Advertisement

Archive for Sunday, August 20, 2006

Fort Riley’s boom a boon to Lawrence developers

8,000 more troops, plus families, prompt need for more housing

August 20, 2006

Advertisement

— Larry Sinks sold his screen-printing business. Brian Stone moved to Milford. And Doug Compton is building the biggest apartment complex he's ever done.

All because the U.S. Army is fortifying its presence at Fort Riley, adding some 8,000 troops and tens of thousands of family members and support staff to a town scrambling to make enough room for them all.

"It's like the wild, wild west out here," said Sinks, who sold Victory Sportswear this summer to focus on building apartments, townhomes and single-family homes in Junction City, which is adjacent to the fort. "It's like a gold rush."

The push to add residences and services in Junction City certainly has grabbed the attention - and dollars - of investors, developers and employees in Lawrence:

¢ Compton, president of First Management Inc., is building a 600-unit apartment complex on 100 acres overlooking the interchange of Interstate 70 and U.S. Highway 77. The $50 million project could add another 600 apartments - at a cost of up to $50 million more - by the end of 2009.

¢ Roger Morningstar and partners in Red Barn Homes and Planet Construction are pumping $24 million into building 100 duplexes and another 50 single-family homes, also at the western edge of Junction City. Water towers from the fort are visible from duplexes in the group's Hilltop Subdivision, where residents already are moving in and dozens of other units are under contract.

¢ Sinks, Dave Freeman, Bill Skepnek and Brennan Fagan, partners in Big D Development and Construction, are spending up to $60 million to build 504 apartments and prepare another 538 lots for construction of new homes and duplexes.

Add it up, and the total spending for the three groups surpasses the $131.2 million value set for all construction, renovations, new signs and other developments for which permits were issued last year by the city of Lawrence, a community with more than four times the population of Junction City but a growth rate that has been stagnant in recent years.

'You want to be out there'

"In Junction City, it's a different situation and a different dynamic," said Skepnek, a Lawrence lawyer making his first foray into land development. "In Lawrence, there are people who want it to grow and there are people who don't want it to grow. In Junction City, that's not the case. There's not a significant political split in what's going on out there. :

"If you're in this business, you want to be out there."

Contractors, laborers and support services with Lawrence ties also are making their homes in Junction City, following the money and opportunities.

Lawrence-based Landplan Engineering recently added an office in Junction City to keep up with demand for landscape architecture, site plans and development documents. The folks at All-Star Plumbing are living out of a $45-per-night Budget Host Hotel while they run water lines, hook up toilets and otherwise keep flows going for the hottest construction market anyone can remember.

Anytime an apartment opens up among First Management's 600 rental units in nearby Manhattan, the company keeps it off the market and instead turns it over to an employee. The company already has 26 Lawrence residents working in Junction City at least five days a week, installing retaining walls, building retention ponds and supervising construction of The Bluffs, where the first 58 apartments are scheduled for occupancy next month.

Instead of driving three hours a day along Interstate 70, the employees reserve their commutes for the weekend and welcome the opportunity to work while avoiding a rental market where vacancies are running at less then 1 percent.

Relatively speaking, they know they have it good. The boss even pays for the gasoline.

"There's contractors from Alaska up here," said John Maninger, landscape supervisor. "They're in here from all over the place. For us, it's one trip up and one trip back."

Help wanted

Brian Stone doesn't bother commuting. He moved out of Lawrence for good four months ago, after the Lawrence-based excavating company he'd been working for started going out of business.

Now he lives in Milford, a four-minute drive from the Hilltop Subdivision where he now makes $12.50 per hour digging trenches and operating a uniloader for Mack's Backhoe out of Eudora.

"Lawrence is dying down," Stone said last week at Hilltop, where only a handful of for-sale signs lacked "contract pending" placards."This place is like Lawrence all over again, from the early '90s. There's enough work here for the next five years.

"As long as you know what you're doing, there's no problem finding a job. It's all over the city, and on the base, too. If you've got a problem finding a job, you're the one with the problem."

Driving the development work is a decision by the U.S. Army to bring the 1st Infantry Division back to Fort Riley from Germany. Within five years, the fort will be the home base for nearly 19,000 troops, up from 11,000 last year.

The military plans to spend $1 billion during the next five years on new construction and equipment at the fort alone. GPW & Associates, a Lawrence-based electrical and engineering consultant, already has $150,000 in work studying the fort's system for distributing electricity, a project that could give the firm another $350,000 in business in the coming years.

Reader poll
What do you think about the construction boom brought about by the relocation of the Big Red One to Fort Riley?

or See the results without voting

Junction City is busy bracing for the spillover. Counting family members, civilian workers and others affiliated with military operations at the fort, the city expects its population to swell during the next five years from 17,000 to 35,000, said Sam Robinson, director of the Junction City-Geary County Military Affairs Council.

And public investments are pushing to accommodate the influx. The city's talking about building a water park, and the school district added 41 teachers last year and another 40 for this year.

"The superintendent and human resources manager went to the Philippines to get teachers," Robinson said. "It's everything - the hospital, law enforcement, emergency response, firefighters. But the need for housing is so great, we don't have enough (contractors) in town to get it all done. We've had to have other developers come in."

Early settlers

Compton, who owns apartments in college towns throughout the Midwest and whose First Management operation builds office, commercial and institutional projects, couldn't pass on the opportunity.

He and a partner, Kansas City-area developer D.J. Christie, bought 100 acres of rock at the western edge of town. They closed the deal in December, had all zoning and site plans in place within two months and started blasting on the site in March.

Such planning would have taken a year to 18 months in Lawrence, Compton said. Not that he's complaining.

"I think it's a phenomenal opportunity," said Compton, who figures that the 100-acre site would cost three times as much today, given demand for property. "I'm just glad we got out here first."

Morningstar, the Lawrence developer, said his partnerships' projects would keep him busy the next five years. He figures that will give Lawrence enough time to absorb its large number of available new homes and for the community to resume its healthy growth patterns.

He's just happy to have an outlet for success.

"We'll never leave Lawrence," Morningstar said, "but this was just a good business opportunity."

Comments

jcrox 6 years, 1 month ago

Welcome to Junction City...we are proud to welcome the Big Red One home. The old negative labels that out of towners used to apply to our city are fading away thanks to our progressive city government. Revitalization projects, quality of life initiatives, and well thought out development plans (including forethought for future growth)...are making our city a better place to live. Is it perfect? No City is. Please come visit and see our progress! While you're here, thank a Soldier for defending our country!!!! Welcome to Junction City.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

"I know people at KDHE's Bureau of Environmental Remediation and Bureau of Water, that's because I submit investigations and reports to them. "

SO yu are one of the "contractors" that they consider to be crooked and have to be watched every step? You know that is their opinion of you, don't you?? WOrking on one of the VPP sites? Working on other programs that KDHE? Have to be an apologists for KDHE or KDHE will not let you put a bid in on a project in the program. I am full aware of just HOW those programs are run.

