The city Government will spend time and money in and out of court trying to make this Mr. Redburn's problem. It would be more beneficial to everyone concerned for the city to spend a fraction of YOUR tax dollars to fix this problem that impacts the CITY's runoff and drainage plan.
Mr. Redburn: property owner, tax payer, local businessman, active member of the community. He is not dim or obtuse. This man asked for help with a solvable problem. this man pleaded for help..with a solvable problem...finally this man demanded help with a solvable problem. the city government of Victoria (in typical form) told him it wasn't their problem.His property adjoins the city park which floods often enough all on it's own. So basically, the only thing that will flood is the Guadalupe...good luck with that. He could just as easly have POURED the concrete in the drainage ditch, instead of placing BAGS of concrete in it. The man is tired of begging for help and is demanding it. In my opinion he should demand it. He has exhausted all other avenues. As far as maintaining "easment items"... folks this isn't a small culvert beneath a driveway, this is a major runoff route.
"If someone hands you the dirty end of the stick; sharpen the other end and make a useful weapon of it"......Gen (ret) Colin Powell
Anyone who compares this massive ditch to a typical drainage ditch running in front of or behind your home is tragically mistaken.
This ditch is comparable to the depth and width of the concrete ditch that runs along side the Victoria Mall. When it rains there is literally a 40-50 ft wide pond that's formed. The ditch itself is at least 10-12 ft deep at the base of the concrete pipe. Add another 3-4 ft after the pipe ends and there is a considerable drop off where stagnate water and wildlife take refuge.
This is not a do it yourself on the weekend type project...
Kudos to Keith for standing up for private property rights and property owning citizens in Victoria.
Mr. Mark Krueger is right on point. Those calling for the storm drain to be Mr. Redburn's responsibility are overlooking the important point that the city has been negligible in resolving the issue using civil discourse and compromise. Legally the city has no leg to stand on, they just have lots of money to waste on a defense of their egos. So much in fact that they are utilizing an out of town attorney. What ever happened to "Buy local, spend local"?
Who among you approve of this use of tax payer dollars? Why not just fix the problem instead of incurring legal fees on the tax payer's tab?
OK, I'm going to give this one more shot from another angle...(no pun intended)
Where are the syringes coming from? I would bet that they're being used and disposed of RIGHT INSIDE THAT PIPE! I believe that I'd have motion sensors installed on each end and promptly proceed into MY DITCH PIPE with a Benjamin or Sheraton pellet gun, then shoot as fast as I could into the dark hole, not knowing what was in there but assuming it was a possum or a skunk. (I'm hard of hearing, so I couldn't hear the screams!...thought it was a bobcat!)
This man was trying to say something without really saying it, but look at his very first comment..."Look at that," said Redburn sarcastically, "It's a syringe. You want to get over there and figure out what kind of juice is in that?" Why else would anyone construct a WALL in a drainage pipe? Not to keep the water in, that's for sure. He's trying to keep something or somebody OUT.
Wouldn't it be feasible for the City to clean out the rubbel and debris, repair the structure and install a steel grate on each end and be done with it? After all, this is very close to the entrance of City Park. Who wants to see skinny shadows sliding into a deteriorating drainage pipe at dusk?
I'd be upset too. Wouldn't you?
Mr. Redburn...if you're reading this...I have a very small skid-steer front end loader that I can drive inside the pipe to push the concrete out from the back side. That concrete is going to cause more new problems than you had before. You definitely have the community's attention, so with that in mind...please clear it out before it rains, and I'll help you in exchange for very little (fuel expense). I'm serious. I think you can click on my profile to contact me.
I think that guy shoulda called me. I would of put steel dowels and rebar and then filled that peice of shi* in with topsoil and thrown some hippies on top of that..
