LETTER: Response to “Floodwall failure” story

-A A +A
By The Staff

I found the article on the floodwall failure very interesting. Even more interesting was the last paragraph in which the City of Taylorsville doesn’t see it as their problem and the County doesn’t have the money. What’s even more interesting is Taylorsville’s unwillingness to become part of a county wide government and wants to maintain their independence from the county. It seems we have a conflict here. How can Taylorsville be independent from the county and not maintain their floodwall. After all, it only protects the city, not the whole county. A reasonable person would say they have a major interest in keeping the floodwall in working order. In a sense, the county could care less whether it stands or falls. If the city doesn’t care about their floodwall why should I or any other county resident care about it or pay for it.

Just who benefits from the floodwall? The county, Taylorsville or both. I say the floodwall benefits the original area of Taylorsville alone. The county may help the county residents with flood assistance but Taylorsville should be on their own if flooded by a floodwall failure because it is they who elected to dismiss the upkeep of the floodwall or share in its upkeep. Will Taylorsville rush to the aid of county residents for flood assistance? I doubt it would.

With the attitude of the City’s leaders I resent the fact that any of my county tax money would go to repairing the floodwall. When Taylorsville sees fit to become part of Spencer County and share and work with the county government it would be a grand day indeed. I don’t think that will happen until we have a county wide government with everyone’s best interest at heart. Taylorsville leaders come across as self-centered and greedy.  If the Taylorsville leaders really care about their constituents they would rebuild the floodwall without question or complaint.

Carl Darnell