Vinyl_chloride, YOU are the one with issues with a tirade like that.

Blah, blah, blah.

YOu worrk SOOOO hard. OF COURSE, if reports are not right you have to redo them, what a DUNCE. THe question is why were yours wrong???!!!!

I have no idea how to respond to the whole "Dodge truck thing", I don't own one. I drive a Lexus!

As for how hard I work or not and the issue of how much of a coward I am, well that will woon be known too, and I can live with my actions.

Never seen somone like you blow up loose their cool and make a reponse a total personal attack. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ME!

So if you did "Groundwater remediation" 25 years ago, YOU were the problem KDHE tried to "Solve". That is when a gas station cost $100,000 to put monitoring wells in and do an investigation. Was that YOU?? Overcharging??? I came in just after KDHE put the brakes on that, "fixed" prices and brought that down to $15,000 a station. IF that is the kind of work YOU are doing, I M not impressed with either you longevity or your capability.

0

vinyl_chloride 7 years, 8 months ago

Got ya beat asbestos, I have over 25 years doing groundwater remediation, so don't tell me how to do my job. The company I work for is sick and tired of loud mouths like you who think they know everything.

I know people at KDHE's Bureau of Environmental Remediation and Bureau of Water, that's because I submit investigations and reports to them. If the reports are not right, it costs me additional time and money to get them right. I have dealt with the KDWR, KDHE, KDOT, and USACOE a whole lot longer than you have sonny!

I don't have the time or energy to argue with pinheads like you, I bust my butt all day out in the field, whereas you sit on your lazy ass all hours of the day BSing the J-W public with your dog crap.

I know you don't do any field work, if you did, you would show up in your fancy pickup and crack a window to slip your sample bottle out and say,"could you fill my bottle for me? I don't want to lose any air conditioning out of my fancy Dodge Ram." Then if you get any mud on it, you go back to home and make your wife and/or kids clean up the truck, so you can quickly get back on-line and insult more people with your idiotic posts.

I have to work tomorrow, otherwise I would go to the Kansas Environmental Conference and talk to my MANY friends in the environment field (public and private). However, I have deadlines and have to work.

I have an idea, why don't you go to the environmental conference and bitch at KDHE and all the other public and private entities face to face?

You won't because you are a COWARD!

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

KDHE...a polluters best friend!

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

You are not a private consultant. You proved that on the UST thing.

YOU are a KDHE apologist. YOu defended their P-poor work then. You are defending them now.

IF you were truley a Private consultant as I have been for over 15 years, you woudl know that KDHE IS the problem in the state of Kansas. They have done more damage to the Environmental Business sector than Republicans!

GO to the Convention tomorrow. ALl you see there is Muncipalities and KDHE. Very few to NO consultants and contractors. It is a Joke.

YOU are plastic Vinyl Chloride. WHy don;t you try to prove my posts wrong other than calling me a moron and personal attacks???

You work for KDHE or some other worthless State Agency.

0

vinyl_chloride 7 years, 8 months ago

you sure think you know a lot asbestos, but you jack sh*t!

it is morons like you that give us private consultants a bad rap.

you sit on your lazy ass all day writing crap on this board, but in reality, you are an idiot.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

Anyone notice the safety violations in the fourth photo? No hard hats with a lifted load, violation of the slinging rules, safety shoes, and pinch points!!

These guys are in charge of heavy equipment????

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

That is their modus operandi. They did the EXACT same thing out by Desoto when they burned all those buildings or at Sunflower. They treated those neighbors like crap, instead of making SFAAP eat crow, they seemed to apologise for them.

They have done that a lot. Even some State buildings from scuttlebutt that I have heard (but cannot prove).

0

ljreader 7 years, 8 months ago

I think since I was not the one that created the problem with the dust- KDHE should have done an analysis of my yard either at their own expense-(if they'd responded when I first called, there wouldn't have been much dust) OR at the expense of the guy who ignored proper demolition and handling of asbesos. I was the only one who seemed to care about public safety at all, and felt that by charging me for the analysis, they were punishing me for a problem that resulted because no one else was willing to do their jobs in the first place. I don't blame you for being outraged. What are we paying these agencies for, anyway?

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

Bremby was an "ex-City" guy too wasn't he? I seem to see a pattern here, hmmmm.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

Oh, yeah...all the "pencil whipped" air permits they got done this year and last. IE they filled out a lot of forms and did not bother to "ground truth" them.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

Thanks LJreader, that is the problem in a nutshell and the reason for my attitude, and why I have educated myself on what the "rest of the world" is doing.

KDHE is so far behind the curve it is laughable. We had also a City of Lawrence official tell a Demolition client that the asbestos was just to expensive to deal with. Well that is not his call.

That is the problem with KDHE, it is populated with a bunch of ex-city yahoos with zero experience.

The Cities and DHE are joined at the hip.

One thing you will see at the Kansas Environmental Conference is the Cities and KDHE fanny patting all day. What you will NOT see is very many KANSAS Environmental Businesses.

It is UNBELIEVEABLE what these idiots say at these conferences. Like KDOL state they were very proud that they had no referrals to OSHA since 1975! NONE??

NONE of the agencies or Cities in Kansas address Asbestos, and in less than 3 weeks it will come back to bite them in the butt!

0

ljreader 7 years, 8 months ago

Several years ago, I lived in a property that sat next door to an old house that had not been renovated since being built. The outside of the house had asbestos siding. The elderly folks who owned it sold it to a guy who bought it to "flip".

He went in with a bulldozer and tore off the back half of the house. In the process, he was crushing and pulverizing the asbestos by running over it with the bulldozer. I called the City, the KDHE, and anyone else who would listen, but they acted like it was no big deal. I researched the effects of asbestos dust, and decided it probably was a big deal based on what I read. I watched the pulverized dust blowing into my yard, and kept calling and raising hell.

Finally, someone from the City came out and told the guy he had to keep the dust sprayed down with water. Then they shut him down till he could get a building permit, because he didn't have one.

For about 2 weeks that dust sat there blowing into my yard and elsewhere throughout the neighborhood and the guy never came over to wet it down even once- nor did it rain during that time. The City nor the KDHE never followed up on it to make sure he was complying.I think all they cared about was getting the money out of him for a permit to demolish (too late) and build.

I feel sorry for the people who bought that house- especially if they have kids or pets- The yard is probably unsafe from all the asbestos dust. As a matter of fact, the dog I had during that time, and who lived primarily in the fenced yard, got sick and died of a heart problem a few months later. He wasn't an old dog. I always wondered if that asbestos had something to do with it, but didn't want to go to the expense of an autopsy.

I called KDHE and told them I wanted an analysis done of my yard to see if I had unsafe levels of asbestos in my yard. They said they could do it, but at MY expense, so I didn't get it done.