The city doesn't care. I live in Northcrest and have one of this huge deep ditches. Yes I knew that when I bought this property that it had the ditch and I had to maintain it. What I didn't expect is for the city to come every year or so and dig it deeper. I mean seriously how much more of it are you going to dig. Our neighbor has even went to the city and has offered to buy the material (culvert, pipe and dirt) and pay someone to fill it in. Their response was no and he better not do it. On the other side of Glascow on our street they have new culverts and filled in their ditches. Also their street is not falling apart it either. That's okay because when the decide to go up on our taxes next year everyone on this side of the street is going to contest.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
jdztyler has the idea...fix it so snakes don't hide under the decaying rubbel, grate it so speed freaks can't get in there and go on with life. That's all this man wants.
Mr Redburn you have made a very serious mistake in my opinion. If it rains and you cause flooding of other peoples property this is going to cost you a fortune. YOU will be held liable. Will "Storman Norman" help you pay those bills? You should re-think this.
Too many factors are unknown at this time to form anything but a blurted-out spontaneous opinion based upon partial facts.
Number one...who owns that structure? The home was built in 1939. Was the drainage pipe installed by the previous landowner somewhere between then and now? Does the city simply rely upon this drainage, because it's "always been there"? Or, did the city purchase an easement from the landowner to build it or after he built it?
Number two...who is responsible for maintenance of the structure? Again, ownership is the key. If the property owner owns it and the city relies upon it, wouldn't it seem that the city would want it in tip-top shape? I mean, that's a gift from the property owner to the city. If the city owns an easement and property damage is occurring due to lack of maintenance, then shouldn't the city be held liable for maintenance or at least repair to damaged private property?
It appears that finger-pointing is occurring regarding responsibility. This may be one of those things that goes way back to handshake agreements between the landowner and city officials at the time, which did occur frequently back then. Whomever shook hands, if this occurred... their handshakes were good and you could take that to the bank. How often does that happen anymore?
Could it be that he put that concrete there not to fix the problem (because it didn't) but to be recognized as a tax-paying citizen who needs help with this situation and has got none after years of begging? I'd be upset too.
Thinksalot, who says those have to be mutually exclusive? Lone Tree Creek also handles a lot of storm water.
Which is it, a storm sewer or a natural waterway?
Why not install additional pipe across Mr. Redburn's property and backfill over it? If necessary, add a grated drain over the pipe run, as well, to take care of runoff from Mr. Redburn's property. This doesn't seem like rocket science.
There isn't already one on the books that calls for the property owner to maintain the easement? How is this ditch any different than a ditch in Northcrest?
From the looks of the pictures, it appears that the city, or someone else perhaps the previous owner, took some steps to minimize the erosion. I wonder if Redburn tried talking to the city about repairing or updating the anti-erosion measures. It seems all he wants and will settle for is a reroute and removal of the waterway from his property.
SIMPLE SOLUTION: The city should pass an ordinance to make all property owners responsible for this upkeep...JUST LIKE...Jared Mayfield, the city's planning manager, said the city council passed an ordinance in 1969 making property owners responsible for the rights of way in front of or behind their houses. In other words make residents responsible for cutting grass on city property...
If it is city installed drainage, then the city should keep it maintained and cleaned out. I applaud Mr. Redburn's unique, if not slightly misguided efforts to get the city to take responsibility. Good luck. Just look around at this city with an unbiased eye. It is rapidly becoming a crap hole.
Water is what storm drainage is for.NOT trash and filth!!!
What I'd like to know is when are the law- breakers going to start paying their share?
Uh....yeah. Y'all are talking like it's ever going to rain again. If only...
From the information gleaned out of the VicAd article, and, admittedly, there is likely even more to the story than is reported here, I come away with the fact that he brought the property, knowing this storm drain was in place at that time. IF the storm drain was placed on his property AFTER he bought it, the article does not say so. So, of course, I would think that he had full knowledge of the drain WHEN he laid down his hard-earned money for said property. Therefore, he DOES have an option: if he doesn't like it, he can move. If he wants to stay and complain, he may certainly do that as well. However, once he erected an illegal barrier to that storm drain, he crossed the threshold into a different arena entirely.
