allen's primary purpose for his support of Two Lakes is personal gain.

I believe that Allen -- who has been a supporter of some of the JFP's other work, particularly our annual publication, BOOM Jackson magazine -- is passionate about Two Lakes because he's passionate about for-profit development that improves life in Jackson and increases its tax base. I also think he's very concerned that downtown Jackson -- his purview -- needs effective flood control.

So, taking Allen's "homework" line in the best possible spirit, we dug into the Hinds County tax rolls. From that research, it's clear that Allen's family would benefit if his property values increase significantly, as would anyone, but he isn't likely to see a life-changing personal gain from Two Lakes.

That said, we did learn something perhaps worth clarifying -- Allen's home shares a private lake, south of Meadowbrook Road, with John McGowan's family and two other couples. (County records show McGowan's portion of the lake and surrounding land to be in his wife's name.) Situated on the southwest corner of the shared lake is McGowan's estate. And their private lake does appear, in the Two Lakes maps, to either come very close to water -- separated by a tiny strip of land, or to connect to the larger Two Lakes, depending on the map.

Our other "homework" in the tax rolls revealed even more interesting surprises. A good deal of the holdings in the flood zone on the Hinds County side -- including scores of acres that are currently unworkable forest and flood zone -- belong to recurring names, including McGowan family members, various principals within McGowan Working Partners, and parcels that belong to prominent, connected families in Jackson's story line: Ridgway, Mounger, Holman, Speed, Fowler and others. So, by accident or design, the rich get a little richer. No surprise there.

Perhaps more disconcerting is a web of LLCs that have flood-zone holdings in areas that -- in the currently published Two Lakes maps -- end up critical to the project. Who owns those LLCs? (See our cover story this issue.)

On Allen's blog (and in anonymous comments elsewhere), one theme has developed about the Jackson Free Press' reporting: We're accused of not really caring about flood control in Jackson. Instead, the motive behind our stories is assigned to personal animus for the players involved.

I'm reminded of an old adage -- everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but nobody gets their own facts. It's a fact that Ben Allen owns a home near the flood plain that would benefit somewhat from Two Lakes; it's our opinion that his vocal support for Two Lakes is not a result of his potential gains. In learning that Allen shares a private lake with McGowan, I'd guess that McGowan is a friend and neighbor, and Allen knows a great deal about the project as a result. I'm certain Allen thinks Two Lakes is the best idea, even if I don't agree with him.

It's also a fact -- recently reported by the Jackson Free Press -- that a former company of McGowan's, Cedar Point Oil Company, lost an appeal in the Fifth Circuit because the company was dumping processed water -- called "saltwater" by some and "petroleum brine" by others -- in the Galveston Bay in the early 1990s without the proper EPA permit.

It's a fact that McGowan, as reported by The Clarion-Ledger, has done flood-plain development here in Jackson without proper permitting. Just drive to the end of Meadowbrook Road and peer through the gate at the unfinished (and future waterfront, in a Two Lakes world) development.

It's a fact that McGowan wrote an op-ed for the conservative Lincoln Heritage Institute, reported by the JFP last year, where McGowan could charitably be described as relishing potential battles with environmentalists.

Therefore -- let me state this clearly -- it is our opinion that John McGowan, while intelligent and interesting, is not the right man to lead a massive flood-control project on the Pearl that could affect thousand of acres, billions of dollars, endangered species and habitat, maritime industry and massive debts for future generations of Jacksonians. That's what we have governments for, like it or not.

Here's the fundamental fact that underpins our entire editorial position on this matter: The Pearl River needs a basin-wide solution for flood control.

Does the JFP support the 1996 Comprehensive Levee Plan as it stands? No. It's our editorial stance that we need to work with the Corps to come up with a better solution. And we believe that solution is not Two Lakes, but rather a basin-wide approach that can be implemented using 21st-century best practices for river management. It may include levees, dry dams, buy-outs, perhaps some impoundments -- or none of those things.

It's a fact that no one at the JFP is a hydrologist. For all we know, the engineering of Two Lakes is sound. But we've heard the opinion of experts such as Andres Duany -- a celebrated urban planner with no dog in this hunt -- who said in 2008 that Two Lakes would be an enormous, complex undertaking that would not happen "in (his) lifetime."

It's a fact that McGowan's claims for how cheap, easy and foolproof Two Lakes would be have not been supported by third parties.

And it is our opinion that Two Lakes has wasted 14 years on a tangent, and we lament the fact that political pressure was brought to bear by then-Rep. Chip Pickering that curtailed progress on a better solution.

It is time for Jackson -- indeed, the entire Pearl River Basin -- to put politics and personalities aside. Let's engage the Corps, with the goal of putting together a truly effective solution to Jackson's flooding problems.

