I’ve lived in Mitchell for forty-one years now and I can count on a shop teacher’s hand the number of times I’ve used the lake. I went water skiing once; that was a disaster, and I can show you pictures of the angry yellow-brown bruises all up and down the inside of my thighs from the experience. The video was hilarious though. I’ve been pontooning on the lake twice. I’m not a fisherman and I’ve never gone swimming in the lake.
I’m guessing that my experience is rather more the norm than the anomaly for most residents of Mitchell. When I first came to Mitchell the lake was vital to all citizens because it was our water source. There were those who fished and swam in the lake then, more than now for obviously reasons. Once Lake Mitchell was simply a source of recreation, it withered in importance to the vast majority of residents of the town.
I imagine that the only interaction with Lake Mitchell that most people have now is on the 4th of July and that’s only to view the firework display and not to use the lake. Most folks who are serious boaters are going to the Missouri River. Only the most casual of fishermen are casting off from a bridge into the lake. No one in their right mind is swimming in the lake, not when it is peak algae season anyway.
Lake Mitchell is now viewed as a neighborhood problem like living next to Joe Quintal Field or the Hitchcock Pool or having a downtown apartment during Corn Palace Week. It is not viewed as a community wide problem, and it is not viewed as a very high priority. I know this from my door-to-door campaign for mayor in 2018 (which Bob Everson won).
People on their doorstep were very cordial but would shake their heads in disappointment at me. I was the bastard that made them put in sidewalks as a result of my position on the City Council and I was the fool going to waste their money, should I become Mayor, on cleaning up the lake. Bob Everson was more oblique in his position on the lake during the campaign compared to my explicit stance. It was a winning strategy for him but then, he inherited the problem.
I’ve often thought the Ward system we have for City Council is misguided. The rationale for it is candidates that live in those neighborhoods are more attuned to the needs of those specific sections of the community. For that reason, the Ward system works like gang busters. However, it can make Council members myopic and forget that deficiencies in one part of the City do impact the rest of us in term of quality of life, economic impact, attractiveness of the community to outsiders (tourists and those looking to start or relocate a business) etc. My feeling is an “at large” system where candidates don’t have to live in a particular geographic location of the City would increase the number of candidates interested in running for City Council and widen the perspective of governance for issues effecting the City.
Lake Mitchell is important to the City for several reasons. First, there was some talk in the past of the lake acting as our secondary water source in case of an emergency or the City exceeding its quota of Missouri River water. If that scenario did develop, then clean water would be necessary from the outset. There would be no time to engage in a years long clean up in an “emergency” situation.
Second, the lake can be an attractive feature for tourists and to lure businesses to Mitchell. It is not in its current state, but it can be.
Third, the City owns a campground at the lake which is popular and generates revenue. If the lake continues to be putrid that will no longer be attractive and its value in terms of real estate in a future sale will be significantly impacted as well.
Fourth, the lake used to be and can be again a source of free recreation for all citizens of Mitchell. Opponents to the clean-up say, “No one uses the lake.” That’s true but it’s true because the lake isn’t usable in its current state. It’s a Catch-22 and frankly a stupid and lazy argument for doing nothing to improve the lake.
Fifth, all over the City “nuisances” are an annoyance to citizens. The City employs a nuisance officer to deal with these complaints. There are three properties within a block of my residence that are in serious need of enforcement. If individual citizens can be made to clean up their properties, why is the City allowed to abandon the lake with the issues of smell, health concerns and a general eyesore all evident to anyone with sight and a sense of smell? Lake Mitchell is owned by the City and the City should be responsible for their nuisance just as individual citizens are made to clean up their own nuisance properties.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I was disappointed when I was defeated for Mayor, but Bob Everson has been a better mayor than I think I would have been. He’s taken issues head on and plowed forward looking for solutions that maximize taxpayer value at a minimum of taxpayer expense. On the lake issue, he’s spearheaded the acquisition of property for a wetland to help naturally clean the lake and the sale of a home on a part of that property to help pay for things. He’s done the grunt work behind the scenes to find workable solutions that won’t break the bank. Part of that is this proposed loan that was recently defeated on a 4-4 vote of the City Council.
That proposal would have involved a loan to the City of $25 million at 3.25% interest. That interest rate is outstanding in today’s environment and will save tens of thousands of dollars as opposed to waiting to some future date when the project itself will be more expensive and at a much higher interest rate. In that $25 million is $4 million for contingency – money there if needed because of unanticipated problems or increased costs due to delays (think rain during construction of the interstate delaying a road project type of thing as an example – I don’t know what might delay or inhibit a lake project). Contingency money isn’t spent if it isn’t needed so the total project may cost less than the proposed $25 million when things are all said and done. There is also money for other lake improvements, like gabion work, for a man-made lake that has been in existence for almost a century. It is a solid proposal.
Unattended, the lake will die. At that point, for public health, something will have to be done. The process will be the same, but the costs and the interest rates will be much higher. Despite the ill feeling that folks in town have for those who live at the lake, Lake Mitchell belongs to the City. It belongs to all of us. More of us would use it, feel positively towards it and be supportive of it – if it were cleaned up and attractively usable again.
In government there are times that the right thing must be done, even if it is not immediately popular. The four council people who voted “no” on this project are being short-sighted, penny wise and pound foolish. The City of Mitchell will clean up the lake, either on its own or by order of the Environmental Protection Agency at some later date. The money will be spent. The question is, do we spend the money now with a well-researched and reasonable albeit pricey plan or do we wait for the EPA and federal government to force a more far reaching and expensive plan on us in the future?
The City Council should reconsider their decision and move forward with the proposal put forward by Mayor Everson. It is not a question of “now or never”. It is a question of now, based on our own decision making and planning or later when the EPA forces the City to take a more exorbitant course of action. Which alternative sounds more attractive to you?