Homeowners in Austell claim Marietta caused flood damage
by Jon Gillooly
jgillooly@mdjonline.com
April 14, 2010 12:00 AM | 2327 views | 9 9 comments | 10 10 recommendations | email to a friend | print
MARIETTA - A group of Austell homeowners have hired a lawyer alleging upstream development in the city of Marietta caused the massive flooding that happened last September.

The 52 families - 51 from Austell and 1 from Hiram - have each sent identical demand letters to the Marietta City Council through their attorney, Donald Stack of Atlanta-based Stack and Associates, stating, "The city has been and continues to be negligent in the performance of its ministerial duties. The city has illegally changed and permitted the change of flood plains and drained elevations, causing and contributing to our clients' damage and injury."

Stack writes in his March 18 demand letters that his clients have each suffered damages exceeding $55,000 to their property, as well as significant personal suffering. The letter demands compensation or threatens a lawsuit against the city.

City attorney Doug Haynie said if the council denies the claims at tonight's meeting, as it is expected to do, he will respond to Stack, denying his claims.

"Liability of the city of Marietta, in my opinion, is too remote and is not related to the damages if any suffered in the city of Austell. These floods were an act of nature and, in my opinion, had nothing to do with the city of Marietta," Haynie said.

As for claims that the city has changed the flood plain lines, Haynie said those are established by the federal government.

City Councilman Johnny Sinclair said he will be voting to deny the claim at tonight's meeting.

"I feel really sorry for what happened to those people, but it's not the citizens of Marietta's fault," Sinclair said. "Marietta's been here for 175 years. What happened to those people was an act of God."

Austell Mayor Joe Jerkins said the homeowners have also filed claims against his city and the city of Powder Springs.

"We had 21 inches of rain that created the flood. Now if they don't have sense enough to know that, then they got a problem," Jerkins said.

Jerkins said his city denied the claims three weeks ago.

"They're just trying figure a way to get money," he said. "You know how lawyers are. I feel like they're wasting their time and money on this. We've done nothing wrong."

Calls to Stack went unreturned by press time Tuesday.
Comments
(9)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
drainage student
|
April 30, 2010
er,... Professor, could you tell us dummies when we're going to get to the chapter in your syllabus that deals with detention ponds, retention ponds, stormwater management ordinances, impervious surface limitations, and all the other regulations that control development based on that nasty habit water has of flowing down hill?

Truth hurts
|
April 23, 2010
If we are lucky, maybe next time that whole lousy part of the county will wash away.
Alan Faircloth
|
April 22, 2010
I don't have any crayons and paper handy, so I cannot draw you a picture that you can understand. Responsibility for changes in runoff REST with those that CHANGE things thereby changing drainage and runoff. County officials should not disapprove everything but, similar to building codes, require those seeking to make changes to consider and address the environmental impact their actions will have. It is nothing more than requiring them to be responsible and holding them accountable. Holding an unwitting homeowner responsbile makes no sense at all, but then maybe that is what you would prefer.
drainage student
|
April 21, 2010
Dear Professor Washcloth:

Actually, professor, the government isn't responsible for lands and development they don't own. What are they supposed to do, refuse all permits and be sued by every developer who wants to build a subdivision, or every homeowner who wants to build a patio in his back yard? It's the owners of the properties who are liable for the excess runoff their properties create.

Now, I'll sit down and be quiet while you finish your lecture.
Alan Faircloth
|
April 16, 2010
TO Not Again....never said the officials were responsible for rain. THEY DO HAVE responsibility for policies and approvals related to development and construction that changed the topography of the land, altered surface water drainage and run-off, flood zones and watershed basins. The result is that a certain level of rain now could be a problem whereas before it was not. Depict my arguments and position correctly or remain seated and quiet.
not again.........
|
April 16, 2010
Professor Washcloth...expert on ferreting out every imaginable way government could be to blame for something....anything....

This time it's rain.

From now on, building permits should only be issued for mountain top properties, and carry disclaimers for lightning strikes.

Floods
|
April 15, 2010
When you start having more concrete & asphalt than anything else, it has to go somewhere. It sure isn't going to soak into the ground if their is no dirt. If you were here 20 yrs ago and saw some of the creeks after 2 dys of rain and NOW you check those creeks with several days of rain, it is an entirely different situation. Common sense will tell you that. Having lived here forever, there are buildings standing in what use to be considered flood plain. County commissioners had to approve many developments starting back in the early 70s, because if they didn't the developer would sue & win. Now there should be enough evidence that proves the land can't hold an infinite amount of buildings.
innej
|
April 15, 2010
Yea, trust city officials. Wasn't it a city official that approved the plans for a new neighborhood? Doesn't the city approve the plans? Does the city inspect the housebuilding process over and over at each stage? But why did that homeowner's yard cave in? Why did the homeowner have to pay for the repair when someone approved and signed off on all that? They bought that home in good faith that everyone did their part and that nothing like that would happen. They depended on their city officials to look over their developer!
Alan Faircloth
|
April 14, 2010
I love city officials with run off at the mouth disease. The question is not simply the 21 inches of rain, but whether, due to changes, there were changes in the flood zones. My understanding is that Atlanta metro area has completely outdated flood maps and designated flood zones based upon the amount of development the last 5 years (which has been HUGE in Cobb County). Grading and levelling land, cutting trees, installing roads and other concrete or hard surfaces changes run off, drainage and basin fill. Studies should have been done to determine if approvals and permits issued by the city posed and, ultimately, did harm to others who predated those approvals.
*All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, spam, and links to outside websites will be rejected.