County Commission Workshop on East County Sector Plan

Mon

Apr 19 2010

03:21 pm

By: Lisa Starbuck

What: County Commission Workshop on East County Sector Plan
When: Thursday, April 22, 2010 - 6:00pm
Where: Carter High School Auditorium

The Knox County Commission is coming to Carter High School to get public input and learn more before they vote on the East County Sector Plan, which includes the controversial Midway Road business park.

Most of the discussion will be focused on the proposed business park because that is what the community has an objection to. Almost all of the other concepts in the sector plan update are recycled from the 2000 sector plan, just with fancy names. All of the conservation overlays and concepts are great, but without any ordinances to give them teeth, they are just pretty words.

This sector plan update began in May 2008 and was completed in February 2010. They had 9 meetings total during that 20 month timeframe, only one of which they actively solicited input during the meeting. The rest of the meetings were mostly presentations, and very little ended up being changed except to add Midway Business park to the plan. That seems to be pre-ordained because the overwhelming public input of those who bothered to attend the sector plan meetings was against adding the business park.

Most people aren't aware that this is the third time that MPC and TDC have tried to create this business park at Midway. The 2000 sector plan process where most of the work was actually done that you see in the 2010 sector plan update took 17 total meetings over an 11 month timeframe, with at least 5 of those being meetings where dialogue about the concepts was held and public input was gathered. At the very last meeting, the community was told that MPC had decided to insert an industrial park at Midway Road. Long story short, the community hired a lawyer and over three meetings with MPC staff, negotiated the business park idea out of the plan.

So if you're wondering why the community is so bent out of shape about all this, it's because the MPC and TDC have been manipulative and deceptive during this whole process. And that's the plain truth and I have the documents to back it up.

All of the conservation

Submitted by Rachel on Mon, 2010/04/19 - 4:11pm.

All of the conservation overlays and concepts are great, but without any ordinances to give them teeth, they are just pretty words.

Pretty words first; then ordinances. Ordinances can't be done in plans (as Lisa well knows; I just mention this for those of you who may not).

It's vitally important that we see those pretty words turn into realities, and I will do whatever I can to make that happen.

Pretty Words

Submitted by Lisa Starbuck on Mon, 2010/04/19 - 4:41pm.

True, but since these conservation concepts and overlays have been included in the sector plan since 2000, don't you think they've had enough time to create an ordinance in 10 years to actually implement them? That argument doesn't fly with me.

Also some of the things they include in the plan are pure fantasy - they talk about using tools such as Transfer of Development Rights, or TDR. I was the chair of a 2009 committee who met for 6 months on this concept, and it was ultimately decided that it wouldn't fly in Knox County and our official recommendation from the committee to Knox County Commission said that. So why the hell is it in the sector plan?

.

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Mon, 2010/04/19 - 4:44pm.

"So why the hell is it in the sector plan?"

The people near Flenniken are asking why there is a MPC. When City Council overrides MPC twice it seems to be a reasonable question. Is MPC a paper tiger?

It appears that there are no rules in either the city or the county. It is the Golden Rule, those that have the Gold make the rules.

.

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Mon, 2010/04/19 - 10:32pm.

Question, how much of the site is in the City of Knoxville? Do both City Council and County Commission have to approve moving forward?

City

Submitted by Lisa Starbuck on Mon, 2010/04/19 - 10:34pm.

None of the site is located in the city. However, parts of the sector are in the city, so they also have to approve the plan.

"None of the site is located

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Mon, 2010/04/19 - 10:36pm.

"None of the site is located in the city. However, parts of the sector are in the city, so they also have to approve the plan."

Should the City not approve the Sector Plan would that affect the site going forward for Commission approval?

Good question

Submitted by Lisa Starbuck on Mon, 2010/04/19 - 10:43pm.

According to Mark Donaldson, the answer is no. But I don't know that it has ever been tested - the sector plans are part of PC1101, which says the city and county have to reach agreement on their plans. So my answer would be yes, they need to agree, and there are others who say it would create problems to have two different plans adopted by each body. As far as who votes first, it will come before Commission first on April 26th, then Council on May 4th.

I've been told that County

Submitted by Rachel on Tue, 2010/04/20 - 12:10am.

I've been told that County Commission approval only goes to the County part of the plan, and City Council approval to the City part.

So, for example, if Council passes it and Commission doesn't, the sector plan will be updated for the city parts but not the county parts. And vice versa.

This would mean that City Council approval has nada to do with Midway.

I'm not an attorney, tho, I'm only passing along what I've heard from several different people who should know.

What do you think are our

Submitted by sugarfatpie on Mon, 2010/04/19 - 9:15pm.

What do you think are our chances of getting any ordinances?

Ordinances

Submitted by Lisa Starbuck on Mon, 2010/04/19 - 9:54pm.

Alex,

I really don't know what the chances are - I think it will depend on whether City Council or County Commission pushes for them. I'm a little more hopeful about City Council, but we have also been told that there is no funding to work on these concepts, although they are going to try and work it in sometime in the future.

There are some people in govt who think conservation concepts equate to communism or socialism - so it will take quite a bit of effort to overcome that.

Certainly voices like Rachel's on MPC could help turn the tide. I guess time will tell.

It appears that there are no

Submitted by Rachel on Mon, 2010/04/19 - 5:20pm.

It appears that there are no rules in either the city or the county.

Wrt to MPC, there are rules. Some MPC decisions are final. Some, like Use on Review decisions, can be appealed to Council. Some, like rezonings because these are actual ordinance changes, must be approved by the appropriate legislative body.

If you're interested in the details of "the rules" let me know and I can send you more info.

Yes, Lisa, stuff moves too slowly. All we can do is push. I'm just one person, but I'm pledging to do so. That seems a more productive use of my time than bashing folks for what did (or did not) happen in the past.

