Posted on

Freight Container Remains Lodged In Ho-Ho-Kus Brook – Removal Expenses May Be BOE’s Responsibility

>

A freight container weighing in excess of 10,000 pounds remains lodged in the Ho-Ho-Kus Brook near Ridgewood High School after washing away during Sunday’s torrential downpour and striking the Ridgewood Avenue bridge. The bridge sustained minor structural damage, but was deemed safe for continued pedestrian and motor vehicle use by Village Engineer Christopher Rutishauser.

Despite previous posts on this blog suggesting the container may have washed downstream from a point miles above, it is now believed to have been located on the property of Ridgewood High School. The Village’s engineering staff is currently evaluating methods for the container’s safe removal; unconfirmed reports are that it may be resting on top of a water main. If the container is confirmed to be the property of, or leased by, Ridgewood’s Board of Education, all costs associated with its removal will most likely be billed back to the BOE.

13 thoughts on “Freight Container Remains Lodged In Ho-Ho-Kus Brook – Removal Expenses May Be BOE’s Responsibility

  1. >”Um, couldn’t the container have been washed downstream from an upriver source??? If you look at the volume and velocity of water coming down the brook, a large container could be carried for miles! Why the ass – umption that it came from BOE property??? A flood carries everything in it’s path downstream.”\

    Looks pretty big to have washed downstream from anywhere north of the North Irving Street bridge.

    Let this be a wake up call; the BOE and Village should check all fields to ensure nothing like this ever happens again. Someone walking on the bridge could have been killed when that container hit it. Those portable light trailers should be banned immediately!

  2. >Yes… lets tie this all together… I am sure that a 20 YEAR STORM can be linked to the portable light trailers that you dont personally care for.

    Stop worrying about your own backyard. Maybe, just maybe, we can learn from this storm, and the next time something like this is expected, we will secure those lights, any potential dangerous issues (this container) can be moved or secured. OR… should we ban them for good?

    Lets ban looking up into the sky… it might be falling.

    Idiot.

  3. >”I am sure that a 20 YEAR STORM . . . “

    Tropical Storm Floyd hit the Village hard in September of 1999. A severe rain storm also caused similar field damages (and flooded Village Hall) in October of 2005.

    So let’s forget that 20 year crap; water damage from overflowing streams, brooks, and rivers is happening much more frequently now in this area due to continued building development.

    I concurn, securing all potentially damaging items may be an acceptable substitute for outright bans.

  4. >If we have permanent lights at all fields then we don’t have to worry about them washing away. 😉

  5. >”If we have permanent lights at all fields then we don’t have to worry about them washing away. ;)”

    Certainly, permanent lights would be much preferred over the noisy and intrusive portable light trailers. However lights at ALL fields would just be plain overkill.

  6. >”However lights at ALL fields would just be plain overkill.”

    I know, I was just trying to be funny. ha.

  7. >Wasnt Floyd supposed to be a 200 year flood?

    Umm its 2007, I think this is becoming the norm.

    The container in question was in use underneath the stands at RHS and contains some sort of field or gym equipment.

  8. >”Umm its 2007, I think this is becoming the norm.”

    That’s correct. It’s the price we pay for dropping mcmansions just about everywhere!

  9. >maybe the steel container shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Then we wouldn’t have the problem.

  10. >boy you have such a way with words.you chump.and a wize ass to.

  11. >some one is pulling the whool over my eyes.

  12. >you dont need a engineer to pull a container out of a brook.just a back hoe,you a. h.,.e.

  13. >thats rite my boy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.