I say, fine the bejeezus out of him, as his folly may cost other homeowners by damaging their property WHEN AND IF it ever rains. Homeowners, especially those who knew what they were buying when they bought it, have responsibilities.
He bought the property with this in place so he knew it was there. It is not something the city suddenly came in and created. Who put up the fence--the city or current/previous owners? Then that is who should maintain it. As for the pipe why not put up a grate that allows the water through but not the trash then when it clogs up it should be the city's responsiblity to clean it. Because the concrete pipe was obviously placed by the city and they should maintain it. If this is in fact an actual natural water drainage, then the homeowner should pay to prevent erosion (build a retaining wall).
The first decent rain will blow his plug out of the drain anyway. Tomorrow would be fine with me....
Uh....mamaj....the Advocate kinda made it our business by putting it in print.
mamaj, personally I could care less what Mr. Redburn does with his property. But when he vandalizes city utilities because he doesn't get his way, thus jeopordizing his neighbors property. Then, conveniently clearing his conscience because its the "city's fault." Gimme a break! It would not be hard to bridge the gap between a civil cause and a criminal act because of his malicious, and selfish intent.
I don't disagree that the city needs to keep the drainage flowing properly. However, the city is not this guys personal maintenance crew. He purchased this property with the knowledge of the drainage easement. If he wants it kept to his standards, then he needs to do it.
What does it matter what this landowner does with his property? are any of you going to pay his attorney fees, are any of you going to pay for anything. i doubt it so in other words, if it is not going to affect you mind your own business
tHATS RIGHT ROBERTTX, LET THAT BE YOUR PROPERTY AND DEAL WITH NEEDLES AND NASTY THINGS AND THEN LETS SEE WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. I BET YOU ARE SCROOGE AT CHRISTMAS TOO RIGHT?
holeinone, I didn't...allfiredup did.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with his actions. This situation is going to be difficult to resolve. But, if the tax he pays the city is intended to maintain city structures, then I would think that the city has the obligation to maintain this one. What are they planning to do? Let it deteriorate to the point that it's outright dangerous?
Again, I'm not agreeing with what he did. If there were skunks, coons, bobcats and snakes before...well, he just turned this thing into a cave, so bats should be expected shortly not to mention an accumulation of who-knows-what in there. Plus, do ya think that kids might find that it's a scary thrill to go up in there? I bet some already have.
Plus, like fiercegossip said, who has the responsibility? Does the city have an easement? If so, they should maintain the property that they're responsible for. If there is no easement, then the water flowing off city streets is definitely deteriorating his property. Either way, he expressed a concern and got shucked.
And by the way, if those are 80 pound bags of concrete which would take 125 bags to make 10,000 pounds, I see only around 50. Are they double or triple stacked back up in there?
I see this as a huge picket sign that says "I pay taxes, I've got a city-related problem and I need help!" Nothing more or less.
If the city is not claiming ownership of this drain, then go Redmon! If they are, and by the way, who installed the drain pipe?, then get their butts out there and clean it. The city can't claim ownership but not maintain it. I mean, if I let my yard go to crap, the city will hire someone to clean it and fine me! So they need to step up and do their job.
What a jackhole. I guess he failed to get an inspection of the property when it was purchased, or he did and he sould sue the inspector.
Mark, if the property owner is not bringing taxes into this, why are you?
Some of these posts are ridiculous. The government cannot ruin a private's citizen's land without paying for it. We all have a Constitutional right against unlawful takings without just compensation. Either the City has an easement on this man's land to run drainage through his property, or they don't. If they don't, he can sue them for the damage and block off the drainage. It's cut and dry (no pun intended). Either the City is dumping illegally, or the land owner is violating a contract or deed restriction.
Given that this citizen has legal representation, I'm guessing the City does not have a legal right to dump the water. This is the same crap with the City ordinance forcing people to maintain city property. You can't pass an ordinance to get around the Constitution!