P.S. Frankly, I'm also tired of the "nobody listens to the community" stuff. Sometimes it's true, but not it this case. Just because a decision was made that an individual doesn't agree with doesn't mean s/he wasn't listened to. I can guarantee you that the vast majority of MPC Commissioners carefully considered their vote on the East Sector Plan. It came out different from what you wanted (and from how I voted). That doesn't mean no one was listening.

And another thing

Submitted by Lisa Starbuck on Mon, 2010/04/19 - 6:12pm.

I know staff told you about the 2002 industrial site survey and said that's when they identified Midway as desirable. Bet they didn't mention the 2000 effort to put it in the sector plan and the deal we worked out with them to take it out, did they?

I do appreciate yours and other commissioners' efforts to push things along to be more sustainable and I am cognizant of the fact that MPC Commissioners are unpaid volunteers. But staff is not, and that's where the real rub is for me - they work for us and the neighborhoods are fed up with them and their attitude. Not just the 8th District - there is plenty of discontent to go around with neighborhoods throughout Knox County.

Listening

Submitted by Lisa Starbuck on Mon, 2010/04/19 - 6:04pm.

You know, it's not MPC Commissioners I take issue with so much as the staff not listening. It is clear that they listened to the Development Corporation and weighted their input more than ours. There were a handful of realtors and developers who also supported the business park. Wonder why they would care, if this is really not about creating a new sprawl engine for East Knox County with visions of subdivisions and strip malls and gas stations dancing in their heads?

What really toasts me is that MPC staff made a deal with the community in 2000 - they took out the business park and the community agreed to allow 100 acres of land at the exit to be zoned commercial because MPC said there was immediate demand for it. It was a trade and MPC has renigged on their part. Of course, 10 years later there still is no commercial at that exit, which goes to prove that MPC staff aren't as prophetic as they think they are.

I know staff told you about

Submitted by Rachel on Mon, 2010/04/19 - 8:24pm.

Staff didn't "tell" me anything. I reviewed all the documents and history for myself, and LISTENED to all concerned. Listening is how I knew the history of the 2000 sector plan.

Look, I think arguing that we didn't include the industrial park in 2000 so we don't need it now is a weak argument. Things change in 10 years. There are better arguments to be made, and I've heard you make them.

My allergies are making me exceedingly grumpy,and for that I apologize, but I'm also just not interested in hearing arguments that demonize anybody (pro or con). I'm sick of hearing that TDC is the devil and MPC is their assistant (I also don't like hearing personal comments directed at the neighborhood people, but honestly, I've heard a lot fewer of those).

One thing that made it harder for me to make an objective decision about my vote was the amount of this kind of stuff that was tossed around - it made me not want to vote for the folks who were doing it. In the end, I think my vote was objective, but decision-makers are human beings and most don't like hearing people attack others. They'd rather hear the arguments without the personal attack.

You can take that as instructive or not.

I challenge any county commissioner to make the case for Midway

Submitted by sugarfatpie on Wed, 2010/04/28 - 7:08pm.

Look, I think arguing that we didn't include the industrial park in 2000 so we don't need it now is a weak argument. Things change in 10 years. There are better arguments to be made, and I've heard you make them.

I think Lisa's point is the basis for a powerful argument. MPC did not honor their agreement with the community. Regardless of the legality of it, the move is bad politics. Any city or county-wide elected official should approach the issue of this park with great care.

Would any county commissioner want to be identified with broken agreements between neighborhoods and local government? With back room deals where real estate brokers pass thousand dollar checks to county commissioners? Is that what honest people go into politics for?

Should all negotiations between the county and neighborhoods have a 10 year lifespan? You only have to keep your word for 10 years and then all bets are off due to the doctrine of "things change". This does not sound like smart politics. I can't think of a single commissioner who would publicly advocate for such an approach towards governance in their own district. Can you?

This kind of approach toward governance invites lawsuits. It is irresponsible to expose the taxpayers of Knox Co. to endless litigation.

I think Lisa's point is the

Submitted by Rachel on Wed, 2010/04/28 - 8:38pm.

I think Lisa's point is the basis for a powerful argument. MPC did not honor their agreement with the community.

The agreeement was for the 2000 sector plan, not forever. Sector plans are actually supposed to be updated every 5-7 years; the east sector plan is overdue.

It is not realistic to think that an agreement made for one sector plan is good for the next. That would be bad planning, since it wouldn't allow for changes in circumstances (and would basically negate the need to do sector plans - should someone in 2050 say "we agreed to all this in 2000. Why do we need to do it again?")

Like I said, there are much better arguments against a BP at Midway than to harp on "bad faith" and "broken promises" and "betrayal" by MPC. If you'll remember, I voted "no" on Midway. That was because I was convinced by those other arguments, not by this one. In fact, this one was counter-productive with me.

And as long as you're mentioning bad politics, it's probably not good politics on the part of the community to bandy those terms around so much.

Holy Grail

Submitted by Homefolk 2 (not verified) on Wed, 2010/04/28 - 11:45pm.

We are led to think that the sector plan is the holy grail of MPC planning. If that were true then all of this spot zoning going on in Knox County would not fly. Judge Fansler made it clear as to when & why it was proper to consider a change. A misuse of power or failure to understand the power. Just deciding to do it because you can is wrong.

No wonder folks around here are fed up.

And as long as you're

Submitted by sugarfatpie on Thu, 2010/04/29 - 7:58am.

And as long as you're mentioning bad politics, it's probably not good politics on the part of the community to bandy those terms around so much.

Actually I think focusing debate on the "bad faith", "broken promises" and "betrayal" by MPC and TDC is pretty good politics for those opposed to the Midway Industrial Park. There have been monumental blunders on this project that are easily verifiable, the stories of which can make just about anyone disgusted.

Making enemies when you don't

Submitted by Rachel on Thu, 2010/04/29 - 1:34pm.

Making enemies when you don't need to - especially when you may need the people involved on your side on later issues - is not only bad politics, it's a dumb life strategy.

