Ash Lawsuit filed - Jacksonville.com

[dblanch100]

Gujjarlapudi said Darnell-Cookman and John E. Ford remained open because the ash did not pose a significant health threat.

Hahaha. So let me get this straight. Its not enough of a health risk to worry about the hundreds of children who spend every day on top of it (BTW, I though lead was the biggest risk to children, no?)

But its enough of a health risk to spend 100million federal dollars, and destroy the property values of hundreds of homes?

[ivy rutherford]

Yup. I said pretty much the same thing, dblanch100. I'll bet you find it just as amusing as I do!




by ivy rutherford » Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:43 am
You're right not to feel threatened, RanDog. In the ROD, the EPA states, "The contaminated soil at the site is not 'principal threat waste.' It is not highly toxic and does not pose a significant risk to people or ecology." (Sort of makes you wonder why the EPA is putting us through all this, doesn't it? Job security would be my guess.)
Thanks for the interesting article, Dan. Do you happen to know how many properties near these other sites have "hazardous" warnings on their PRC's?ivy rutherford

Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:11 pm Top

[ivy rutherford]

Has anyone looked at the "Project New Ground" site lately? It states that the ash area is 300 acres and provides a document that states OU 1 and OU 2 are to be remediated. I don't remember seeing either of those things before. Have they always been there or has the information on the site been changed?

[EAkers]

Just an FYI, I live in the SE Quadrant of Springfield and I recently called SunTrust, my lienholder and inquired about refinancing, etc. I was told by the SunTrust mortgage broker downtown, that SunTrust would probably not refinance my home because of the Ash situation. Seems a bit ludacrous since they are already my lienholder.

Of course I never even mentioned my street address so she had no way to know whether I was or wasn't in the Ash Site. This is an example of how not just those in the SW Quadrant are affected, rather the entire "Springfield" neighborhood.

SunTrust has historicaly been a major lender in the neighbhorhood so if they are not willing to finance (or refinance) homes in the community because of the supposed Ash situation, we DO have a problem.

I'm not an expert on the laws but are they not "redlining" the neighborhood now? Which IS illegal.

[EAkers]

In speaking with one of our long time residents, it is my understanind the 300 Acres (I heard 400 from them), encompasses areas in downtown, like the CSX Building, The Fidelty / LPS Campus, BCBS and other major business and commercial areas. From what I understand, the fear of catastrophic lawsuits against the City may have suggested to the City official that it be focused in the SW Quadrant of Springfield.

I really haven't been following the Ash situation as much as I should have, but I can only imagine that if those properties and surrounding areas are truly in the 300 (or 400 Acre) site, and that real estate transactions were allowed to occur with the city having knowledge of this (such as the LPS and Fidelity Campus, the newer EverBank Building, The Federal Courthouse, the new courthouse annex and many other areas), and this information was NOT disclosed, a lawsuit by those in the SW Quadrant, or even the Historic Springfield Neighborhood is small potatoes compared to what those major Corporations would do to the city's coffers.

And speaking of the real estate transactions, if this was truly known for 5 minutes, 5 years or even 10 years which is what I heard, and this was not disclosed, anyone one in those areas purchased/sold properties without having been duly warned. Lead and Radon Disclosures are required by law, so why not Ash disclosures?

If I have mistakenly represented here, my apologies, but my prior Real Estate experience back in the late 1980's and early 1990's tells me if you know of something, you have to disclose it, meaning if the City knew of the Ash Site situation 10 years ago, it should have been on ALL of our property records 10 years ago, not just more recently.

[historic]

Hello

I just asked my lender to run the numbers for refinance, it is with Suntrust.

Lets see what they say !.

historic

[ivy rutherford]

I wonder why none of the properties at this superfund site have "hazardous" warnings on the property record cards.


Persistent Organic PollutantsAt Jacksonville Superfund site, Nelson calls for tax shift to pay for cleanups: Who pays for them and how has become a murky, neglected cause.
By Steve Patterson The Florida Times-Union, Jacksonville
Publication: Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville)
Date: Tuesday, March 16 2010


www.servpro.com
Mar. 16--U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson visited a long-vacant Superfund site on Jacksonville's Talleyrand riverfront Monday to say he will try to reinstate taxes on the oil and chemical industries to pay for environmental cleanups at the country's most contaminated places.

"Sites like this can be so important to JaxPort; they have to be cleaned up," said Nelson, D-Fla., outside the old fenced site of a Kerr-McGee fertilizer plant. "It ought to be cleaned up with money from the polluters."

The 31-acre site at Talleyrand Avenue and Seventh Street belongs to a company that went bankrupt under the weight of debts for contaminated sites nationwide.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency added the Jacksonville site to its National Priorities List this month, putting the federal government in charge of managing and paying for the cleanup.

One cleanup plan drafted in 2008 was estimated then to cost $18.6 million.

Tests have found benzene, DDT, toxaphene, arsenic, lead and other pollutants at the site, where pesticides, fertilizers and other chemical products were made from the 1890s until 1978. The Florida Department of Health reported in 2003 that people could get sick quickly if they lived on the property.

[silverstreak]

We just got the results back from our soil test - there was no ash - but since our property has been tagged - they are now saying that there is lead. Eventhough the levels are showing in the test sample that they are not up to standard level of toxicity - they are well below that - Jim Manning claims there must be remediation and that he is reccommending that up to two feet be removed from our property!?! My guess is this is how the city is going to back up what they put on our property records - by, making bogus claims and saying that there must be remediation. It's kind of like the fairy tale, The Emperor's New Clothes - Hey, don't you see it? This is nothing short of laughable - but I am not laughing. THERE IS NO ASH - Why were we tagged????

[silverstreak]

I am just reviewing some of the other posts - well, it's neither here nor there whether there is ash on my property. We had our soil tested and it's not here - but if Jim Manning now wants to take the route that instead of ash - he found lead - then the law is broken. Because when we purchased this property less than two years ago - no disclosure was made that there was any toxic lead or radon on our land - so now there is!?! If that is true - we s/n be out in our yards and we s/n even be living in our houses. Hey, Jim!?!Just where do you want to go w/this. If you are wondering about the toxicity of lead on your property - go down to your local paint store and pick up the EPA pamplet. Is this really the direction they want to take this. It's serious.

[silverstreak]

http://www.myfloridahomeus.com/Lead-Based-Paint-Law.pdf

It is a BIG DEAL - if they allowed property/homes to be sold and knowingly/ knew there were toxic substances in the soil - they broke Florida Law. L E A D is a Big Deal! It must be D I S C L O S E D !
They kept this 'a secret' - for how long - before tagging the properties!?!