Throw in just enough truth to make your position sound reasonable and ignore the facts that place your position on shakier ground.

Many people tried to work with Mark to aquire a floor, a building or more long before his divorce. Those failed deals have but one thing in common. Mark Saroff. That also happens to be the only commonality in the deals that have failed since the divorce.

Mark's property rights do NOT superceed anyone else's property or other rights and yet, Ernie Gross had his property summarily taken from him (or at least significantly reduced in value) due primarily to the efforts of those incapable of critical thought to protect Mark's property rights to the exclusion of all else. Those properties did not just become a fire hazard or a health hazard. This has been a long term issue, decades long.

Ernie Gross' business was a bit more than a "woodworking shop". That makes it sound like it was a hobby room. The man ran a high end, custom, cabinet and furniture factory. He had hardwoods that had been curing for several decades and some exotica that simply can not be replaced. He had several employees and quite a bit of equipment and computers. No matter how much he was insured for, much of what is gone will take longer than many of us will likely live to replace. Some of it will never be replaced.

Finally, the value of Mark's or anyone else's property rights are not infinite. If one considers the cost of fighting the fire, the value of Ernie's building/business, the cost of the fish kill in the creek and subsequently, the river, the costs of repainting, replacing, or repairing all the vehicles damaged by the drifting hot debris, the hourly value of the time of all those people who were drug out of their abodes for several hours due to the fire, and the costs of all the things I have neglected to mention, Saroff's rights start to dim. If you additionally considerall that plus the fact that if the city "took" his property, they would have paid him for it, the position of the rep(of morons) doesn't look so reasonable.

But then, he isn't really known for his critical thought abilities is he?

CAFKIA

----------------------------------------------------------- 

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
  - William G. McAdoo

It's probably fair to criticize Saroff for taking so long to do something. It's probably fair to criticize the city for not acting sooner to force a resolution.

It's also probably fair to criticize the anti-e.d. "movement" and "The Rep"'s involvement in it that happened around the time that the McClung situation appeared to be coming to a resolution one way or another, if I recall correctly, and the resulting political environment that may have made the city back off when they maybe should have pressed harder.

But I don't really know enough about it. Everything I read or hear about it comes with an agenda and a point of view. But the facts are that it was a terrible loss, especially for Gross as you point out. Who did he buy that property from? I wonder what his expectations were for the block? I wonder if he ever thought about relocating?

It would be pretty easy to feel sorry for Saroff. Actually, I do in a way. I don't know him or enough about his situation or what forces he was up against, internal or otherwise.

But it's like I was telling the Mrs. What if your neighbor for whatever reason let his house deteriorate and there were rats and vagrants and all sorts of trouble. Would you feel sorry for him or would you want him to fix it or for the city to condemn it? Well, you could just move, right? But do you think you could get what you wanted or needed to get for your house with that sitting next to you?

It's a screwed up situation. But I think most people agree that the public interest enters in to it at some point, and that your property rights end where mine begin.

It's a screwed up situation. But I think most people agree that the public interest enters in to it at some point, and that your property rights end where mine begin.

The only reason that property had any value at all, is because of you, me, and us. If those buildings were sitting on ten acres in rural and remote Arizona or Nevada, their value would be nearly $0 for most folks I know. Their value is determined by the value of property near them, by the desirability of the community as a place to live and work. This is what the property rights knee-jerkers always fail to consider. Yes, the used and aged brick and wood in the structures could have been sold on ebay for a million or two but, the value of the property is based soley on it's location in downtown knoxpatch and the proximity of desirable places. That is why we have a say in what happens. Because that property affects our lives and our property values. The discussion isn't even worth having until that point is understood by all parties.

CAFKIA

----------------------------------------------------------- 

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
  - William G. McAdoo

The Rep's post is interesting in that it uses the present tense to describe buildings that are now rubble. He must still be in denial. It's also interesting that he is opposed to the city forcing Saroff into a fair-value sale (ie. eminent domain taking) but advocates demolishing the buildings and billing Saroff.

I think it's time to re-focus this "rights" discussion onto "responsibilities".

It seems that the Rep. is saying that the "City", meaning us the taxpayers were RESPONSIBLE for securing Mark's buildings… He doesn’t frame it that way, but that is the logical conclusion to his argument.

Has he really thought that out? Is Campfield as an elected representative arguing that city taxpayers should be on the hook for the unknown sum it would have taken to stabilize and secure those buildings?

What were/are Mark’s responsibilities in this situation? What were/are the responsibilities of the City of Knoxville and KCDC and the mortgage holders who basically “enabled” this situation?

As to the portrait of Mark as a victim, it was in everybody’s best interest if he could have been capable of renovating the buildings, but he wasn’t. He has been offered from 3-6 (some say 9) million dollars for those buildings over the years. If he loved the buildings so much and loved Downtown so much and cared to support his family he could and should have sold them!!!

It didn’t even have to be all or nothing. If he would have sold one building, he could have renovated the next one. To my knowledge he never followed the model followed by Dewhirst and others in pre-selling units and then using those contracts to secure financing.

I support property rights to a degree. I understand fears of a corrupt or abusive government employing ED willy-nilly, but I agree with Kim Trent of Knox Heritage, there has to be a balance.

There are lessons to be learned from this situation despite the apparent bone-headedness of Campfield and Steve Hall. We are very lucky more of downtown didn’t go up in smoke, that more firefighters weren’t injured or killed and that no nearby residents were killed.

My primary concern is the fact that a warehouse built for 19th century rail use is always going to be a precarious fire hazard. Regardless of sprinklers and proper partitions, you have one direction that cannot be adequately protected by fire services. Those northern rail tracks might as well be the walls of Troy to heavy fire apparatus.

Basically in this case the only real way to get equipment, including the ill-fated Ladder 3 was to use Jackson. That's one direction. KFD's media guy said on WATE that they had to get close because of the wind. Ugly scene all around.