I'm really just trying to give you guys some helpful advice here. Clearly you don't want it, so I'll shut up.

.

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Thu, 2010/04/29 - 8:09am.

"Like I said, there are much better arguments against a BP at Midway than to harp on "bad faith" and "broken promises" and "betrayal" by MPC. If you'll remember, I voted "no" on Midway. That was because I was convinced by those other arguments, not by this one. In fact, this one was counter-productive with me."

Yeah yeah. You also threatened to make a motion taking Midway out of the Sector Plan. But you didn't.

This politically correct view that we shouldn't hold elected and appointed representatives accountable is pablum. This is a long trail of "bad faith" and "broken promises" and "betrayal" by MPC. And calling it what it is, is exactly what should be done.

You also threatened to make a

Submitted by Rachel on Thu, 2010/04/29 - 1:32pm.

You also threatened to make a motion taking Midway out of the Sector Plan.

That. is. a. lie. Period. I want you to apologize for it.

BTW, just because I've got you on ignore, don't think you can lie about me with impunity. You lie, and someone will tell me.

.

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Thu, 2010/04/29 - 1:54pm.

"You also threatened to make a motion taking Midway out of the Sector Plan.

That. is. a. lie. Period. I want you to apologize for it.

BTW, just because I've got you on ignore, don't think you can lie about me with impunity. You lie, and someone will tell me."

Did you or did you not say you could make a motion to take Midway out of the Sector Plan? But you didn't make the motion did you? I saw it as hypocrisy of the highest order.

Threatened may not have been the best descriptor. But you objected to clever, which was my first choice. Does veiled threat suit you better?

I don't usually watch MPC. But your cleverness stood out in that meeting. You may provide what ever descriptor you like.

Did you or did you not say

Submitted by Rachel on Thu, 2010/04/29 - 2:18pm.

Did you or did you not say you could make a motion to take Midway out of the Sector Plan?

It's possible I said somewhere that someone could, if they wanted, make a motion to amend the sector plan to take Midway out.

However, I never threatened, promised, suggested, or otherwise said I would do so.

As for my "cleverness" at the meeting, I said NOTHING about taking Midway out of the plan. I laid out the pros and cons for Midway as I saw them, and then voted accordingly. Nothing clever about it. Just straightforwardness, which you wouldn't recogize if it bit you on the butt.

You owe me an apology. Let's hear it.

.

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Thu, 2010/04/29 - 2:31pm.

ctvknox.org

Go to the tape. You know they say the first thing you lose is your memory.

Attacks

Submitted by Lisa Starbuck on Mon, 2010/04/19 - 9:41pm.

They'd rather hear the arguments without the personal attack.

I don't believe I have named any names, which in my view is the definition of "personal" as in "personal attack." I realize nobody wants to hear that their experts aren't expert or that they may not have the best interests of the people they work for in mind, but I've never been one to mince words, probably to my detriment, but there you have it. I've never typed anything about anyone that I wouldn't say to their face - and in several cases have actually said to them. I hear what you're saying, but I do think in this instance that the corruption of the process is relevant. How would anyone know the emperor has no clothes if everyone is afraid to point it out? Just sayin'

And I bet you'd have plenty to say about it if two or five or ten years from now they decide to scrap the South Knox Waterfront plan and give the property to the Development Corporation or some other quasi-government agency to build whatever. Hopefully no one will point out that what's in the past is gone and we should just move forward with what we've got.

And I bet you'd have plenty

Submitted by Rachel on Mon, 2010/04/19 - 10:31pm.

And I bet you'd have plenty to say about it if two or five or ten years from now they decide to scrap the South Knox Waterfront plan

The south waterfront plan was specifically designed to be a 20 year plan, so yeah, I would not be happy to see it scrapped before then.

Sector plans aren't designed to last 20 years. In fact, the east sector plan is way overdue to be updated.

Anyhoo, I don't really want to argue with you. Just saying that I think ya'll would be better off sticking to the good arguments you have and leaving attack mode at home.

Alex,

Whether we can get some of the concepts in the plan codified depends, I think, a good deal on who makes up the new County Commission.

another argument

Submitted by sugarfatpie on Tue, 2010/04/20 - 8:40am.

Just saying that I think ya'll would be better off sticking to the good arguments you have and leaving attack mode at home.

Here's an argument for you: Most major metropolitan areas, including our own, are in the process of shifting from expansive sprawling development to compact smart growth combined with green-space/open-space preservation. This project is taking us in the exact opposite direction.

THAT's a good argument, and

Submitted by Rachel on Tue, 2010/04/20 - 2:48pm.

THAT's a good argument, and much more persuasive to me than "MPC/TDC/the universe did us wrong."

Process

Submitted by Lisa Starbuck on Tue, 2010/04/20 - 3:00pm.

I'd just like to point out that the problems with the MPC process is what won the lawsuit. We believe the process we just went through with MPC is still flawed. We don't want any other city or county sector to be treated the way we were, and the only way to stop it is to bring it to light.

I do also agree that a really good reason not to create a business park at Midway is the encouragement of sprawl.

I happen to agree that the

Submitted by Rachel on Tue, 2010/04/20 - 3:05pm.

I happen to agree that the MPC process on the first request for plan change/rezoning in 2006 WAS flawed - Commission did not identify any substantial changes in the environment that merited the plan change/rezoning. And by "not identify", I mean they didn't even list any.

FWIW (not much; I'm certainly not a land use lawyer), I think Fansler's decision was correct.

However, this time staff identified 8-10 changes in the environment that merit a plan change. I don't think a court challenge this time will go anywhere.

You may or may not agree that the changes listed are substantive enough, but it's unlikely that the judge will look at that. Judges don't like to try to figure stuff like that out - it's not their job; it's MPC's, Commission's, and Council's. The judge would probably just want to make sure that such changes WERE identified. And they were.

How exactly was the process this time legally flawed?

