ShareThis Page

Flood aftermath costs residents

| Friday, July 13, 2007

While Mayor Aileen Reid sought ways Thursday to get flood relief money for the borough, residents continued to scrub, drain and fret.

Indiana Avenue resident Rhoda Aikins, 79, said 3 1/2 feet of sewage filled her basement last week. The water blew the lid off of one of her two sump pumps and ruined her hot water heater, she said.

The tomatoes in her garden also were spoiled by the flow of tainted "fertilizer."

"Oh, what a mess," she said. "It was all mud. And, of course, now I'm stuck. I've got no one to help."

Aikins said she plans to put the $300 water heater on credit now that she knows no state or federal money is on the way.

"I'm a widow, so I don't have that much coming in," she said. " 'Course, when my husband was alive, I didn't have that much coming in, either.

"I think they ought to help us at least a little bit," she said. "Or maybe the county. Heck, I'd take money from the borough. At least $50."

Julie Sieczkowski, 73, of Westmoreland Avenue said she was relaxing at her sister's house last week when her son called.

"He called me and said, 'You better come home -- your house is flooded.'"

Sieczkowski said she has spent about $1,000 so far on flood damage. She's gone through 12 boxes of bleach scrubbing her basement, she said.

"I'm covered for everything but sewage, and that's what I got," she said.

Immediately after the flood, Sieczkowski said she called county officials and asked them to reimburse her for the cost of cleaning up her basement.

She was turned down.

"I know it's not their fault that it rained," she said. "I said, 'Just please help us with the water I use for cleaning.' But I am grateful I could do my own cleaning."

Still, the hours of cleaning are taking their toll, she said.

"I'm an old lady," Sieczkowski said. "I don't even have a husband to holler at and say, 'Do this, do that.'"

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me