That's my one and only experience with KDHE and our own City building inspectors and neighborhood resources. From it, I have to agree with ASBESTOS that KDHE is not doing their job.

0

Topside 7 years, 8 months ago

"not as bad as you are there Topside"?

Werent you the one who called me a little child earlier?

you make me laugh ASBESTOS. since you barely work with it. If you had I'm sure I would have run across you before. If you do than, what company do you work for? That way I can get you to train me and set me straight?

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

Not as bad as you are there Topside.

That River in Egypt, you know.

You are loosing it dude!

0

Topside 7 years, 8 months ago

Perhaps you should become an EPA accredited trainer than so we can all learn from a perfect person. WHy don't you work for the EPA or for the state then and correct all injustices? I can tell you why...well, I'd better not. It is just to easy for everyone else that ever reads your postst that you are just a complete nut-job. Do you really ever find that you make a difference with state or local governements?

So I guess to sum up your whole point of view it is the rest of the world that is screwed up and crazy, and NOT you?

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

"If one were to read the actual NESHAP regulations none of your points are present. "

Neither is "point Counting", Mulit-layered systems", or the "dry removal" clarifications, but they ARE law.

YOU sir are a moron!

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

You are like a little child saying "huh unH!!"

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

Topside, you are an idiot and cannot reaqd very well let alone comprehend. Some are "Court Decisions", and are holding the convention of law. They ARE INCLUDED, you just refuse to accept it. Not very professional of you!

St. Louis is a stupid example. There was no inspection, no abatement, and no notification. 500 residences and about 7 different commercial "installations" of multiple buildings.

You need some "refreshers" from a GOOD trainer, or better supervision at wherever you work. You invite liability.

That was just regulators not doing their job, which was the point, the whole point, the point that you missed.

0

Topside 7 years, 8 months ago

"We intend to clarify this policy in an upcoming amendment to the rule."

I don't argue their point. BUT, intending to clarify the rule and actually making it a law are 2 different things. you can rest easy that a lot of cities notify on this anyway, but then again some don't.

"However, it was not EPA�s intent to allow for the mass demolition or continuing demolition of vacant or dilapidated houses without such demolitions being subject to the requirements of the NESHAP. The responsible parties (including cities) must inspect for asbestos, and if none is found, the only requirement is to notify EPA or its delegated agency of the demolition."

again, not the intent but that is what can happen, and has in the past. I heard that is what happened at the St. Louis ariport a few years back. It was under EPA supervision and THEY let it happen. It is not the intent but it's not the law either.
One would be very hard pressed to win a court decision on.

Kudos on trying to find snippets of memos and letters to try and get your point across. BUT, don't try and pass them off as the law. If one were to read the actual NESHAP regulations none of your points are present. I don't disagree that it wouldn't be nice to see them included (more money for me) but they are NOT.
Hey, What do you expect to prove/show at the convention tomorrow that is so great?

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

It IS my business to know this after all (and apparently YOURS as well) and KDHE is not doing their's, nor carrying out their responsibility.

Seems maybe a few Red Faced individuals will be at the Kansas ENvironmental Convention Tomorrow?

See Ya there!

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

There Ya go.

Maybe you need a new line of work there "Topside"!

And if you do "a lot of this work" maybe you should stop until you know what you are doing and talking about.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

Response. There is a question as to whether or not the NESHAP applies when only one residential building is demolished. The preamble states that the demolition of a building for the purposes of urban renewal is covered by the NESHAP even if only one building is involved. The city is an operator of the demolition activity in that the city has control over the contractor who will demolish the building. EPA believes that this type of demolition can be construed to be urban renewal and therefore subject to the rule. We intend to clarify this policy in an upcoming amendment to the rule. Example 5. This is essentially the same situation as above except that the city takes ownership of the property prior to the demolition. Response. Same as our response to Example 4 except that the city is now an owner as well as being an operator. Although some cities may only demolish one building at a time, or several buildings scattered throughout the city, over the course of the year, a city may demolish a significant number of buildings. In an extreme case, more than 1,000 abandoned homes were demolished in one month. Typically these houses are in run-down or poor neighborhoods, and the question of environmental equity arises. The asbestos NESHAP clearly allows for individual homeowners to renovate or demolish their owns homes without being subject to the NESHAP. However, it was not EPA�s intent to allow for the mass demolition or continuing demolition of vacant or dilapidated houses without such demolitions being subject to the requirements of the NESHAP. The responsible parties (including cities) must inspect for asbestos, and if none is found, the only requirement is to notify EPA or its delegated agency of the demolition.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

(Cont.)

Control Number: A930028

Abstract: Are demolitions of residential dwellings by a city government (city) for "public safety" reasons subject to the NESHAP even if the city does not assume ownership of the residential buildings. Ownership is not relevant as to the use or purpose of a demoliton. A city can be an operator of a demolition even if it does not own the property. The EPA goes on to clarify their definitions of "installation" and "facility" as they relate to the demolition of residential buildings. The EPA also responds to five examples of demolitions. Example 1. A city, through its eminent domain authority, acquires a tract of residential buildings each with four or fewer dwelling units. The intention is to demolish these buildings so that XYZ Motor Company can construct an auto assembly plant. Response. Regardless of the purpose of the demolition, in this case the demolition involves multiple residential buildings that are under the control the same owner or operator and would be considered an "installation" subject to the NESHAP. Example 2. A city acquires a single parcel of land which has a single-family dwelling unit on it. The building is demolished in order to add six parking spaces to an existing city building. Response. There is some question as to whether or not the current regulation (on its face) covers the situation where a single residential building containing four or fewer dwelling units is demolished to expand a facility or installation. However, based on the language in the preamble to the November 20, 1990 revision to the asbestos NESHAP and based on other applicability determinations issued by EPA, it was EPA�s intent to cover this situation. Example 3. A city acquires a number of connected parcels of property, each with a residential building containing four or fewer dwelling units. The buildings will be demolished for the purposes of constructing a shopping center. Response. Again, regardless of who owns/operates the property or purpose of the demolition, in this case the demolition involves multiple residential buildings under the control the same owner or operator. Thus the buildings would be considered an "installation" subject to the NESHAP. Example 4. A city determines that an abandoned residential building (containing four or fewer dwellings units) in the middle of a residential block poses a public safety hazard. The city does not own the building, contracts to have the building demolished, and there are no plans for the use of the lot after the demolition.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

(cont.)

Control Number: C63

Abstract: The provisions of 40 CFR 61.145 and 40 CFR 61.147 apply when individual structures, rather than groups of structures, are separately scheduled and/or contracted for razing within a one year period of time. If the Department of Transportation, as the property owner or operator, has planned to demolish one or more former commercial buildings or residential structures, it has the responsibility to provide notification even if more than one contractor or subcontractor performs the actual demolitions. In this case, several buildings constitute a facility.