More on the Process

Submitted by Lisa Starbuck on Tue, 2010/04/20 - 3:33pm.

I also was going to mention that upon advice from our attorney that it is important to sometimes make comments or arguments that seem to rehash issues from the past in order to make them part of the legal record. That was the case at the last MPC vote.

I can't comment too much on the current process except to say that it is not exactly the same issue as before, but that the problem still has to do with the process.

comments or arguments that

Submitted by Rachel on Tue, 2010/04/20 - 3:43pm.

comments or arguments that seem to rehash issues from the past in order to make them part of the legal record.

One can talk about the record without using words like "betrayal" etc. (and I know that wasn't you).

I'm simply saying that the old cliche about flies, honey, and vinegar is a cliche for a reason. YMMV.

Tax payers rebel!!

Submitted by Concered tax payer (not verified) on Tue, 2010/04/20 - 10:42pm.

Has anyone look into empty spaces in our existing industral
parks in Knox county? Also, how many jobs would go to Sevier county and Jefferson county at Knox couny tax payers expense.

The TDC economic impact

Submitted by Rachel on Wed, 2010/04/21 - 12:09am.

The TDC economic impact studied assumed all impacts would be in Knox County. I questioned that at MPC because I do think a bunch of the jobs would go to Sevier and Jefferson Countians. One could make the argument that the regional economy is closely tied to Knoxville, and that what benefits the region benefits Knox County, but that wasn't the argument made.

I also looked at available space in existing industrial parks. I don't want to look up the figures now (they're on the TDC website, so they're not hard to find). There's a quite a bit. OTOH, much of it is in Eastbridge, and Eastbridge has proved very hard to get anyone to locate to. I suspect it's because it's perceived as being too far from an interstate (although it really isn't). So I think you have to discount some of that available land.

In other words, this (like most things) isn't as simple as it looks on first glance.

They already know

Submitted by cway (not verified) on Wed, 2010/04/21 - 9:05am.

Its all about the money. Follow the money. This land is far to valuable to use for another industrial park. Everyone knows that because of the location. What is the real plan?
If the land chopping starts, with the industrial park , the landowners will not end up being from these parts. Not our neighbors or children. This land will be lost to the greedy that have enough money to take it. Take it and use it without any respect or love for the land. Many will not even be from this country. Midway is a cash cow. They just got to figure out how to get the cow to leave the barn.

These people that are ringing the bell, shining the light and refusing to quiet down are fighting a battle. That battle is about more than money. People around here have had quiet enough of being told what is good for them. They already know.

point by point refutation of TDC's statements on Midway

Submitted by sugarfatpie on Wed, 2010/04/21 - 4:24pm.

Check out this point by point refutation of TDC's statements on the midway park.
These are the arguments that MPC, County Commission, and City Council need to pay attention to if they don't want to end up in court again or voted out of office.
(link...)

Niceley goes after Midway

Submitted by SnM on Thu, 2010/04/22 - 9:26am.

Niceley accuses Chamber of lying; says more land available than officials claim

Edit: The chamber fires back. Will tonight's workshop have more fireworks and smoke than substance?
(link...)

A choice quote from Niceley

Submitted by sugarfatpie on Thu, 2010/04/22 - 11:17am.

“There are 3,600 acres of land zoned industrial … and they’re never mentioned,” Niceley said. “They’ve got all the land they want, and why they would want more is a good question, unless it’s just to help some buddies that are landowners.”

Strickland says Niceley bitter and on attack against Chamber. Says Niceley's motives will be brought up at public meeting 2night.

People in Thorngrove have been pointing this out for almost a decade. Is Strickland going to question their motives too?

Email contacts for commissioners

Submitted by sugarfatpie on Thu, 2010/04/22 - 11:56am.

Not sure if the blanket email to the whole commission gets as much attention as emails to individual commissioners, so I'm giving you both.

commission@knoxcounty.org

The individual emails are here

thomas.strickland@knoxcounty.org
sam.mckenzie@knoxcounty.org
mark.harmon@knoxcounty.org
amy.broyles@knoxcounty.org
ivan.harmon@knoxcounty.org
tony.norman@knoxcounty.org
finbarr.saunders@knoxcounty.org
ed.shouse@knoxcounty.org
mike.hammond@knoxcounty.org
craig.leuthold@knoxcounty.org
richard.briggs@knoxcounty.org
greg.lambert@knoxcounty.org
brad.anders@knoxcounty.org
larry.smith@knoxcounty.org
michele.carringer@knoxcounty.org
bud.armstrong@knoxcounty.org
dave.wright@knoxcounty.org
paul.pinkston@knoxcounty.org
michael.brown@knoxcounty.org

Should you not have a functioning email program, you can also get to the commissioners at
(link...)

Just click on their names and their email (which you can paste into your email program) as well as an onsite emailing window.

I was at the meeting

Submitted by B. Paone (not verified) on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 6:10am.

...and I walked away with even less respect for the opposition on the whole than when I started, especially after some idiot started heckling a community resident for DARING to point out that we all needed to get our asses in gear, stop fighting and get something DONE.

Lisa, I'll tell you right now that if you take that NIMBY/hippie argument out of Thorngrove, you're going to lose. For four damn years, anyone who cares to pay attention to the issue has heard nothing but "KnoxAction" dig, attack, spin, and generally oppose almost ANYTHING that comes down the pike to develop this land responsibly except for the stupid Ochs report.

Nature tourism might be fine for Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge, but there's much better ways of making some coin AND enjoying nature than becoming North Pigeon Forge.

Possible solution: A commercial park surrounded by a buffer zone that's part nature trail, part ongoing air quality research and urban/rural integration study. Napier said something like this is certainly doable. Can some faceless internet wonder tell me why I shouldn't believe the guy who told me this to my face?

