From: Sheryl Nulph
Columbus
Much has been said and written recently regarding the proposed riverfront project People are either for or against it. Both sides have valid points.
My question is, why can’t there be a middle ground?
I’m all for cleaning up that area. It’s the gateway into our city from the west. Many taxpayer dollars were spent on the beautiful bridge that perfectly frames our courthouse as you cross it. The swamp of overgrown trees and brush surrounding the bridge somewhat negates all the money spent to make the entry welcoming.
On the other hand, improvements to the area that would promote it as a "destination" for kayak and water sports enthusiasts is taking an unnecessary step toward a potential liability suit for our city. Think of amusement parks where someone is injured or killed on a ride. Most of these case end up in court with the family suing the park for negligence. Does our city really need that kind of potential law suit?
Why can’t the area be improved for people to enjoy in good weather without seeking to make it a sports destination as well? Gates (similar to the ones on Fourth Street) could and should be installed to become barricades when flooding happens multiple times each year. There should also be natural or man made barriers to the water making it difficult to access for children or pets who may stray too far. The area should also be clearly posted warning that anyone entering the water does so at their own risk and the city is not liable for injury to those who ignore the postings.
Will kayakers and other water sports enthusiasts ignore warnings and good judgement and venture into the water? Without a doubt. However, if the area remains as it is now — cleaned up, dressed up and promoted only for the safe enjoyment of people using the park and the People Trail — we lesson our liability should someone decide to risk venturing into the water against the direction of the city.
Clean up and renovation of the area is necessary. Promotion of the area for water sports is not.