Control Number: C69

Abstract: An individual residential structure (having no more than four dwelling units) being demolished under an order of a state or local government agency but owned by an individual, partnership, or corporation would not meet the definition of a facility as defined at 40 CFR 61.141. An individual residential structure which is acquired by a state or local government through the process of eminent domain for institutional, commercial or industrial purposes becomes an institutional, commercial or industrial building. Therefore, the building would be subject to the NESHAP requirements. An individual residential structure or a group of residential buildings, which are individually excluded from coverage under the NESHAP, but are acquired by a single entity for institutional, commercial or industrial purposes does become an institutional, commercial or industrial facility and, therefore, is treated as a single entity under the NESHAP.

Control Number: C100 (OWNER IS TO BE SUED AS WELL) Abstract: EPA policy is to sue both the owner of the site or facility and the party performing the demolition or renovation unless there is a good reason not to do so. This is to ensure that qualified contractors are hired. OE requests that Regions justify any recommendation not to sue the owner; after reviewing the referral, OE will either concur or non-concur with the determination not to sue an owner. The decisions in four cases were reviewed where decisions were made to sue or not sue the owners of the facilities.

Others: "Abstract: CONTROL #A930024 This letter indicates that an earlier response given by SSCD did not reflect the factual circumstances of a case relating to a residential structure. If a "residential building" was once used for commercial purposes, or any portion of the building was used to support the operation in the commercial addition to the building, the building is subject to the Asbestos NESHAP. "

""...EPA believes that the residential building exemption does not apply where multiple (more than one) small residential buildings on the same site are demolished or renovated by the same owner or operator as part of the same project or where a single residential building is demolished as part of a larger project that includes the demolition or renovation of non-residential buildings."

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

The "spanking will now commence"! ALL the Regions are supposed to be following the "Asbestos Project Plan" which references the "Applicability Determination Index" as the guidance for the regulation of asbestos because of the problem of "inconsistent' interpertations given by state and federal EPA regulators. Page 42 I believe in the "Asbestos Strategies Report". You have just shown how "behnid the times" you are, if a regulator, BIG PROBLEMS. As for Region 7 Larry Hacker is totally discredited after the St. Louis airport mass demolition that gave the (wrong) interp. that you did that a "residence is a residence" and is "consistant with the asbestos NESHAP". Well it isn't. And Larry should be looking for another Job.

Here are the clarification letters on the Applicability Index that are to be used on the definition of residence and what the clarifications are:

Control Number: A970008

Q. A university plans to purchase all the property within the area of recently acquired RESIDENCEs and intends to demolish them. The university believes these demolitions are subject to the residential exemption because it considers each RESIDENCE a separate site. A. The structures in question are not subject to the residential exemption because they are part of an ongoing demolition project conducted by the university. The NESHAP Clarification of Intent (FR Notice 38725) views a continuous or single site as "parcels on the same city block" and considers these projects subject to asbestos NESHAP removal practices.

Control Number: C103

Abstract: Residential buildings acquired and demolished for the purpose of an urban renewal project are considered institutional buildings and are not exempt from the asbestos NESHAP. While a notification for demolition would be required, the work practice and waste disposal requirement would only apply where the combined amount of asbestos exceeds the threshold amounts. Homes resold by the Redevelopment Commission, which are then renovated by the new homeowner, are not subject to the asbestos NESHAP since the NESHAP does not apply to single family dwellings.

Control Number: C61

Abstract: One demolition or renovation operation involving a group of residential and/or commercial structures under the control or supervision of a single entity (i.e., one owner and/or one operator) is one "facility." Therefore, demolition of a group of residential or commercial buildings or structures on a highway right-of-way is subject to the NESHAP if under control or supervision of one entity.

0

Topside 7 years, 8 months ago

Wow I could argue you all day about how wrong you are but, I have a job so I won't. You need to reread a lot of the NESHAP requirements yourself, because you could not be more mistaken.

*A residence, is a residence regarless of owner. If a solitary single family residence is demolished it is NOT covered under NESHAP guidelines regardless of who owns the structure or its future intended purpose.

*2 single family homes owned side-by -side by two different individuals who decide to both have them demolished at the same time is NOT a NESHAP demo.
However, if a city were to buy the two homes (ala imminent domain) and have them demolished to make a right- of-way, correct that IS a NESHAP project.

*Roads and parking lots are NOT, that is NOT, notifiable under NESAHP. Why? Because they are not structures. However, parking garges and bridges are subject to notification under NESHAP

I have been through a lot of these situations before when trying to bid jobs, sometimes trying to convince cities or public individuals that they should have either bulk or air sampling performed, but I always get the answer that it isn't covered. I know its frustrating at times but I'd rather have a few "loop-holes" in the law than letting the government have the foothold to tell me what to do in my own home.

For confirmation of the above call the EPA they will tell you the same thing.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

WRONG AGAIN! You are a consultant? And made the above statement?

Residences taken down to make way for a commercial property need to be notified by NESHAP requirements.

That includes Roads, parking lost, right of ways, and utility easments all these future uses and the 600 unit complex are all "commercial" under NESHAP, even a first year 3 day wonder knows that!

Take down a Residence by the owner and put another residence up, it is NOT neshap, if the residence is demolished and you put in a church, parking lot or raod, or an apartment complex, it is REGULATED under NESHAP.

Not ranting, just illustrating my grasp of the regulation, where you said I had none. Clearly you are the one that has a problem.

BTW, click on the "Applicability Determination Index" link.

It will answer all those issues, and not rely on your poor quality of application, or memory. That is precisely why I put the link up. If you don't know "look it up". Rant on yahoo.

0

Topside 7 years, 8 months ago

I don't work for KDHE and you don't read as well as you rant. I said Residences, not commerial properties or commercial structures. There is a big difference.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

"Even so not all residences would necessarily have to be notified upon."

WRONG! It is now for a commercial property subject to the NESHAP. Check the applicability Index for the EPA definition and interp., why the hell do you think I posted the link. THERE FOR ALL TO SEE and not an unsubstanciated OPINION.

Topside, you are off your game, hope you aren't the one that works for KDHE, as you just embarassed yourself.

0

Topside 7 years, 8 months ago

I doubt anyone is reading this yesterdays news other than ASBESTOS now anyway, but he sounds pretty bitter to me. must have gotten fired from KDHE or fined for incompetence. Probably still tries to get hired on over there too.