Bottom line: The opposition needs to be a lot more flexible and get back to the table with compromise in mind. Otherwise, I can't see 'em winning. (I'm well aware of the court victory some years back; I wrote the damn article for it. Good luck getting another one with the attitude that was displayed yesterday.)

NIMBY has no place at the table here. The opposition would be very wise to work with the community, lest the community decides to simply ignore them and their overly politicized (and frankly, distasteful) approach.

develop this land

Submitted by R. Neal on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 8:12am.

develop this land responsibly

You think this is "responsible" development?

I don't think it's anything but a damn joke at this point.

Submitted by B. Paone (not verified) on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 9:19am.

It can't be called a development of ANY kind because of a handful of people in the area who simply don't want to compromise.

(The Ochs report recommendations are nowhere near effective compromises - a hippie artist commune in a town that can barely support its downtown art museum, an idea for an Appalachian museum that already exists up the road and isn't doing all that well itself, and turning the area into North Pigeon Forge are all terrible ideas that aren't nearly as cost-effective as they need to be. Prove otherwise and I'll eat the words. Or better yet, shop those to the rest of the county and see what they pick. They're going to go for the option that provides the most money and jobs unless there's more of an incentive to choose otherwise. More empty museum space and an artists' commune aren't going to go over well, and I'd LOVE to see someone shop that idiotic "nature tourism" trip to anyone who hates what Pigeon Forge has become.)

What you got against hippies?

Submitted by R. Neal on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 9:22am.

What you got against hippies?

Just reciprocation, baby. :)

Submitted by B. Paone (not verified) on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 10:02am.

Or are hippies the only class of citizen allowed to get indignant and derisive when it comes to community development? Honestly, it's a little difficult to keep track of who gets to do what by whose scorecard anymore.

Neal, I may not like you, but you're no idiot. You're a damn smart guy, and preservationism aside, you and I both know the current stalemate does nothing productive concerning either this issue or community development on the whole. A viable solution MUST BE REACHED. There's way too much money invested in this piece of dirt for the county on the whole to be paralyzed by squabbling on the matter.

So, just for shits and giggles, let's cut through all the acrimonious BS for a change and talk turkey. How does the issue get resolved in a manner that satisfies the handful that live around the property as well as the multitude that is having to foot the bill for all of this?

I say make it the best of both worlds: A commercial development surrounded by a natural buffer zone that acts as recreational area, research project for air quality as well as rural/urban integration, and a future connector for a countywide greenway (looks like the area in question is in a good spot between House Mountain and the proposed preservation corridor to act as a connector, anyway).

The commercial project (not necessarily industry; let's just say for now "generic commercial" and work on the details if the basic proposal is palatable) would be both reduced in scope as well as enclosed by a natural buffer zone, and provide more potential income than the Ochs study proposes with its granola approach.

The buffer zone provides many benefits, including a noise dampener, an aesthetic screen, and - if we're smart about it - research on natural air quality control methods and rural/urban integration technique that can most certainly be argued as valuable knowledge for the 21st century.

But most importantly, such a possibility demonstrates that a real-world, workable compromise CAN be had if only everyone involved would just THINK instead of trying to tear each other apart.

So. Wanna talk about it or go back to the insultfest until you get tired of the concept? Personally, I'd rather do the former since the latter is absolutely boring without a decent insult partner. (No offense.)

Midway Lawyers Park

Submitted by sugarfatpie on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 8:21am.

Good luck getting another one with the attitude that was displayed yesterday.

I think its TDC/MPC whose attitude needs to change.

The legal standing of the community in court will only improve as TDC/MPC continue to ram this down our throats. The more this project progresses, the more grounds there will be for legal challenge. Combine this with TDC/MPC's dismissive, non-negotiating attitude toward over a decade of coordinated and effective community opposition to this project and you have an absolute nightmare of lawsuits that will hang this project up for the foreseeable future.

If it ever does get built Midway should be called the Midway Lawyers Park. Who else is going to buy into a park with so many obvious environmental limitations (karst, sketchy wastewater treatment) and that will soon be in federal court because of those same limitations.

Think of it as a business proposition. Is it easier or harder to sell a property that is tied up in the courts?

Holy damn, a civil disagreement.

Submitted by B. Paone (not verified) on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 10:12am.

* That may be the case. It might not be. Either way, arguing back and forth like kids and playing politics the whole damn way solves nothing. Logic and reasoning need to come out and play for a while. I know, I know, neither one is as sexy as drama, but drama doesn't pay the bills unless you're on Broadway. We're not.

* Walk me a little bit through what you would term as the "non-negotiating" attitude of your opponent. I mean, are we talking the Dev Corp concretely said "We're doing it this way and we don't care for your input" or was it more like "We heard you, but we can't make it work like this without doing this or this" and that was unacceptable?

Actually, let me rephrase: What is the opposition's idea of a fair compromise on the issue? Maybe we can work off examples and move through that facet a little more efficiently.

* People keep saying you can't build on terrain that has karst features, but I keep seeing buildings on that kind of territory. If I'm not mistaken, there is quite a bit of this vein of topography in Florida, but proper engineering makes development of almost any kind possible.

Is it easy? No. Is it something that should be undertaken if other land is available? Probably not without a damn good reason. But can it be done? Most certainly, so let's keep it in context and not eliminate options we know can work. At least, until a better option is found.

* Harder, obviously. Is the small group opposing this project so ready to discount the economic needs of the entire county, both short- and long-term, that they're willing to play economic terrorism in court by doing such a thing just for the sake of making it difficult for us taxpayers to make lemonade out of this lemon grove?

* That may be the case. It

Submitted by sugarfatpie on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 11:30am.

* That may be the case. It might not be. Either way, arguing back and forth like kids and playing politics the whole damn way solves nothing.

You are behaving like one of those kids. Pretending to rise above the fray, while slinging mud the whole time, is childish.

* Walk me a little bit through what you would term as the "non-negotiating" attitude of your opponent. I mean, are we talking the Dev Corp concretely said "We're doing it this way and we don't care for your input" or was it more like "We heard you, but we can't make it work like this without doing this or this" and that was unacceptable?

