Is there hope ?

[Lucky13]

21 hours ago, Bustersit said:

Dear Lucky 13. You mentioned "That some lakefront property owners enjoyed flood control benefits from the narrowed range of lake stage that obtained from the opening in 1959-60 until recently is lagniappe, a 'little extra', but was not the primary intended purpose of the project.  

 

Having a famiky cottage in the SLR for over 80 years I understand the the history of the shipping interest etc. However family homes, cottages and business were on the river long before the seaway opened up. So I feel that the incredible profits made with hydro and shipping since 1959-1960 should be shared.

 

And "a little extra help" ? My friend we are most likely going to lose our cottage forever. I'm not blaming anyone. I just think some people need  to understand the devistation this has brought to both Canada and the US. 6000 people in Montreal displaced. It's heartbreaking. Marina's jobs homes etc. For me personally  It's hard to read your post.  Like this is something so black and white. We have heard so many different interpretations of why we are at this point it's maddening.

 

So let's cross our fingers for the best. Merry Christmas everyone. Can't wait to get the boat in the water. Tying leaders today 👍

 

 

I'm sorry for your losses, but I am just stating facts in here.  If the cottage has been threre for 80n years it was flooded before the seaway, and with a similar "perfect storm" of precip in the watershed and high inflow from the Upper Great Lakes, it will be flooded again.  As I have stated before, one former member of the Board of Control, Dr. Frank Scirimamano, was an outspoken critic of 2014, which is why he is a former member,  and has still stated that the conditions of the last three years were not a byproduct of the plan and would have occurred under the older regulation plans and would have occurred prior to the Seaway.  I agree with what you are saying , pointed it out at the public meetings prior to the original plans and the final version of 2014, even got agreement in  principal from NYSDEC, but IJC makes those decisions and it is their cost benefit analysis, not mine.   That is where people's energies need  be directed.  But please remember that a huge component of Ontario's electricity comes from the Power projects on the river, so they will be resisting shutting off all their lights.  And it is possible that there are not similar issues on the Ontario side of LO because they had more sensible land use policies and did not allow people to build in areas where they might get flooded.  Please also understand that as a non lakeshore resident, I am also feeling pain because the emperor of NYS has decreed that all residents will subsidize the property owners by paying for the damages to these lake side properties even though our public trust doctrine stops at tidewater and we do not enjoy the shoreline access afforded to residents of the upper GL.

[AAA]

3 hours ago, Lucky13 said:

I'm sorry for your losses, but I am just stating facts in here.  If the cottage has been threre for 80n years it was flooded before the seaway, and with a similar "perfect storm" of precip in the watershed and high inflow from the Upper Great Lakes, it will be flooded again.  As I have stated before, one former member of the Board of Control, Dr. Frank Scirimamano, was an outspoken critic of 2014, which is why he is a former member,  and has still stated that the conditions of the last three years were not a byproduct of the plan and would have occurred under the older regulation plans and would have occurred prior to the Seaway.  I agree with what you are saying , pointed it out at the public meetings prior to the original plans and the final version of 2014, even got agreement in  principal from NYSDEC, but IJC makes those decisions and it is their cost benefit analysis, not mine.   That is where people's energies need  be directed.  But please remember that a huge component of Ontario's electricity comes from the Power projects on the river, so they will be resisting shutting off all their lights.  And it is possible that there are not similar issues on the Ontario side of LO because they had more sensible land use policies and did not allow people to build in areas where they might get flooded.  Please also understand that as a non lakeshore resident, I am also feeling pain because the emperor of NYS has decreed that all residents will subsidize the property owners by paying for the damages to these lake side properties even though our public trust doctrine stops at tidewater and we do not enjoy the shoreline access afforded to residents of the upper GL.

You are also not paying the same taxes.  Property taxes are significantly higher for those that own lake frontage and that is every year not just in high water years. Your property taxes are lower due to the tax burden carried by high value properties like lake frontage. So if you really wanted to be fair about it, the lake owner should see a property tax assessment reduction for their damages so instead the decision was to apply state funds to the damages.