0

Topside 7 years, 8 months ago

ASBESTOS-does know how to read that is for sure, But don't let him fool you into thinking he knows how to put the regs into practice. I have been actively working for companies and the asbestos regs for years and the regs are not all encompassing. I have drivin by the intersection of I-70 and 77 hundreds of times and there is a lot of empty space/land around there. I doubt "hundreds" of buildings had to be demolished. Even so not all residences would necessarily have to be notified upon.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

HELPFUL Links to documents for DEVELOPERS and CONTRACTORS from the wonderful floks at EPA:

Managing Your Environmental Responsibilities

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/sectors/constructmyer/myerguide.pdf

Asbestos Project Plan

http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/asbestosprojectplan.pdf

Asbestos Strategies Report

http://www.getf.org/asbestosstrategies/includes/Asbestos_Strategies_Report.pdf

NESAHP Applicability Determination Index

http://cfpub.epa.gov/adi/

For those slow folks that are way behind.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

vinyl_chloride

"The contaminated soil down by the river was petroleum contaminated soil. Where did the contamination go? IT IS GONE ! ! ! Petroleum contaminated soil volatilizes very quickly, so GET OVER IT ! ! !"

It is gone because the state required the City to remoe that soil AFTER the state had told them it was OK to put it ther.

======================================

"p.s. everyone is sick and tired of your bitching and moaning."

Maybe everyone who works with you or at KDHE.

Wait my confused friend, you will be eating your words.

AND IT IS NOT OK to park petroleum contaminated materials for landfarming BY THE RIVER OR ANY WATERBODY!!!

IF you are a consultant, you aren't a very good one, as what I said above is in the regulations.

0

one_more_bob 7 years, 8 months ago

"I will be recalled that the US Air Force offered Lawrence the Air Force Academy and the offer was rejected by the City."

"The City Government of the time sent a message to the Air Force requesting that Lawrence be removed from consideration."

Two very different statements. marionworld is a very odd place.

0

lunacydetector 7 years, 8 months ago

for reality check, you need a reality check. the developers pay for the roads, fire hydrants, sidewalks, traffic lights, etc. for the growth. the taxpayers pick up the tab for fire stations and schools.

once again i ask the question: if growth doesn't pay for itself, why can other communities bigger than lawrence exist and grow?

i'd like to hear from all of the progressives. PLEASE give me the answer.

0

vinyl_chloride 7 years, 8 months ago

oh asbestos, you sure have a chip on your shoulder.

you say that you are just doing your job. you must be self-employed, nobody would put up with all your "expert" crap for a second. you just sit on your butt all day long thinking that you know all the environmental regulations. well, you DON'T ! ! !

The contaminated soil down by the river was petroleum contaminated soil. Where did the contamination go? IT IS GONE ! ! ! Petroleum contaminated soil volatilizes very quickly, so GET OVER IT ! ! !

It is people like you that gives good hardworking consultants like me a bad name.

so in plain English: "STFU and get a life!"

p.s. everyone is sick and tired of your bitching and moaning.

0

Tychoman 7 years, 8 months ago

Wow Marion you wouldn't serve on the City Commission because you're too smart for them? That the fellow commissioners wouldn't comprehend how much smarter than them you are. Conceited much?

0

frankzappa 7 years, 8 months ago

old timer number one : "yep"

old timer number two : "mm-hmm"

rest of population : zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

BTW, the KDHE has dropped from around 3200 notified projects with asbestos (including ALL demo's and renovations) in 1999-2000, probably a 15% compliance at BEST, to around 1242 for 2004-2005. A drop of 2/3's. In short, they are dropping the ball big time.

Throw in the vermiculite and fact there is no ban on asbestos containing materials (they KDHE should have told you that) we got bad things happening in Kansas.

Don't forget about the brakes and clutches, OSHA came out with a SHIB on that on July 26, 2006, warning all the brake and clutch replacement places. If they use compressed air to "blow out" the parts, the fiber counts 50-60 feet away can be from 12-28 fibers/CC. That is about 120 to 280 times the PEL for construction and 1000-3000 times the level EPA would require cleanup at a superfund site.

That's right, take your car in to the brake guys and contaminate your cars. Expose your wife and kids.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

"what is wrony with asbestos?"

Nothing at all, just doing my job.

"who died and made you the environmental expert in Kansas?"

No one in particular. I just know the regulations, and know they are not enforced at all in Kansas. remember the house that blew up? Remember all the contaminated soil put down by the river? That is how they (KDHE ) operates.

"why do you hate KDHE so much?"

Because they are incompetent, impetent, and suck at what they do.

"which environmental consulting company do you work for?"

Why would I answer that one? So a KDHE Shill like you can turn my company in or "go after" our company, like they have done in the past?

"which developments at Fort Riley are in a floodplain?"

For you slow people, it is the a-s-b-e-s-t-o-s and the demolitions of the existing buildings that need to be taken care of. The flood plain thing is in the JC area around where they are building the new 600 unit comples. KDHE would have responsibility (a word they don't use much) to enforce the stormwater regulations.

The Floodplain thing did not come up, it was the "watershed protection" regulations out of the Dept. of Ag.

Vinyl_chloride, I am positive you work for KDHE, you have an obviously low IQ.

Con-Man, there is a new company taking over the housing for the Fort, and I bet they are going to try to get this under the radar.

Macon... look at the jump in Asbestosis and mesothelioma rates in Kansas. They are much higher than the national average.

0

ShockerWildcat 7 years, 8 months ago

How the hell can the U.S. Government afford Lawrence contractors!? I know I sure as hell can't as well as most other Lawrence residents! Ask any of them for a job quote sometime and you'll see what I'm talking about. They won't change a light bulb for less than $80 an hour! That's why most of the new houses are $350K and UP!!!!!! This town's f*%ked up!!! PS Your taxes are about to go way up AGAIN!

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 8 months ago

The City Government of the time sent a message to the Air Force requesting that Lawrence be removed from consideration.

I was told this by a long term Lawrence resident who had been active in city politics at the time.

That resident is now deceased but I think that there may be documention still in existence.

I was also told that there was more than a small flap about the whole thing at the time.

I have spoken to two other old timers who have indicated that I am correct in my asertion.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

one_more_bob 7 years, 8 months ago

Wait, wait, tell us more about how Lawrence turned down having the Air Force Academy.

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 8 months ago

YIKES!

Thanks guys but if nominated I will not run and if elected, I will not serve.

You see, were I to be elected to the Kommission, I would first have to begin an active program of re-education of those working around me.

As the newly elected Kommissioner I would become mayor the following year I think so I could begin the indoctrination with this:

"There are three ways to do things; the right way, the wrong way anad my way. Since my way and the right way are the same thing, there are really only two ways to do things.

Everybody got that?"

Anyone who didn't get it would be allowed a few days for refresher courses and if failing those, would be out the door.

I would nold weekly press conferences updating the citizens on what is happening.

I would regard the mayoral office as a full time job and set aside two days a week for appointments with citizens who have things on their minds.

I would do unscheduled spot inspections of city offices, projects and workers.

I would make it clear to the other Commissioners that as Mayor I would not be overridden and would make their political lives Hell On Earth if they tried.

