Apartment retention ponds need fencing; inaction is costing lives

Thank you for your article on local retention ponds (Aug. 21, “Father: A fence may have prevented 9-yearold’s death”).

For many years, I have wondered why there aren’t restrictions on those ponds. It seems absurd to fence swimming pools yet ignore those bodies of water that often are just a few feet from someone’s door.

I think we all know exactly why they aren’t fenced: Residential development companies are extremely powerful in central Ohio, and for years their wealthy interests have steamrolled anyone who opposed them.

Unfenced ponds save money when they are built, and fenced retention ponds seem less aesthetically appealing. Developers don’t care that many parents avoid their complexes because of the danger – it’s a cost-factor trade-off for them. They build, sell and get the heck out of Dodge.

It’s past time to do something about that danger, and the lame excuse about servicing the pond given by the rep for the apartment industry is ridiculous. If fenced, all they would have to do is make wider gates to get their maintenance equipment into the pond areas.

This is all about market aesthetics. They should be made to answer for their reluctance to put safety over appearance while ignoring the human collateral damage.

Sue Linden, Columbus