Previous Comments

ID

155292

Comment

Todd, Excellent editorial, and well said. Having had a little experience with the species homo developus myself, after much thought, I've come to the following conclusion. Developers develop. Hope I haven't shocked anyone. I am not passing judgment, just stating the obvious. They take a piece of land, or a building, and try to increase its value for the purpose of maximizing their profit. That is their goal. That is what they do. In the process, they seek out and lobby any one or any entity that can help them in that pursuit. And when they are done, they move on to the next project. And never look back. Developers are not selfless. Those that I have met often portrayed their efforts as borne of their love of the community or the land. And be completely charming and compelling about it. Sometimes they even mean it. That does not change their purpose. If they are interested in the public good it is only in relation to, and a function of, their development efforts and their pursuit of profit. They are not city planners, or master planners, or visionaries, though often they will portray themselves that way. They will play to a community's image of itself, daring it to be great, imploring them to climb aboard the progress train. Or be left behind. Developer's usually involve OPM (other people's money). Though they often involve other investors and banks and utilities most often the other people are "the people", the taxpaying public. In addition to money they ask for the special powers of the government, like eminent domain. Or tax breaks, or abatement, or infrastructure improvements. When they leave, the community is left with the result of their efforts, be they good or bad. And left with paying for them. Forever. We elect public officials to decide for us what is in the public interest and for the public good. That is their responsibility. That should not be a responsibility lightly taken, or handed over to a band of developers and "project promoters" and the usual prominent and connected families who have been given the inside info way before the rest of know what is happening. You had me worried, for a little while thought the progress bandwagon had parked on Old Canton and the JFP had jumped aboard. Keep up the good work and shining the light in places where it's not supposed to go.

Author

annyimiss

Date

2010-01-20T15:09:42-06:00

ID

155294

Comment

A sober, well-balanced editorial. I think anyone who has spent time with Ben Allen knows how passionate he is about helping Jackson to flourish. But how could you possibly cite him as a source on the Two Lakes plan and not mention his personal stake in it? As you said, that by no means indicates that he supports the plan only because he stands to gain from it personally. But not reporting on his personal stake in the development would have been irresponsible. Excellent analysis.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-01-20T17:15:20-06:00

ID

155373

Comment

I concur with Brian C. Johnson, ya'll have a balanced and very detailed approach to the river and I'd like 2 thank A. Lynch 4 great research on the real estate/partnership angle on the 2 lakes plan promoters. Good work.

Author

Aeroscout

Date

2010-01-23T15:44:26-06:00

ID

155427

Comment

You get an A+ on your "homework". People (or taxpayers) want the facts, all of them, so whatever opinion might be ascribed from them can be as accurate as possible.

Author

SusieBlack

Date

2010-01-25T15:40:06-06:00

ID

155428

Comment

Thanks for the feedback, Susie. It seems many people are thankful for getting a more complete picture of this proposal. BTW, all, we've updated the colorful property map somewhat and added links so you can look up LLCs and the like for yourself under the main story this week: The Lakes Plan That Won't Recede

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-01-25T15:49:02-06:00

ID

155430

Comment

right on brother.

Author

daniel johnson

Date

2010-01-25T16:32:55-06:00

ID

155634

Comment

Wouldn't it be simpler and cheaper to not build or buy in the flood plain in the first place? We wouldn't need to worry about flooding at all. When I was shopping for my my current and (and first) house I made sure it wasn't in the flood plain. The paperwork I signed noted that the house wasn't in the flood plain so I'd bet dollars to donuts that the paperwork you signed would tell you if you were. I don't want to pay one thin dime for other peoples stupid anymore than I already am.

Author

ForgottenWard6

Date

2010-01-30T09:29:22-06:00

ID

156024

Comment

BTW, folks, I just saw this comment on the Downtown Jackson Partners site, which seems to have become the main PR outlet for Two Lakes. JFP has lost much credibility over the last year. They are such open advocates for Harvey Johnson and so anti-McGowan that they have little credibility with the average reader any longer. Their blogging is primarily Donna Ladd listening, responding and arguing with herself!! She has become so shrill in her personal attacks on McGowan, Speed and Ben Allen that it appears she has lost her objectivity, totally. And, Todd seems to be suffering from the same disease. Too bad, because they seem to be decent people and, in the past, had the best and most credible reporting on subjects of interest to greater Jacksonians. This comment is, of course, "anonymous." This is so offensive because it is patently false and a transparent way to attack the messenger. We are reporting relevant information about Two Lakes and its supporters, but we have not and will not engage in "personal attack" on its supporters. It is not a personal attack to point out who stands to gain from a project that promises $2,000 per foot in value for waterfront property. Personal attacks would be saying ugly things about these gentlemen -- all of whom we respect for good work they've done and for apparently being strong family men -- which the JFP does not stoop to. We are trying to report on and have a public conversation about a very important public issue. Is it not a personal attack to report facts about property ownership and to have a fact-based difference in opinion. (See Todd's column above.) We have also held the same editorial position on the various Two Lakes plans for years now, and the more reporting we do, the stronger our position becomes. Why all the anonymous attacks over it now? And why are they anonymous if the folks posting this stuff can argue their position? Why all the secrecy? I challenge people going around saying this anonymously to point out one actual personal attack we've made against these gentlemen. And if someone comes out from behind the "anonymous" cloak and says this to any of you out there, we urge you to ask for an actual example of such alleged attacks. Meantime, let's stay focused on what matters here: facts. And think about this way: If, as this person says, the JFP has "in the past, had the best and most credible reporting on subjects of interest to greater Jacksonians," why would we suddenly change our reporting focus and strategies? We're the same paper we were when some of the same people were slamming us for criticizing Melton and reporting facts that no one else would, and the anonymous efforts to discredit us seems to be clear evidence of that. We have no dog in this hunt but reporting the whole truth.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-02-15T14:48:13-06:00