I would hammer them in the press, I would hammer them in Commission meetings, I would visit voters all over town hammering the renegade Commissioners until they got into step with my program.

I would ramrod through programs to make Lawrence business freindly and get rid of the chaff.

But I am not running so you'd best find someone who would do this sort of thing.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

Mike Hunt 7 years, 8 months ago

The buildup at Fort Riley is a benefit to many towns like Junction City, Manhattan, Chapman, Abilene, and others and is bringing in alot of revenue. This is a good thing, beside the fact it is nostalgic and inspiring to see The Big Red One having a re-birth of sorts. Why is Lawrence freaking out over a new Wal-Mart? Is this bad?

Mike

0

conservativeman 7 years, 8 months ago

I'd vote for Marion! Damn good idea!

0

Ward 7 years, 8 months ago

Asbestos. You have a one track mind. And the track becomes a bore after the same beat keeps skipping. Illegal immigrant workers are all around the country. They are not just inTexas. I wish we had more diversity around here anyways.

The answers to development and business in Lawrence are often tied to the business plan aren't they? I don't know, just speculating. After typing that I wonder HOW ON EARTH the Tuscan gate big box thing on the west side has been approved . . .

Oh, and mebbe MARION should be a write in candy for the Commission. He has the answers for Lawrence.

0

conservativeman 7 years, 8 months ago

Prostitution, drugs and strip clubs promote economic growth.

Gangs, gambling and illegal gun sales promote economic growth.

The beneficiary of the economic growth is being overlooked in this discussion. Most of the citizens have not been benefactors, the government has. That's a problem that smells of socialism.

0

Richard Heckler 7 years, 8 months ago

Lawrence is not against economic growth. New housing does not necessarily provide economic growth as thus far it has effectively raised our property taxes. When expanding a tax base it should keep tax increases consistently at the cost of living increase level or about 4%.

Economic growth can occur by focusing and promoting existing resources such as downtown. The more we preserve and promote downtown more economic growth will take place thus more tax revenues.

Another area that would produce economic growth without building another poorly constructed house would be to focus on upper level job growth. The employer would be paying a higher property tax rate and the employees would be higher paid and not commuting. Therefore more of their hard earned dollars would be spent locally. Ultimately we have new economic growth and tax revenue from three different sources.

Sunflower Bike also promotes economic growth not only through sales but also by sponsoring bike race activity. An area I would like to see some expansion. This industry has great promise for Lawrence.

The summer music festival promotes a fair amount of economic growth within Lawrence by attracting thousands of music fans. Leave the fans alone so they will return.

The Jayhawks promote economic growth as well.

The art community is another means which probaly could do more with additional shows say like downtown. Other communities are successful with this type of downtown show.

Tourism is great because friendly people drop by, create some revenue and return home after a wonderful cultural experience. Judy Billings does a good job and I would encourage her to take the bull by the horns to make tourism a significant primary industry.

0

vinyl_chloride 7 years, 8 months ago

what is wrony with asbestos?

who died and made you the environmental expert in Kansas?

why do you hate KDHE so much?

which environmental consulting company do you work for?

which developments at Fort Riley are in a floodplain?

0

conservativeman 7 years, 8 months ago

Fort Leavenworth had building renovated and the disciplinary barracks demolished last year. All were in compliance and asbestos was removed when found. Fort Riley falls under the same regulatory requirements and it is part of the contracting process to identify those responsibilities and remedies to resolve them when needed. Today's military is one of the best stewards of the environment. Unless you have evidence that they are not in compliance then your "suspicion" is just a weak opinion. If you have evidence then it is your duty to report it to the authorities. If you're concerned about it then contact the base public affairs office an inquire about the precautions they are taking to prevent asbestos contamination.

Respectfully, Conservativeman,

BTW, We did land on the moon and there are no aliens (other world) at Roswell.

0

macon47 7 years, 8 months ago

asbestos inspections are just something a private contractor can get fat on it is all hooey, by the feds and kdhe to scare everyone and make some big bucks for the specialized busiensses that got the legistlation in.

0

swbsow 7 years, 8 months ago

Okay, I understand. The asbestos inspections are for the demo part of the development. That makes sense. BTW I wouldn't bother going back to the illegal immigrant thread. Any hope of having any form of discussion about that topic is long gone.

I may not agree with you on it but I do enjoy discussing it with you. And generally you are civil.

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 8 months ago

You think that Lawrence and Junction City have housing problems.............................................

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5263778.stm

Thanks.

Marion.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

NOt for the new ones, but for the demolition of old buildings, required under NESHAP. Since this is a 600 unit apartment complex, they had to clear a lot of land there, and demo a BUNCH of buildings. They all needed asbestos inspections, and the regulated asbestos removed BEFORE demolition.

That is to keep asbestos out of the air. I bet this was not done. On a scale this large, there would be fines above the $500,000 level. That is case history for a federal case, which this is. KDHE would have to turn this big of violation over to the feds.

0

swbsow 7 years, 8 months ago

I have a question, Asbestos, why are there asbestos inspections for new buildings/developments? I'm curious. I really don't know.

0

one_more_bob 7 years, 8 months ago

"I will be recalled that the US Air Force offered Lawrence the Air Force Academy and the offer was rejected by the City."

Really? The three finalists for the location seem to have been Alton, IL; Lake Geneva, WI; and Colorado Springs, CO. Of course, Lawrence may have been in the group of 500+ sites that were initially considered.

0

macon47 7 years, 8 months ago

YAWN, you guys should have mowed your lawn or something productiive today

0

Pilgrim 7 years, 8 months ago

And btw, all you whiners, this is a story about Junction City, not Lawrence. If there's any validity to those who tell Marion to buzz off because he doesn't live in Lawrence, then Junction City has every right to tell all these Lawrence buttinski's to buzz off, as well.

0

Pilgrim 7 years, 8 months ago

Posted by Reality_Check (anonymous) on August 20, 2006 at 8:46 a.m.

Question not addressed by the article: who's paying for the roads, fire hydrants, fire stations, schools, sidewalks, traffic lights, etc. for the growth?

THE REST OF THE TAXPAYERS, that's who. Certainly not the developers who are making all the money off the deal!


It's not like the developers are moving all those folks to Junction City. The US Army is doing that, and all those people have to have somewhere to live. I guess that means the Army should pay for all the new streets, schools, etc, eh? It certainly shouldn't be the developers. They're just providing supply for the demand they're not responsible for.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

Not saying "NO" here, I just want the Environmental Business Sector included in on the growth. The lasw after all do exist for health and safety protections. ANd the fact of the watershed protection will be a large issue for Kansas NOW and in the FUTURE.

Water will be key. Protection of it a must.

