Concrete Plant Proposed for Point Washington

[Smiling JOe]

I thought this item seemed important enough to justify its own thread.

The proposed concrete plant is slated to be on the water in Pt Washington, according to Commissioner Commander. She is very concerned that the vocal Pt Washington people were lacking in attendance at tonight's Board of County Commissioner's Meeting, and thought that people might not be aware of the plans for the concrete plant, so the commissioners tabled the discussion until the next meeting in South Walton, on June 10, so that the residents of Pt Washington and concerned citizens could have a chance to be properly heard. I hear that concrete plants are very harmful to the environment, but I couldn't tell you one reason as to why, off the top of my head. I'll be doing a little research on the subject. If you have any concerns of a concrete plant going into Pt Washington, I'd recommend emailing your County Commissioners with those concerns, or showing up in person to voice your opinion at the June 10 BCC meeting in SoWal at the Courthouse Annex. The County Commissioners were kind enough to reschedule this item for the next SoWal meeting rather than Defuniak, so it is obvious that they want to be sure to hear your concerns or objections before allowing such plant to be approved.

All comments regarding this issue are welcome. Let's hear some pros and cons.

 

[John R]

Where in Pt. Washington?

cons: trucks tearing up the already lacking roads
heavy traffic through neighborhoods at 7am
heavy equipment at speed through neighborhoods
consumption of who knows how much public water(i assume they'll draw from the intercoastal)
potential discharge back into the intercoastal
possible lowered resale values due to heavy industry in surrounding neighborhoods

pros: jobs
hopefully cheaper concrete locally
possibly cheaper(competitive) gravel and fill rates against jos. stein
???

 

[Smiling JOe]

John R, I understand this project is proposed on the property where they tried to build the asphalt plant, on the east side of Peach Creek and the IntraCoastal, and that the trucks would not be coming through residential areas, unless they happened to be pouring on a site in a neighborhood. Sounds like the owner of that property is subdividing the property and the proposed site will be on the newly split parcel, and not on the exact site where the asphalt plant was proposed.

Now I believe they have to have an environmental impact study done I'll ask the Mrs's. By the way I think the EPA and folks In Bunker may have a big say, not to mention us Pt. Washington people. I took a look at the proposed blue prints and the setbacks have changed quite a bit. They also are supposed to notify the public but I made about 30 phone calls and nothing mailed and it was the first anybody new about it.

Technically, they are required to mail notices to only the people owning within 300ft from the proposed plant, and the notice required is a sign posted by the County, on the property. As very few people ever drive down the road, the sign was never seen by the people who would be concerned. If this property is on the Intra-Coastal Waterway, as Comm. Commander states, everyone living on the water in that area and on Peach Creek, should be made aware.

 

[Kurt]

There is a big difference between cement and concrete. Cement is much more problematic. Drive down Old Ferry Road just east of Peach Creek and you may be surprised to see 2 concrete plants and an asphalt plant. There has also been some activity on the north side of the intracoastal waterway. Might be something related to the airport.

 

[Rita]

There is a big difference between cement and concrete. Cement is problematic. Drive down Old Ferry Road just east of Peach Creek and you may be surprised to see 2 concrete plants and an asphalt plant. There has also been some activity on the north side of the intracoastal waterway. Might be something related to the airport.

.

I didn't even catch that. As Gilda Radner would have said, "Nevver Miinnd!".. I have deleted that post so as to not cause confusion.


.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Well I hope I am correct in my understanding of a this project being a "concrete" plant. Kurt, are you saying that concrete plants are not harmful to the environment?

 

[Franny]

There is already a concrete plant on the east side of Peach Creek. Is there a need for another one???? My first concern is for the environment but also the NOISE the plant creates. And no the current plant is not located in a neighborhood, but the trucks and home owners share Ferry Rd. Putting June 10 on the calendar.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Do the existing plants put off enough light pollution that you can detect from your house, Franny?

 

[futurebeachbum]

Concrete Plants are very corrosive

In a previous life, when I was an Outside Plant Engineer (the folks who engineer the poles, cables, manholes, etc.. for the phone company) I went to a special class just for dealing with concrete plants.

I remember in the class being told that it was the most challenging environment that our equipment had to operate in. The dust floating around a concrete plant is incredibly corrosive and penetrated and destroyed our equipment no matter how well sealed. We ended up replacing the equipment in those plants every 5-7 years (compared to every 30 years for normal places,)

I don't really know how they impact the environment. It may be that the corrosive elements are only on the property and don't drift far, but its hard to imagine with construction having slowed some in the past couple of years why we would need another one.

Is this being driven by the 331 bridge project?

FBB

 

[greenroomsurfer]

I would bring up the endangered Choctahachee Sturgeon about now. Hummmm and the Bald eagle that nest there. Oh yea and the Indian relics scattered about, things I learned in St. Augustine to have this kind of thing shut down.