[HB2]

Unless waterfront tax rates are higher than the rest of the municipality , the reason waterfront owners pay more taxes is because the property is worth more . Which is a,good thing  . And the property owners decision to purchase or to hold on to it . 

 

And assessment is what fair market value is,. I worked on a few houses on Old Edgemere drive , which I have seen on the news that  since the law passed  , anyone would be crazy to buy IMO. 

 

So the market value , as a lot of other property , has dropped . So the assessment should drop . 

 

But better watch out . When this situation becomes the new norm or gets worse and they condemn your property as uninhabitable or insurance will not insure it  , they will give you the lower value to buy you out . 

[LongLine]

Outflows have increased this last week:

 

 

Tom B.

(LongLine)

[iiwhistlerii]

Outflows have increased this last week:
 

 
Tom B.
(LongLine)

It's amazing people are complaining that those flows are "closing the gates". There are entire years that go by where flows barely break 8,000. Anybody who's compared those numbers with those of previous years has to realize this has nothing to do with them "holding back water". More water has been let through the seaway in the last 3 years than any 3 years in history.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[LongLine]

It's even more amazing that some believe outflow is reduced by them "Opening" them.

[iiwhistlerii]

This is the stuff I love.  Flows consistently higher month after month than they were in 2014, 15, 17 and all the years before that actually but this is all because they are "closing the gates".  Lmfao. Look at these numbers from pre 2017 years.  Hell go back and look at flows from the last time we had high water 20 years ago.  The outflows since 2017 have been higher than ever.  

[Sk8man]

Um....if this an eye exam....I'm screwed

[iiwhistlerii]

1 minute ago, Sk8man said:

Um....if this an eye exam....I'm screwed

Lol.  Yea holy hell did those get degraded with upload.  Here is the link so u can see how much water passes through the seaway on a normal year.  I believe data from 2011-18 can be found at the bottom. 

https://ijc.org/en/loslrb/watershed/outflow-changes

More water has passed through the system in the last 36 months than any 36 months on record but somehow people are still blaming it on holding back water.  It's a weird argument to have when faced with the facts.

[Gill-T]

Ok....then why is NYS suing ??

[horsehunter]

Facts don't matter ask any politician

[HB2]

Maybe the reason they did not increase flows in previous years is because they did not have to . 

[iiwhistlerii]

7 minutes ago, Gill-T said:

Ok....then why is NYS suing ??

Because water was held back during high water periods on the Ottawa.  We sacrificed a couple inches here so Montreal wouldnt be wiped off the map.  Look at the data and u can see exactly when this occurred.  At one point flows dropped into the 5000s for the day.  It had nothing to do with plan 2014 tho, it was temporary reductions in flow that were exactly when the Ottawa was at its worst.  Everything was precisely calculated and strategically implemented to have the least overall impact on everyone.   It's the lesser of 2 evils.  It had everything to do with the record amounts of precipitation we've had to deal with in our entire watershed. 

 

NYS is taking a stab at trying to recoup some of the funds they are dishing out hand over fist.  I'm sure if the other great lakes had somebody to try and sue theyd do the same.  Fact of the matter is they are dealing with higher water than even we are and dont have a scapegoat with deep pockets.  The numbers dont lie, do the research for yourself.

[iiwhistlerii]

2 minutes ago, HB2 said:

Maybe the reason they did not increase flows in previous years is because they did not have to . 

Exactly.  Those are normal flows.  The flows the last 3 years have been far far above normal 95% of the time.  Hard to blame our water levels on holding back water when flows have been higher than ever the entire time.  

[Gill-T]

Wouldn’t that have caused Ottawa to be flooded for three years?

[HB2]

And it all goes back to one simple question . 

 

When they safely could , was the maximum amount of water being released at all times ? 

 

If not , WHY NOT ? 

 

 

[iiwhistlerii]

8 minutes ago, Gill-T said:

Wouldn’t that have caused Ottawa to be flooded for three years?