0

gl0ck0wnr 7 years, 8 months ago

Even "low quality" housing that Lawrence developers create is better than Army housing. Ever spend any time in those dwellings? Try it sometime. It always amazes me how people with no money and no business experience are experts on growth and tax law. For those concerned that the new growth will impact city services and cost taxpayers money, has it ever occured to you that the NEW tax revenue collected from new residents and additional sales taxes might offset that and more? Nah, it's much easier to simply bury your head in the sand and scream no. The influx of troops into the area is creating positive change, particularly in Manhattan. Scoff if you wish, but that University seems to be doing something right while KU is floundering and the surrounding community, desperate to turn the clock back to the "good old days" isn't helping.

0

soiledbrown 7 years, 8 months ago

is this the best the LJW can do? i mean c'mon, the need to write articles that feature doug comptons name could not be more obvious. phuk the LJW and doug compton

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

Can anyone say "CONFLICT OF INTEREST????

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

Let's see...Clark Duffy.. City COuncilman for Topeka and Directoir of KDHE AIr and Radiation Section (NO science degree, but a Masters in "public Administration", environmental experience.... worked for the Environmental Dept. in Topeka seeing which houses had grass that was too high, then 1-2 years for the KS Water Office when it was ALL SCREWED UP!!!)

AND, Boog Highbarger, Counsel for KDHE and FOIA officer, and Lawrence Councilman, and Previous Mayor of said City.

IF these guys have so much free time to also be a councilman they must not be preforming very much "at their real job"!

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

OH, I forgot, Clarky baby is YOUR boss. The genuis from the State Water department and the Topeka City Council man that knows about many city of Topeka projects that were never notified, nor did they have asbestos inspections, and those that did were done by.... KDHE!

OOPS! Word is out, KDHE is an advocate for slimey City yahoos, that want development at all costs.

Clark Duffy has to go too. It is no wonder!

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

"¢ Compton, president of First Management Inc., is building a 600-unit apartment complex on 100 acres overlooking the interchange of Interstate 70 and U.S. Highway 77. "

OK KDHE, here is a person's name, address of the project, and size of the project. IT is over 5 ac., and needs a stormwater runoff program. Does it exist????

Did they do their asbestos inspections, or demo notifications, ir they did not do their Stormwater runoff permit????

IS this actually in line with ANY environmental process?? THe KS Dept. Of AG, did they submit for their permit on watershed protection? How many acers did they actually fill, and what is the paying factors???? How is their runoff???

Mr. Scott Bangert, KDHE, did this company notify all the buildings they demo'ed?? Well, did YOU do your JOB???

Probably not!

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

All you gotta do is go back to the original developement plan and get the Professional Engineers number off the seal....then sue the dog poo out of them!

Many developements in Topeka, Lawrence, Mahnattan, Salina, are all like this...and it is even worse in JoCo and WyCo. Our regulators, planners, etc. are all asleep at the switch. All we need is another '93 again to see all the trouble these crappy engineers, and "midnight contractors", and crooked developers have caused the consumers that they charged for these sub par sub divisions and developments.

THAT is why it REQUIRES a Professional Engineer's signature! The engineer is on the til for the liabilities of the flooding. Insurance sure the hell does not cover it anymore, might as well put the target where it belongs. The engineer that did the calculations and signed off and stamped the projects.

Let's see just how "professional" they actually are!

We are gonna see very soon (within 2-3 weeks) the big problem that "professional engineers" and "CIH's" , KDHE regulators, and EPA Region 7 buffons have cost the taxpayers, by misrepresenting the data, and not fulfilling their Professional Ethics requirements. This group of incompetents advocated for polluters and developers on a project that will probably cost the State of Kansas taxpayers boatloads of money.

0

swbsow 7 years, 8 months ago

ANd how much of that was in line with Watershed protection and asbestos regulations? Probably none!

I have no doubt that you are right on this, Asbestos.

There are many people in that area who are now experiencing flooding in their basement that never happened prior to all the different "subdivisions" being built.

I know of one that contacted the city after water shot up from the drain in their basement. The person who came out to check it because it was the sewer drain stated that it was not due to all the new construction but because people in that area have their sump pumps draining into the sewer system and not into the drainage ditch.

Never mind that the area affected has been here since the 1960's and that many people in the area have not had this happen until after the construction projects started.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

"Take a look at the construction that was built over in the Kasold/Peterson area."

ANd how much of that was in line with Watershed protection and asbestos regulations? Probably none!

Again the KDHE is asleep at the switch as they were in the UST debacle on 9th street.

0

Tychoman 7 years, 8 months ago

My hero, Marion. You should get a medal for being such an upstanding citizen.

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 8 months ago

Tychoman;

No, Toyman, what I said was that I would takae the time to find out by calling up Junction City on Monday.

Rather than speculate as you and some of the other posters are doing, I will get the info from the horse's mouth and publich the TRUTH; a thing with which so many around here have difficulties.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

Tychoman 7 years, 8 months ago

Once again Marion is being an insufferable know-it-all.

I'm on the wary side of all this development. I don't trust Doug Compton or First Management or their construction techniques.

0

swbsow 7 years, 8 months ago

frwent,

I think you are missing the point. The developers that are in charge of the development for Ft. Riley are the same developers who have put up shabby construction here in Lawrence.

I have no problem with development in general but can we agree that it should be constructed with quality in mind, not quantity.

Take a look at the construction that was built over in the Kasold/Peterson area.

0

Fred Whitehead Jr. 7 years, 8 months ago

Maybe I am not getting it, but I grew up in a military family ( U.S. Army), lived in a military town (Lawton, Okla.) and recall that the community benefited a great deal from the presence of Ft. Sill. The school system received impact funds from the federal government to assist with the costs of educating childern from military families, the soldiers spent their money in the community on rent, groceries (not everyone shopped at the commissary) clothing (not everyone shopped at the PX, they usually didn't have what most families were looking for). Of course there were the usual down sides to being adjacent to a military base, the bars, the necessity of liasion between the local police and the base MPs) But the bottom line is that that community would not have had the economy it would have without Ft Sill. Many people worked at civil service jobs and many local agencies benefited from volunteer work by soldiers on their off-duty time. Most of these posts on this forum reflect the ignorance of being a "military town" but the one I grew up in thrived from the presence of the U.S. Army. I know this will be a sting to those anti-military individuals that seem to be so prevelant in Lawrence, but there is another world out there besides your own little bucholic neighborhood and you best get used to it.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

Most all the GC's in Kansas know that the KDHE asbestos program only will inspect the notified projects.

No notification (as required by law KD and EPA) no inspection! Wait to go Air and Asbesto Control Section!!

<> The crowd goes wild!

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

"Question not addressed by the article: who's paying for the roads, fire hydrants, fire stations, schools, sidewalks, traffic lights, etc. for the growth?"

DING DING....we have another winner!!!!

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

Again, are we paying attention to the Environmental impacts??

Probably not. Are all the buildings being demo'ed for the building of these commercial behemoths being notified to the state?? Probably not. DO they have their stomwater runoff plan in place, because these sites are WAY bigger than 5 ac.