A) How long have you been following this? You seem pretty ignorant of how this has unfolded. You might want to actually speak with some of the "opposition". The Knoxaction website would be a good start.

B) Did you see TDC compromising on anything last night? I sure didn't. I heard one guy from the Chamber talking compromise, but it sounded like he wanted the community, not TDC to do all the compromising.

C) Compromise based around mutual self-interest will only be possible if the community is genuinely involved, with TDC/MPC willing to make real compromises (not just some nice words and maps in a plan with no ordinances to enforce it). Otherwise we're headed to court, where we will be for a long long time.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Submitted by B. Paone (not verified) on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 12:06pm.

* Really? You thought I was trying to act somewhat BETTER than you guys?! Oh, man. No, I was just bringing myself to the level that the conversation existed (at least, as soon as opposition to Thorngrove's stance gets involved, it seems - not all the time, but enough).

I know it's wrong. But I'll be damned if I'm going to be the only civil person in the room; throwing insults can be kinda fun. Of course, if everyone else is going to be civil and logical, then there's no reason to show everyone just how to act like a proper asshole. (Not too many people can do "completely offish prick" like I can. We're all better off avoiding that.)

* Dude. I have an article on that website. I've read it. It's a political hitjob of a website, with about 10 parts spun political BS to every 1 part of fact. If that's how the opposition wants to conduct itself, then I'm personally not interested in their viewpoint. (You know, kind of like people aren't interested in mine when I go full-blown jerkass.)

Show me facts, not statistics that are spun to support a particular viewpoint. Junk the political BS, it's a time-waster. (Yes, that goes for both sides.)

* Then I heard something completely different, because Napier bent over backwards to stress to me "THIS DOES NOT HAVE TO BE AN INDUSTRIAL PARK". I mean, really, guy cut me off to make that point, it was so important to him. Actually, the compromise solution I had been kicking around is something the Dev Corp, according to Napier, was also considering.

Let me know if you want to take a trip down Hypothetical Boulevard - it'd be nice to kick around an idea like that and see what comes out, especially if air quality and urban/rural integration research can be had out of the deal.

* Sounds like a personal problem. I won't be joining you, and I really, REALLY wish you'd try at least one more time (an honest try, not what I saw last night) before advocating the creation of a potentially serious economic issue. (From a business standpoint: "If they can't even get a simple business park built, what the hell are they gonna do to US if we piss someone off?! Thank you, but no, let's try Chattanooga or Asheville or something.")

Is it easy? No. Is it

Submitted by sugarfatpie on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 11:40am.

Is it easy? No. Is it something that should be undertaken if other land is available? Probably not without a damn good reason. But can it be done? Most certainly, so let's keep it in context and not eliminate options we know can work. At least, until a better option is found.

You may want to read the county stormwater manuals section on sinkholes
(link...)

Sinkhole areas are known to be unstable for construction and structures placed on soil
foundations in sink areas may be subject to both settling and collapse of the sink.

We have plenty of sinkhole-free land in Knox county. Our own local regulations, let alone state and federal regs, call this site into question.

sigh

Submitted by B. Paone (not verified) on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 11:53am.

* Just because a topographical region may have special development requirements doesn't mean development is automatically a bad idea. It means care has to be taken and extra costs planned for. Like I said, they do this all the time in Florida and elsewhere with the same or worse topographical concerns. Let's stay logical about this.

* Find me 381 contiguous developable acres that have the same advantages of this site and we'll roll from there. See, it's not enough to just wave a hand and say "plenty of other land exists, let's shut this down". Actually identifying this example land would be most helpful.

So. Back to where we were. If not any of the Dev Corp's plans, what other viable plans are there? Let's move away from the "I don't wants" and back toward the "I wants", see if we can't arrive to a proper compromise (or at least a lot closer than what currently exists).

We can do this, as a county. But only if we stop fighting like kids.

Every EPA EIS and DOT/TDOT

Submitted by R. Neal on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 12:02pm.

Every EPA EIS and DOT/TDOT project has option 1 through n and "no build."

What's wrong with "no build" in this case? Why must you have an alternative proposal to be satisfied?

$9 million+ reasons, actually.

Submitted by B. Paone (not verified) on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 12:18pm.

And, of course, a desire to think more than a decade ahead.

Like I said before - I'm going to be here long after many of you are gone, sadly enough. In 50 years, I'll be 81, hoping to hell we haven't elected too many idiots in that timeframe to actually build the community not only to its potential, but to handle the projected growth.

We're not losing people, Neal. We're gaining 'em, and that's not going to stop anytime soon. I doubt it ever will. We will need tax revenue to properly fund that growth - not only to build it, but to make sure it's built RIGHT, built INTELLIGENTLY, with the needs of the next generations in mind as well as our own temporary desires.

To take 381 acres of commercially viable land and preserve it for all time flies in the face of sanity, considering our impending actual and potential growth. It'd be like owning a Fabergé egg.

Sure, it's pretty as hell and all are unique examples of artisanship (the former being man's, the latter being God's or whoever a particular person worships, if creationism is part of that belief system), but what the hell am I going to DO with it? Stare at it and pay to maintain it? What if I need money to feed additions to my family or pay for educational advances? Better roads for my family? A government that (may it happen one day) doesn't SUCK?!

I get the preservation argument. I live with a nature buff that I can't defeat in an argument. But damn, dude! ***5,000*** acres are being slated for preservation, are they not? Does it really HAVE to be 5,381, or can the rest of us who have to be here in 50 years get a chance to take a small slice of that and do something smart with it?

No one's commented on my alternate proposal (that apparently is something along the lines of a proposal Dev Corp was considering anyway). What about you? I mean, I've been good enough to answer questions and tone it down in your house, right? And let's face it - in the long run, it's not that bad of an idea overall and something environmentalists might be able to appreciate on a pragmatic level.

