To the editor:

On the local government table is the question of whether new building and development should be allowed in flood-prone areas. On the public’s table is the question of whose interest are our local governmental officials looking out for.

Unless things have changed, history shows that allowing new development in floodplains will not be good for the people of Lawrence and Douglas County. If experience is our teacher, the general public will end up paying for the decision to benefit a minority of people wanting to profit from development projects in those areas.

Within the past 20 years our city has seen the flooding of homes along Naismith Drive. If I remember correctly, some homeowners sued and collected from the city read we taxpayers because of that flooding.

In 1993, our country and community experienced a 500-year flood, the second or third of the past 100 years. There was extensive property damage, the government agency FEMA came to the rescue, and again we taxpayers paid. FEMA’s recommendations? That there not be building in flood-prone areas. Why? Because it ends up costing the public too much money.

If our local government changes the rules to allow new building in flood-prone areas, will they protect the rest of us from the potential negative effects of the impending flooding? Will developers sign waivers saying they won’t ask for government bailouts in the event of flooding? Will they practice full disclosure with potential buyers of those properties? Will such waivers pass on when property is sold? Will the developers stand the risk behind their projects, or will we the taxpayers be set up for bailouts? Who will be ultimately responsible?

Our governmental officials must see to it that the general public is protected from the risk-taking of others. The majority should not have to pay so that a few can play.

John Naramore,

Lawrence