Did they have an engineer sign off on the watershed protection requirements under the Kansas Department of Ag? Probably not, and if they did, it is probably a "rubber stamp affair". We the public will see on the first big rain, and the "flooding that occurs" and see if these rip off artists that call themselves "developers" are held accountable.

You might want to know that INS has been alerted to your little "building expansion", and hopefully this won;t turn Kansas into another Texas with all illegal undocumented workers working for nothing.

I am all for growth, but does it have to be at the expense of EVERYTHING???

Bet these wonders have flashings put in wrong, and will be moldy in 3 years. Any bets???

The company taking over the housing at Ft. Riley is also going to demo HUNDREDS of structures, which are ALL commercial under NESAHP requirements. ALL structures need to have an asbestos inspection and notification to the state of Kansas of the day of project start 10 working days in advance.

I bet that was not done in JC. That would be $32,500 per willful violation. OH, and yes, it has be in effect for just about 25 years. Time for the yahoo GC's that think they are business wizards for their come uppance. They disregard all OSHA and EPA regulations as a matter of business practice, and KDHE is so weak on enforcement, they won't check them out.

0

living_at_fort_riley 7 years, 8 months ago

Reality_Check.... I am a resident in these new houses that are being built. I see what you are saying, but we don't have a choice. We are stationed here. I have been at Fort Riley for 5 years now. I have lived on post in 2 different apartments. Not only are they run down, falling apart, and totally disgusting, but it takes a year on the list to finally get one. These houses are perfect for us. Now if it's true what junk_tion_city said..."Those massive apartments, duplexes and small houses are being slapped together with cheap material and deplorable construction techniques. The same builders that are well known for their cheap, shoddy building practices in Lawrence are now rushing to Junk City." Then I wish I would have known that!! Anyway, when the Soldiers from the Big Red 1 get here, they will be so comfortable in these houses (my kind anyway) and happy that they have a place to live. Unlike us who had to jump from hotel to hotel before finding an apartment when we got here. I bought the house and I know that when we get ready to move to a new duty station. We will be able to sell it right away. Maybe "junk city" will makeover itself and start providing us with more activites to do and better shopping!!

0

Mr_Missive 7 years, 8 months ago

I guess Skepnek now likes the Military??

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

The day I hear a remedy to "business unfriendliness" that is more than handing out tax abatements to anyone that asks for one and rubberstamping any proposal that any developer brings to the city, that will be the day my eyes and ears will be wide open.

But that's all that has appeared on this forum to date.

0

lunacydetector 7 years, 8 months ago

bozo, if you think lawrence is business friendly - why don't you ask the opinions of people who own businesses here and elsewhere - and not just kansas. lawrence is the MOST restrictive city towards business in kansas and probably the midwest.

you need to open your eyes and ears bozo. i'm convinced you are NOT the only one with the city in complete and utter denial of the unfriendliness of lawrence. i hope one day you'll see the light and listen to what people say.

0

Jamesaust 7 years, 8 months ago

"I will be recalled that the US Air Force offered Lawrence the Air Force Academy and the offer was rejected by the City."

-- 1949 Advisory Site Selection Board silently selected Colorado Springs. Nothing was done until after the Korean War, and in 1954 another panel reviewed various proposals and - again - settled on Colorado Springs - this time publically and finally.

Nearly 600 sites were considered for the Air Force Academy. Lawrence was nowhere near the top. There was no "offer" and the Air Force "rejected" the City.

Whatever strange local agenda being read into this article: the Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away, and then the Lord giveth back again, and then ....

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 8 months ago

Reality_Check:

What, more unsubstantiated claims?

I suppose that you have spoken to the folks at City Hall in Junction City and have the low-down!!!?????

I will call them on Monday and get the REAL scoop on these projects.

You really do HATE it when someone makes money, don't you?

Thanks.

Marion.

0

Reality_Check 7 years, 8 months ago

Question not addressed by the article: who's paying for the roads, fire hydrants, fire stations, schools, sidewalks, traffic lights, etc. for the growth?

THE REST OF THE TAXPAYERS, that's who. Certainly not the developers who are making all the money off the deal!

If I were a homeowner there, I'd be ticked that my town gets to be more crowded and I get to pay for it!

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 8 months ago

junk_tion_city:

Please provide us with evidence which supports you absurd claims!

Thanks.

Marion.

0

Reality_Check 7 years, 8 months ago

This sounds AWFUL to live with if you're a resident there!

But Booms ALWAYS turn to busts. The worst part will be in the next presidential cycle. That's when the country will be facing a serious budget crisis from the retirement of the baby boomers and also the spendthrift ways of the current administration. Thus, there will be severe budget cuts on the federal level, and the military will be about the only department that can be cut. The population of bases like Ft. Riley will be drawn down, and Jct. City will have huge residential vacancies. It will be a Bust Town like it's a Boom Town now. This has happened over and over again throughout the country over the years.

Maybe I'm just too conservative, but I would therefore NOT be a buy-and-hold real estate investor in Jct. City right now.

0

junk_tion_city 7 years, 8 months ago

In the long run, the type of expansion and growth in "Junk" city will make the residents regret it. Those massive apartments, duplexes and small houses are being slapped together with cheap material and deplorable construction techniques. The same builders that are well known for their cheap, shoddy building practices in Lawrence are now rushing to Junk City.

Mr. Morningstar is correct: there will be residual opportunities in Junk City for years to come...in the after-market home repair, remodling and foundation repair business- courtesy of a few builders from Lawrence.

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 8 months ago

I will be recalled that the US Air Force offered Lawrence the Air Force Academy and the offer was rejected by the City.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

Yea, silly Lawrence. Why didn't we lobby the US Army to have the Big Red One stationed here. We're so unfriendly.

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 8 months ago

Hmmmmmm.............................................

And just where are the "Progressives" on this one?

The Lawrence contractors have gone to Junction City NOT so much because there is work THERE but BECAUSE THERE IS NO WORK IN LAWRENCE!

WELCOME TO LAWRENCE!

THE ANSWER IS "NO!"

Thanks.

Marion.

0

lunacydetector 7 years, 8 months ago

oh, and one more thing......

lawrence, kansas business UNfriendly, and proud of it!

0

lunacydetector 7 years, 8 months ago

i thought growth NEVER paid? a BIG FAT LIE that the educated people of lawrence fell for - hook, line and sinker. lawrencians should be ashamed of OUR collective attitude and OUR ignorance. we are a city of watchers NOT do'ers.

i'm surprised it took THIS long for a story to run regarding the junction city area. that area welcomes new development with open arms. a refreshing attitude when compared to the earth nazi's in lawrence.

hmmm....i wonder if THEIR chamber is a tax and spend advocate like OURS. i highly doubt it. i bet they like businesses.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.