Strange Bragging

Submitted by just wondering (not verified) on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 1:19pm.

Over and over you keep saying that you are going to last longer and sadly out live these people. Do you have a magic ring like Bibo Baggins ? Just wondering what would make someone proclaim such a prediction over and over.

It's just statistical probability. Geez.

Submitted by B. Paone (not verified) on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 1:29pm.

I'm 31 and my family has a history of longevity. My great-grandmother's still kickin' around at 95, my grandfather lived to his late 70s (and would still be alive today if the hospital hadn't let him choke on a piece of food - survives war, business, several accidents including a tractor rolling over him, and at least one heart attack, to be felled by a piece of food.), and everyone else who hasn't committed suicide is still around and going strong.

See, this is what I'm talking about as far as catching attitude. Keep your assumptions to yourself, please. Sometime's a potato's just a potato.

Thanks. Moving on?

Statistical Probability

Submitted by just wondering (not verified) on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 1:55pm.

Hold that thought. A magic ring would be better.

The legal standing of the

Submitted by Rachel on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 3:20pm.

The legal standing of the community in court will only improve as TDC/MPC continue to ram this down our throats.

Are you a lawyer? If so, I'l accept this statement. If not, I'll stick by my former statements that Fansler made the right decision last time, but that the grounds for that suit don't apply to the current circumstances.

This is based on the

Submitted by sugarfatpie on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 4:17pm.

This is based on the expanding possibilities for other lawsuits, e.g. CWA citizen suits based on damage to the watershed in general and private wells in particular.

The closer this park comes to being a reality, the more legal entanglements there will be, and the types of people and groups who will have standing in court will multiply.

Combine this with the fact that in this day and age, many companies will not want to come into a community that is fighting to stop/shut down the business park where they will locate. This will be especially true in this case, because of the size, likelihood of failure, and location of the wastewater treatment plant.

Dye testing, monitoring, these are all standard regulatory compliance tools that can be used.

If TDC continues to try to sell this plant as "The best green park in the nation", the science so far does not support it.

What, specifically, is the "likelihood of failure"?

Submitted by B. Paone (not verified) on Sat, 2010/04/24 - 6:27am.

Just curious as to what the basis is for this statement, and the specific likelihood of failure you had in mind - if any?

The basis of this statement

Submitted by sugarfatpie on Sat, 2010/04/24 - 12:08pm.

The basis of this statement is conversations with regulators of these systems from TDEC and EPA. For one thing, this is a huge system. Big enough for a small town. This is very rarely even contemplated.
It will also be the only one in the US that serves an industrial park with "light manufacturing". Moreover, regulators assume that these systems are going to fail at times. This is the reason they don't locate them anywhere near sinkholes.

If you really want to contribute to this discussion, try searching this site for the term "midway"
That way you will relieve the rest of us from repeating old discussions.

Bottom line: The opposition

Submitted by Bbeanster on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 8:34am.

Bottom line: The opposition needs to be a lot more flexible and get back to the table with compromise in mind. Otherwise, I can't see 'em winning. (I'm well aware of the court victory some years back; I wrote the damn article for it. Good luck getting another one with the attitude that was displayed yesterday.)

NIMBY has no place at the table here. The opposition would be very wise to work with the community, lest the community decides to simply ignore them and their overly politicized (and frankly, distasteful) approach.

Paone, why are you making this so deeply personal? What is your connection to this project?

What was "the damn article" that you wrote, where did it appear and to whom are you addressing your "good luck getting another with the attitude that was displayed yesterday?" remark? Has somebody asked you for another damn article, or something?

You are differentiating "the opposition" from "the community." What is "the community" in this instance, and how are you more a member of it than the people who live out there, you know, the "NIMBYs"? And how do they get less say than you?

Well, since you asked:

Submitted by B. Paone (not verified) on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 9:50am.

* Because I'm still going to be here long after most of you are gone, and I'd rather have to clean up as few of your messes as possible. So, I decided to get proactive now, rather than waiting for the previous generations to foul up X amount of stuff.

But even if I didn't feel that way, it's my government and my taxpayer dollars as well. I'll participate if I feel like it and would LOVE to see someone try and stop me. :)

* Eh, some claptrap Hunley wanted for the Focus, talking about how great their court victory was back in 2008. Hell, KnoxAction liked it so much they posted it on their website.

(link...)

...though to be honest, that was pretty much the beginning of the end of my love affair with writing for a newspaper - at least, considering how it's done around here, what with the hidden agendas and rumors passed off as facts and all that other inane garbage that isn't actual news reporting.

That stuff sucks, right, Betty?

* I've gotta say, the one guy who was heckling the older gentleman that came to the podium to say "enough arguing, let's get to work"? Totally ruined the whole experience for me. What's worse is that none of his contemporaries spoke up to set the idiot in his place. That's where the "good luck" remark came from. Nor do you have to worry about me horning in on your reporting racket anymore - I make computers now and love every second of it. Thanks for asking. :)

* I am differentiating the "opposition" from the "community"... because this decision doesn't affect JUST THORNGROVE. I won't argue the facet that it may have the greatest impact overall, and I don't begrudge legitimate concerns (like, say, environmental, though from what I'm hearing and reading independently this can be done in an environmentally sound manner no matter which direction we go other than heavy industry).

But I am sick to DEATH of hearing people bitch and moan and whine and complaining without having a viable alternative, and ESPECIALLY when they say "OMG BUILD IT SOMEWHERE ELSE". Seriously, Bean, how the hell much industry do I have to have in my neighborhood providing tax dollars for everybody else? JFG and AAA Cooper aren't enough?

But yeah, I guess this doesn't affect lil' ol' me at all.

Now, howsabout you answer a few of my questions?

* How would an artists' commune remain viable on a level that more traditional commercial applications have already proven they can attain?