Sig, you got that right. Did you read those letters? What a joke, "Stormin Norman", really? Isn't Norman Jones David Hagans good buddy? These people hate the city government and will do anything to tear it down. Mr Redburn your getting bad advice from a biased lawyer.
Mr Jones and Mr Redburn are both acting like children.
Yep, this point is duly noted. He definitely got some visibility. I believe he should go ahead and remove the concrete before damage occurs upstream. The wheels are already turning, so if or when this thing goes to trial, he would be be viewed as a concerned and desperate citizen if he were to remove the concrete, claiming that he has a potentially serious problem and that this act was performed to get the attention of the City, not as an attempt to damage other people's property.
Mr Redburn is living dangerously. When he decided to block that drain, he automatically takes responsiblity for the consequences. That drainage is designed to move a lot of water. When we get a big rain, there is very good possiblity other people's property will be flooded because of this blockage. His little temper tantrum will probably cost him dearly.
Hmm... a little more research in the County Appraisal District reveals some interesting findings.
In 1998, the taxes paid on this property were over $21,000, of which the City took $5,509. In 1999, the taxes dropped to $12,949, of which the city took $3,360. The City took a hit, a cut in pay. Could this be the reason that a blind eye was turned? Could this be a "you get what you pay for" or "you bought it, you own it!"
I have a neighbor like this and we live in the country.
It looks like someone has begun to cinstruct a parking lot at the entrance to the park across the street from the Pumphouse restaurant. Is the ditch in question the one that runs under the entrance to the park here? If so,the city or the Pumphouse owners should look into cleaning this area as it is an eyesore to potential customers. If I'm at the wrong location,mea culpa.Partick Barnes
Yes, but look what has happened to his supposed property values since he bought the old Braman house. In 2004, it was tax appraised for $374,300, then jumped up to $1,240,000 in 2007. It now costs him over $15,000 a year in tax even with a cap just to own the property, of which the City takes $4,000. Can the City not have afforded to clean and/or repair the ditch with four grand a year? His neighbors are probably just as upset. His annual taxes have gone up over $5,000 in six years. Has the property really tripled in value in six years?
Regardless, this man's taxes support the city, county, and the new schools. He shouldn't have been shucked off like that. He didn't make one single negative comment regarding his taxes.
This is going to be an interesting trial, hopefully by a jury of his "peers", as they say.
This is the meanest thing I have ever seen. This is the definition of a bad citizen. Mr. Redburn is the same kind of person who whines and complains about the city but wants the city to fix his problems. He doesnt care about anyone but himself. I have a relative who grew up not far from there. He told me that creek has been there for decades.
Since the property has an assessed value of $615,698 and a market value of $975,000, and Mr. Redburn had prior knowledge of the drain when he purchased the property, I feel Mr. Redburn has the responsibility to keep the ditch clear. At those values, he surely has the means as well.
Blow the dam and fine him.
It seems that the drain was there when he bought the property. With that said he should have thought about the future problems that the drain may cause. This is an illegal dam. To fix the problem is to lay more drain lines across the affected property to the property line. This would solve the trash problem but who would pay for this expensive fix. The Dam needs to come down in my opinion. If it does flood some elses property due to the cement in the drain will the land owner be responsible for the damages to the other properties? I think so. What do you think Victoria?
Remove the cement, put then city attorney, oc garza and the city manager in there. Otherwise, re-route, or fix the damn problem.
Roberttx, you'd be singing a different tune if it was your property. If a person gets injured by an animal, becomes ill, gets cut, stab by a syringe (don't act like that not a problem here in Victoria). Who's at fault? I bet scum will go after the property owner.
Good job Keith. Keep it blocked up.
was the storm drain in place when he purchased his property ?
if so, break up those bags of concrete and lay down a stiff fine
Good luck. The city attorney is arrogant, so it will take a loss for him to change his attitude.