The fact that the county has a lot of empty space at existing parks and in brownfields shouldn't matter.

Hmm. They qualify that remark somewhat in their next sentence...

Different companies have different needs, and it's crucial to have a diverse portfolio of available locations to remain competitive.

...but they fail to explain in what way this particular project adds to the "diversity" of the county's existing offerings.

You should have signed your name to it as much as you bitch about gutless anonymous bloggers.

Nice how the paper preserves the double standard of calling everyone else cowards while they hide behind the "honored" tradition of the anonymous editorial staff.

So Scott, would you call that advocacy journalism, or something more yellow? Nice double entendre eh? See yellow has more than one meaning there.

Editorials by definition have a point of view, even if you don't agree with it.

I think more troublesome is a business reporter (not Josh Flory or Carly Harrington) who expressed pretty much the same opinion on his blog. Now what are we to make of this reporter's objectivity in any future coverage of the controversy, assuming he ever writes about it again?

The park will have its own septic system, which will restrict the types of tenants and avoid the need for a sewer line that could open up the region for a more sprawling development.

This system will be a major liability for any business that goes in that park. It will fail under the load of chemicals that will go in it even if they do try and limit it to domestic strength waste.

Then the taxpayers will start getting soaked by lawsuits, as if we haven't already been soaked enough by this real estate boondogle masquerading as a job-creator.

Tod Napier of TDC said that we should make this the greenest industrial park in the US. Well putting an industrial park on septic is not green. Unless green is the color your want your well water to be.

That editorial has glaring weaknesses.

It implies that the sector plan specifically includes "the" business park as proposed by TDC, when it's actually a zoning document that sets parameters for a business park. This project has always been a tail-wagging-the-dog proposal, and TDC wants to get Commission as far down the road as possible before asking for money. Talking as if approving the sector plan equates to approving the business park puts KNS on the side of duping Knox Co into a big expenditure.

It also relies on growth projections that are essentially worthless in the current economic climate. Changes in both energy and credit markets are making old, safe development concepts obsolete. KNS shows little comprehension of how the future has changed in the wake of the disastrous Bush presidency they helped perpetuate.

Finally, they belittle the East Knox community by implying that I-40 already ruined it, when the sector plan itself makes clear how much rural character remains. KNS passed up a good opportunity to encourage Commission to make good on a lot of the conservation planning outlined in the sector plan. There are seeds for smart planning in that document, but Commission has to cultivate them.

It's ironic that this editorial appears concurrently with a big story on Mike Ross's failed developments because this sort of stale boosterism for a project conceived in an easier era is a good recipe for more failure. It's going to take creative thinking to bring smart development to East Knox County, and it looks like the Sentinel is behind even TDC on that front.

Finally, they belittle the East Knox community by implying that I-40 already ruined it, when the sector plan itself makes clear how much rural character remains.

We've been out to the Seven Islands refuge a couple of times. Didn't look ruined to me.

I'm sure nobody is surprised that I disagree with the editorial. What I didn't expect is that the argument would be so poor. A rather lukewarm and weak editorial, in my opinion.

Then again, trying to think of good reasons to justify a business park at that site, I come up short myself. If they had a prospect that was a perfect fit for the site, if they could show that there was some benefit to the location that isn't available at the other sites, if they were willing to discuss alternative uses for the property, if they were forthcoming with the facts and the history and didn't keep changing things up to suit the situation and the audience - I might accept arguments that were well-made and fact-based.

The vague "we need it for future business" and "it will bring jobs" just doesn't get it for me.

On the other hand, I can easily think of a dozen factual reasons why this property is a bad choice and why TDC shouldn't be allowed to move forward with this plan.

I think a lot of Scott Barker and cannot believe he wrote the editorial in question. Even if he did, I think it surely must have been an assignment and one not of his own choosing. I cannot agree with The Sentinel editorial and still think it is simply a bad idea altogether.

Maybe someone could email this to Scott Barker and Jack McElroy. I don't think Mike Edwards can understand it. Or would care to learn.

(link...)

"Karst aquifers are susceptible to contamination due to features like sinkholes and caverns providing a conduit for contamination, McKay said in a UT press release. He went on to call for more studies to assess the overall health impact in the area.

Waterborne contamination affects people to varying degrees, with some people having no symptoms and others becoming seriously ill or even dying."

At least there will be lawsuits to boost the local economy. Uh wait, won't the taxpayers be the Plaintiffs? Maybe that isn't so great after all.

Right now the swing votes are Tony Norman, Craig Leuthold, Mike Brown, Mike Hammond, Tank Strickland, and Ed Shouse. Go visit a spell with those folks and let them know how you feel about risk and low return.

What I really can't understand is with all the risks associated with the project, the likelihood that no company will be willing to locate there, and the possibility that the same thing will happen to Thorn Grove as happened to TDC's other sinkhole project, Burnette's Creek, which cost the City of Knoxville millions to correct, why any politician would put their career on the line for Midway Road industrial park.

There is enough information spread across the internet that any company who would be considering locating here who does a modicum of due diligence would be very leery of locating at Midway Road. Not only is the pollution possibility and liability a concern, but also the indisputable fact that the property is located on the opposite end of the county from the airport, supporting businesses and the educated workforce. There is absolutely no amenities except for the interstate location and there are other business parks with better location and with CONTIGUOUS property available.

That is a common misconception about the Midway property - that it will offer contiguous land - the reality is that because they have to work with the giant drainfields and work around the sinkholes and the slopes that are above 15%, not to mention the KUB and TVA facilities to be located there, the "green" stormwater structures, roads and other infrastructure, they are going to end up with the same thing we have at the other business parks - 25 acre plots.

Who is responsible if they create the business park and it doesn't work? Will Mike Edwards and Todd Napier and Rhonda Rice and all the others be willing to put their jobs on the line if no one will locate in their park? What about their projection of 5,000 new jobs - have they got ANYTHING to back that number up? Here's a hint - the only jobs that have come here in the last several years to business parks is roughly 250 at Sysco and 230 at Green Mountain. Sea Ray has come and mostly already gone. The answer is that 5,000 jobs is wildly optimistic. I think it is time that someone is held accountable for this - just like the private sector, if they can't produce what they say they can, they should be fired.

Who will be financially responsible if the groundwater is polluted? Is anybody who is so certain this will work willing to sign a statement taking financial responsibility if the water gets contaminated because of the business park? I didn't think so.

I could go on, but I'm sure folks are as tired of hearing about it as I am of talking about it.