FMDA Faces Setbacks as 2019 Winds Down

Editorials Legal Project Costs
FMDA Proponents

The FMDA (Fargo Moorhead Diversion Authority) has essentially one play in their playbook ~ Bully and Bulldoze opposition while manipulating the flow of information by engaging in lies of omission to the general public.

Not that the Fargo Foolem would conduct any real journalism on the FMDA project, when the bloviating FMDA bullies have a rough week – it does garner a stoic grin.

One of the greatest lies of omission is the real costs associated with the FMDA project. The alleged $2.75 billion project will likely climb past $5 billion before all is said and done – which is in all things, an unsustainable madness driven by FMDA proponents.

Example: If you earned $100,000 per year and donated 100 percent of your earnings to the $2.75 billion proposed FMDA project cost with ZERO percent interest – it would take you 27,500 years to pay the debt. That’s twice as long as science has dated the formation of Lake Agassiz.

Does the FMDA actively engage in manipulation of information relating to the proposed project…?

Here are two headlines:

Wahpeton Daily News: Fargo Forum:
Luick, ND legislators request F-M Diversion audit North Dakota lawmakers push for audit of land purchases for Fargo-Moorhead flood diversion

 

Frank Stanko of the Wahpeton Daily News reported that on December 10, 2019 the North Dakota Water Topics Overview Committee, in a 13-1 vote, requested an audit of the Fargo-Moorhead Diversion. Whereas, Patrick Springer of the Fargo Forum would like you to believe this is limited to land purchases and Oxbow, ND.

The request for an audit couldn’t come at a better time. The advance FMDA agenda released on Friday, December 13, 2019 for the scheduled December 19, 2019 meeting contains a $248.3 million dollar error (read more…) in financial statements.

Approved contracts, invoices and outstanding loans top $818.1 million for a hole to nowhere south of Horace, ND adjacent to the intersect of Cass 16 and Cass 17.

Fargo could have completed internal flood protection for the amounts already expended over the 10+ years since the 2009 flood of record – yet Fargo remains over 22 miles shy of fully protecting its population because FMDA proponents chose to gamble on a boondoggle and expand the city into naturally flood prone areas.

That gamble is coming into full focus and why the Fargo Forum might NOT cover a significant decision handed down by the State of Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings denying the FMDA motion to amend court dates and narrow the scope of discovery.

Read the 6 page decision here: ORDER DENYING DIVERSION AUTHORITY’S MOTION

Fargo Mayor Tim Mahoney and other FMDA proponents often bellyache that delays cost the taxpayer $60 million per year – yet neglect to admit that Mahoney and his cronies are those solely responsible for creating those costs.

That’s what makes this excerpt from Administrative Law Judge Ann C. O’Reilly of the MN Office of Administrative Hearings decision so fitting…

“While it may well be true that construction costs rise every year, the Diversion Authority surely understood, when it undertook a project of this scope and magnitude, that significant time would be required for permitting and governmental approvals. This tribunal has not imposed any delays or contributed in any manner to the length of time that it has taken for the Diversion Authority to obtain its required permits. Therefore, this administrative proceeding should not be hastened to compensate for the time other courts and tribunals have taken to decide matters related to the subject permits.”

 

Think about the above excerpt – Fargo Mayor Tim Mahoney and other FMDA proponents spent over $21 million dollars on various attorneys without a valid permit or adequate funding in an attempt to circumvent the very processes that they claim are causing Fargo a delay in building flood protection that could have been fully completed internally years ago for less tax dollars that what they have sunk into the proposed FMDA project thus far and want to play the victim card over future costs they have no current way of paying.

Views: 751

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.