Cornwall Ontario City Councilor Mark A. MacDonald Initiates Motion for Flood Relief for Residents – October 6, 2010

Cornwall ON – Cornwall Ontario City Councilor and Mayoralty candidate Mark A MacDonald wants the city to help flood victims.  He released the following to the media.

During the past several days, I have been talking to and visiting several of our city residents who have experienced significant property damage from the torrential rain storm and flooding on September 30.  Many of them have asked me how the City can assist them in this emergency flooding situation.

As a result, I will be presenting a motion under new business at the next city council meeting on October 12 dealing with the local flooding.  It is being seconded by Mary Ann Hug.

The motion has been submitted to the city clerk and reads as follows:

Whereas home owners and tenants have been dealing with significant
property damage as a result of the recent torrential rain storm and
subsequent flooding which occurred on September 30, 2010; and,

Whereas property owners have had the burden of additional costs as a
result of this storm;

Therefore be it resolved that Administration investigate how the
Government of Ontario may provide financial relief for the affected
property owners.

I firmly believe that we must do everything possible to help our residents who have been adversely affected by this serious flooding.

Councillor Mark A. MacDonald,

City of Cornwall

Bob Copeland Scott Beck Schnitzels

8 Responses to "Cornwall Ontario City Councilor Mark A. MacDonald Initiates Motion for Flood Relief for Residents – October 6, 2010"

  1. Grimalot   October 6, 2010 at 5:56 PM

    I just have to bring this up, could any of the flooding that happened have been due to bad planning? As with the major flooding’s that have happened in Kanata for example, that was mainly due to poor planning and design. Were any shortcuts taken here in Cornwall that could have led to the exact same thing going on? Just wondering..

    If it was due to poor planning, or back room deals leading to shortcuts so that building could take place, then I would say it is the City’s place to rectify these flooding issues to the full dollar!

    Of course, certain measures were taken in Kanata, to avoid the same issue from happening in the future. I would advise our city council and planning committee’s to go and speak with the Kanata City Council and planning committees just to see if there is anything that can be learned from them!

  2. smee   October 6, 2010 at 8:11 PM

    If you push this issue who should recieve compensation? The revenue will come from tax dollars.

  3. smee   October 7, 2010 at 5:59 AM

    A lot of the areas flooded are in part old dump sites for Domtar. In the past, Domtar use to dump the chipper remnants east and north of the city. Over time this refuse decomposes and begins to affect the water tables, aquifers and aquiclude or aquifuge layers.. Take a look at the Fennel Crescent and Caswell Crescent areas. We can also look to the St Michel St area where an old city dump was located.

    Lots of history and economic growth are still in the lands in this area. As Cornwall expands it becomes more and more prevalent. More recently we can look at Big Ben, What other city would approve an industrial waste site right in the heart of the city.

    Currently we are feeling the results of industry built in the late 1800’s. Our next generation will have to live with decisions like big ben and any other upcoming ideas for dumping our garbage.
    Maybe that is why council wants so many people from outside the city. If you do not know where you are moving to or the history of the city it is easier to sell the land. Especially to eager deal seeking retirees

    Grimalot, this goes to solidify your comment and concerns on poor municipal planning

  4. Joe Gunn   October 7, 2010 at 8:43 AM

    Has anyone heard of INSURANCE!
    Why should taxpayers pay for your folly?

  5. Jim Marshall   October 7, 2010 at 8:51 AM

    There are problems with separation of storm and sanitary sewer systems, and just plain aging.

    But that being said a little foresight would have gone a long way…

    …Like no building until sewer upgrades are done, and mapping all the flood plain areas and placing on them a prohibition against building, or at least specifying building standards that avoid property damage and loss, and of course stop cash grab developers from merely dumping and filling in water courses.

    That doesn’t help the present situation, but future homeowners may be spared, with a little less recklessness by developers and planners.

  6. smee   October 7, 2010 at 11:11 AM

    Joe
    Yes many peole have heard of insurance as did we. Insurance explains that flooding is only covered if the house drains to the sewers have failed or the sump pump has failed. Leaks from cracks or windows are not covered.

  7. Wendy Hudson   October 10, 2010 at 10:04 AM

    Yes Joe, we have sewer back up insurance. However, this whole fiasco has cost anyone with insurance their deductible cost, and as we’ve found out the hard way from many neighbors as well, because the damage was so significant, many did not have enough coverage to make all the necessary repairs. We understand that this event was rare, but it’s very disheartening to realize that it could happen again if there aren’t upgrades made to our sewer systems. We pay our taxes too and will be demanding more assurance from the city that this event won’t be repeating itself after we’ve sunk thousands of dollars into our basement repairs and clean up costs.

  8. Billy The Building Beaver   October 17, 2010 at 10:07 AM

    Speaking of insurance. I am hearing that more insurance problems are about to show up. It may be the case that a wide variety of homes in Cornwall may not be rated for insurance renewal. Some houses may be too close together for comfort for some insurance companies. Some properties are just set up too weird but grandfathered in. This could come as a great surprise to current owners or current owners trying to sell. Not being able to get insurance can radically impact on the price of a house. Do we remove the house? Which house? Is their any liability to be shared since the house was allowed to be built in the first place? Sticky wickets ahead.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.