What?  The st Lawrence doesnt flow into the Ottawa....  The Ottawa flows into the st Lawrence at Montreal.  If we let the seaway flow at 10,400 during the spring (2019 summer flows)while the Ottawa was at record levels raging 9 ft above normal in spots it would have wiped areas of Montreal off of the map.  Yes flows in the st. Lawrence below the dam have been elevated and sometimes extreme in the last 3 years.

[Gill-T]

Correct HB2. All reservoirs are drawn down in late fall in preparation for coming spring/winter melt. Preemptive. Smart. Easier to adjust shipping timing than move houses to higher ground.

[iiwhistlerii]

Correct HB2. All reservoirs are drawn down in late fall in preparation for coming spring/winter melt. Preemptive. Smart. Easier to adjust shipping timing than move houses to higher ground.

Exactly and plan 2014 allows for lake ontario to be drawn down further than the previous plan!!

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Gill-T]

5 minutes ago, iiwhistlerii said:

What?  The st Lawrence doesnt flow into the Ottawa....  The Ottawa flows into the st Lawrence at Montreal.  If we let the seaway flow at 10,400 during the spring (2019 summer flows)while the Ottawa was at record levels raging 9 ft above normal in spots it would have wiped areas of Montreal off of the map.  Yes flows in the st. Lawrence below the dam have been elevated and sometimes extreme in the last 3 years.

Didn’t the Ottawa River flood because there was resistance from high water and ice on the St Lawrence?

[iiwhistlerii]

Didn’t the Ottawa River flood because there was resistance from high water and ice on the St Lawrence?

No . The Ottawa flooded from record precipitation and snow melt. The same exact reason every great lake is at record levels. The area where it meets the st Lawrence below the carillion dam known as lake of 2 mountains had water lines 9 foot above normal last time I fished there.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[AAA]

6 hours ago, HB2 said:

Unless waterfront tax rates are higher than the rest of the municipality , the reason waterfront owners pay more taxes is because the property is worth more . Which is a,good thing  . And the property owners decision to purchase or to hold on to it . 

 

And assessment is what fair market value is,. I worked on a few houses on Old Edgemere drive , which I have seen on the news that  since the law passed  , anyone would be crazy to buy IMO. 

 

So the market value , as a lot of other property , has dropped . So the assessment should drop . 

 

But better watch out . When this situation becomes the new norm or gets worse and they condemn your property as uninhabitable or insurance will not insure it  , they will give you the lower value to buy you out . 

Yes, there is only one tax rate.  It is the assessed value of the property that causes the higher assessment resulting in higher taxes.  As lake property owners lose property due to erosion the towns resist making adjustments to the assessment to compensate for the lost value.  Adjustments are small and infrequent.  I was just pointing out for his argument  that NYS was using everyone else's taxes dollars to compensate lake owners that lake owners have paid a higher percentage of the property taxes over the years due to their higher property assessments.

[Frogger]

Yes, there is only one tax rate.  It is the assessed value of the property that causes the higher assessment resulting in higher taxes.  As lake property owners lose property due to erosion the towns resist making adjustments to the assessment to compensate for the lost value.  Adjustments are small and infrequent.  I was just pointing out for his argument  that NYS was using everyone else's taxes dollars to compensate lake owners that lake owners have paid a higher percentage of the property taxes over the years due to their higher property assessments.

Ultimately when the lake properties decrease in value, are sold at well below the current assessments, the towns that relied on that income for stability will redesign their withholdings to make up for the loss. Guess where that will come from......


Sent from my iPad using Lake Ontario United

[jimski2]

Abandoned ghost towns are present all over the world. 

[iiwhistlerii]

Ultimately when the lake properties decrease in value, are sold at well below the current assessments, the towns that relied on that income for stability will redesign their withholdings to make up for the loss. Guess where that will come from......


Sent from my iPad using Lake Ontario United

When the lake levels drop in 2 years like they always do and all these homes have brand new Gov subsidized 200k breakwalls I'm sure itll be added to the property value when things are reassessed. Dont think for s minute any local municipality will miss that opportunity.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk