MAP 5 - US 50; 2011

Map 6, 2013 Current Deteriorating Issues, Simply Stated:

News Coverage and Incidents May 11, 2013

Note:  Images from May 11, 2013

Drainage Running  Around Gas Line Marker	Drainage Flow Neglected Commercial Lot Area	Drainage Flow - Rear Building  113 Platinum Drive
US Route 50	US Route 50 - Great Pause- Danger	Downstream Sediment Buildup Before And After The USDA Corpening Drive Retention Ponds Existence

 

June 28, 2013 - US Route 50 - "The George Washington Turnpike"

June 28, 2013; A local CBS affiliate began reports on storms that added to the unaddressed damage and continued safety aspects for vehicular traffic that traverses US Route 50:

"Heavy Rain and Strong Winds Cause Damage in Bridgeport".
 

July 12, 2013 - US Route 50 -  "The George Washington Turnpike"

July 12, 2013; Another flood occurrence reported on July 12, 2013; "Flooding a Concern For Business Owners in Bridgeport" is of note.

July 12, 2013 - US Route 58 - 7:38 PM

July 12, 2013; An associate took imagery of emergency vehicles on US Route 58 at 7:38 PM:

 

July 12, 2013 - US Route 58 - A Little Later Near Midnight

A limited news report on another accident that occurs hours later, near midnight, (12:00 PM); "5 Taken to United Hospital Center After Accident in Bridgeport"

The next day a message is received that a new church had four inches of drainage / mud in their lower level and a car washed away. Said messenger points to the Platinum Properties / Partners development.

Locations of Area Images and Incidents

Massive and uncontrolled drainage naturally converges at the lowest point — in this case, a small tributary known as Anne’s Run. This stream, along with several others, discharges into the larger Simpson Creek. As Simpson Creek’s historical water tables continue to rise, a cascade of long-avoidable problems emerges across other legacy areas of what was once a proud and thriving city.

 

History - Devaluations

A partial excerpt from “It Was the Worst of Times” addresses strategic planning undertaken by certain societal leaders - that relied irrevocably on the acquisition of developmental areas through aggressive property devaluation techniques.

An onsite examination message received from Munich in March 2012: “The engineering plans for the slope and retention pond were not followed in any regard. As such, they have devalued your property in the process."

This revelation in regard to a developmental effort that additionally added the State of West Virginia, Federal Funding, and a shifting strategic initiatives. These initiatives involved the creation of situation-ally linked Limited Liability Companies, including Platinum Properties, Petroplus and Associates, Platinum Leasing, Petroplus Lane, Petroplus Properties, and potentially others.

The significance of these connections becomes clearer in light of a former City Manager’s prescient warnings, per the Bridgeport Planning Commission - Exhibit A: Memorandum for Bridgeport Planning, which was stapled to the developer's plans:

“Encroachment of business activity will radically disturb current boundaries. Once those boundaries are pierced, encroachment will be nearly impossible to control—creating a cancerous effect. Suburbia will experience rapidly decreasing property values, leading to the deterioration of our central neighborhoods. Residential communities will begin to crumble. The City should not consider zoning actions at the whim of any individual.”

Despite these warnings, the City and its chosen developer proceeded where the legacy areas affected would be far more extensive than could have imagined.

History - Partners Vested Interests - Phase One- 109 & 113 Platinum Drive

Platinum Property’s Phase One Expansion Summary of Events and Issues:

1. Site Engineering & Zoning Failures

• The approved Site Engineering Plans were not followed, and zoning requirements were ignored.

• A private property owner’s Multi-Generational Grid Fence Line was improperly used as the retaining wall and sole support for a steep, loose-fill earthen slope.

2. Structural Dependence & Utility Misplacement

• The loose-fill slope became the only lateral support for the developer’s two buildings.

• Utilities were uncoordinated, improperly placed, and restricted by undersized drainage lines.

• The entire Phase One development became structurally dependent on the adjoining landowner’s private grid fence line.

3. Zoning Manipulation & Delay Tactics

• After the adjoining landowner raised concerns about zoning violations and the use of the fence line, the developer and city (acting as pre-partners) swiftly rezoned the area within a few days.

• The landowner’s concerns were met with delays and deflections, which later coincided with background transfers involving Federal funds, solidifying a City–Developer partnership for Phase Two.

• Once the partnership was finalized, the landowner was effectively told to “take a hike.”

4. Immediate and Progressive Property Damage

• Following the dismissal of concerns, Millions in Damgages occurred to Private, Commercial, and Public Infrastures.

• Damages, which would go on to affect a much larger topographical footprint.

5. Environmental and Regulatory Complaints

• A Retired City of Bridgeport Supervisor informed the landowner that the developer had removed two retention ponds located above the affected area.

• August 2004: A U.S. Forestry Complaint was filed by the same Retired City of Bridgeport Supervisor, citing extensive drainage and sediment runoff.

6. Written Agreement and Insurance Conditions:

• Platinum Properties issued a Written Agreement to correct the Phase One expansion’s lateral support and drainage deficiencies.

• The Developer's Cincinnati Insurance confirmed this corrective action was a condition of future insurability for Platinum Properties’ developments.

7. Breach and Further Expansion

• The agreement was never acted upon, leaving the landowners with false assurances of compliance.

• The written agreement’s existence, however, provided sufficient legal appearance of resolution, allowing the City–Developer partners to proceed with the now Federally Funded Phase Two.

Large City Net Slope

• A now partnership between the City of Bridgeport, Platinum Properties, and the State of West Virginia.

• Federal Dollars are allocated, enabling continued, yet questionable, Developmental Expansion.

• A previously untouched forest is cleared with Construction including massive support slope. A “Ski-Slope” with a Storm water retention pond.

History - Non Corrected Phase One Returns

• 2006: Phase One Issues Resurfaces with a vengence. A rear lot area lacks lateral support, and drainage-softened ground exhibits traffic rutting. Damage to underground utilities and drainage lines becomes a predictable outcome. (Drainage backs up to a coal seam beneath one of the developer’s buildings, causing the structure to lift from the ground.)

• The failure to adhere to the agreement results in A Once-Correctible Situation → Non-Followed Written Agreement → Irreparable Damage AND irreversible harm to private property, a federally funded development and US Highway.

• August 2007: Platinum Properties conducts a highly questionable repair at their initial Phase One, 109 & 113 Platinum Drive location—a property that had been quit-claimed to the asset-poor Platinum Leasing during the onset of Phase One’s structural issues in late 2006.

• September 2007: Repairs by Platinum Properties draw comparisons to pre-1990 Eastern Europe. Observer remark: “This is not American behavior.” An assessment from one of the most internationally connected and business-savvy individuals likely to have visited West Virginia, highlighting the severity of the situation.

• March 2008: The developer’s sister company—previously cited as an anchor for the overall development—is scrutinized regarding the extension of existing, questionable utility infrastructure.

• 2010: Whether through loans or grants, the developer and their partners still continued to receive additional federal funding despite prior damages, mismanagement and dangerous if not criminal infrastructure concerns.

History - Notorious Design Concerns Of Phase Two

Timeline and Record of Corpening Drive Retention Pond Issues

• 2005: Federally funded Corpening Drive Retention Pond is constructed. Five years post-construction, no entity assumes oversight responsibility for the pond.

• EPA guidance: Wet detention ponds should be inspected after every storm event; failure to correct minor issues may result in expensive repairs or pond failure. Typical maintenance includes removal of sediment.

• February 2010: An adjoining landowner provides written and oral notices identifying deficiencies in the pond’s developmental drainage design.

• July 2011: The adjoining landowner uploads Public Notice and submits official notifications regarding the design deficiencies and non-maintenance of the storm drainage retention system for the Partner’s Phase Two expansions.

• Days later, a neglected, sediment-filled retention pond fails, causing downstream impacts to the city.

• October 2011: An internationally renowned, multi-degreed professional conducts an extensive area examination and record search.

• Systemic failures are noted, described as a “societal breakdown” and “not American Engineering.” Also advises the adjoining landowner on the potential hardships to those of weaker standing.

• March 2012: A communication from Munich confirms that the engineering plans were not followed in any regard.

• June 2012: Seven years after construction, massive sediment removal occurs in the Corpening Drive storm drainage retention pond.

• July 2012: The adjoining landowner discovers serious record changes involving property transfers between two cities and his.

 

Strategic Infrastructure Plans That Relied On A Decade Of Legally Ran Oversight

The above results were made possible by the long-term Strategic Infrastructure Plans of a vested few who relied upon the eventual use of Federal Dollars. Without the planned use of those federal funds, the events described above would never have occurred.

Next - Great For The State...

 

@Copyright 2011