* What measures would be in place to prevent natural tourism destinations in this county from sharing the same unGodly fate Pigeon Forge and Gatlinburg have - the moniker of "bathtub ring around the Smokies"?

* And finally, why should Rikki Hall's idea of an Appalachian museum be pursued when the one just up I-75 isn't doing all that great itself?

Or do my questions not matter as much as yours? :)

How about following your own

Submitted by sugarfatpie on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 11:19am.

How about following your own advice, elaborated on at absurd length both here and just about any board you comment on, and not degrading this discussion with insults and personal attacks.

You could also be a bit more brief.

If I can be guaranteed reciprocation, sure.

Submitted by B. Paone (not verified) on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 11:30am.

I mean, it's kinda boring being the only one who's nice about it. But sure, I don't have a problem showing a certain level of respect so long as I receive something approximating the same level in return.

Of course, it's been a helluva long time since I've seen that around here, so please forgive my trepidation that this arrangement won't last very long.

You were nice enough to put it in a relatively civil context, though, so I'll be nice enough to acquiesce until attacked again.

Now. Where were we?

Paone, it's your tone. You

Submitted by Bbeanster on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 11:45am.

Paone, it's your tone. You demand civility while offering none.

In the first place, if you think I considered anything written in a vanity publication like the Focus "competition," well, knock yourself out. Nothing personal to you, but it's just not.

I really didn't know what you were referring to. I have, on the other hand, read and appreciated much of what you've posted online,and I think you've done a real service to the rest of us. I admire your expertise and your dedication and your intelligence.

As for this:

But I am sick to DEATH of hearing people bitch and moan and whine and complaining without having a viable alternative, and ESPECIALLY when they say "OMG BUILD IT SOMEWHERE ELSE". Seriously, Bean, how the hell much industry do I have to have in my neighborhood providing tax dollars for everybody else? JFG and AAA Cooper aren't enough?

The Sutherland Avenue area is pretty much the same as it always was – industrial/commercial. I presume JFG and AAA Cooper were there when you moved in and that there were other areas you could have considered. So how can you possibly equate this to choosing to live in a rural area (or choosing to continue living in a rural area where your family has roots) and wanting to preserve its rural character? It's just not the same. I choose to live in the city and accept a certain amount of aggravation in exchange for some amenities. People who live in deep Knox County chose to live there for other reasons, and I support their decision to dig in and fight for their way of life. I got no skin in the game, and neither do you, Paone, for all your bellowing.

I don't feel obliged to defend anybody's plans or suggestions for using this land, and I don't really understand your fixation on the public investment there. What has been invested beyond the purchase price of the real estate? That can be retrieved, although the various finders' fees and studies and the time expended by various Chamber employees are vapor.

Nothing irreparable has happened here. Yet.

When in Rome...

Submitted by B. Paone (not verified) on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 11:47am.

...but I digress and the issue concerning attitudes has been addressed. Moving on:

* I don't care, I really don't. It was something that was fun for a while, but I truly thank God I didn't finish my journalism degree if that's the kind of nonsense I'd have to tolerate. You guys have fun doing whatever it is that you do.

* I was being a smartass for much of what you're probably referring to in the second paragraph, mostly in response to the tone of your reply. Now that we've moved past that...

(Thanks for the kind words. You're not so bad yourself, and I mean that.)

* Believe it or not, I've lived in a variety of places - including our family's cattle farm in Pennsylvania. (The part that's not populated - our village numbered 47 people when our family left). Areas change and grow no matter WHERE you go, as the pallet factory that exists where my grandfather's third pasture once was can now attest.

As far as industry on Sutherland, yeah. JFG moved in a few years before I did, and AAA Cooper's been there I don't know how long. These older businesses join the massive new apartment complex, strip mall and Dollar General (among others) that moved in after the fact.

If a small handful of people (and 80-500 is a drop in the bucket compared to 400,000+, we both know that) want to fight a large commercial development, then that means I've got that much bigger of a chance of having MORE industry dropped down on my neighborhood - and we really can't handle much more until something's done about traffic around here, but that's another matter altogether.

Those are taxpayer dollars being spent, and those are taxpayer dollars that are going to come out of the investment. ANY CITIZEN IN THIS COUNTY HAS A SAY AS A RESULT. Please, PLEASE don't sit there and tell me otherwise; it's kinda insulting. Yeah, Thorngrove has a say. They have a BIG say. But they need to be using that say to do more than just bellyache and NIMBY. That'd be the same of ANY group in their position, agree or disagree?

* If there's $9 million invested and no GOOD reason to stop - and there isn't - then I have no problem continuing until there is either a good reason to stop or until we're all making some green off the damn project. Besides - sell it all off and then what? What if we don't get the value back? Why walk away from an investment that's nowhere near dead or impractical?

I don't have time to waste on arguing pedantic nonsense. No one does. We know everybody on opposite sides doesn't like the other, despite us all being Knox Countians (for the most part; wasn't that one farmer guy from Georgia or something?), but really? We can't set that aside, figure out a viable and reasonable development plan for this project, and THEN get on with insulting each other?

It's a lot more fun when it's done that way, is all I'm sayin'. ;)

.

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 12:32pm.

"If a small handful of people (and 80-500 is a drop in the bucket compared to 400,000+, we both know that) want to fight a large commercial development,"

You are completely wrong. More people out West oppose this than even in Thorn Grove. It's about the money.

This cannot pay for itself. We don't want any more Convention Centers. You have provided nothing to show this is viable. Not a single reason why it should go forward other than some ideology that once purchased land must be developed.

Learn a lesson. Both City Council and County Commission approved Universe Knoxville. One of the dumbest ideas ever here. And that is no small thing. It failed because it couldn't be bounded.

Our governments are famous for bad decisions. And also famous for doubling down on bad decisions.

why should Rikki Hall's idea

Submitted by rikki on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 12:47pm.

why should Rikki Hall's idea of an Appalachian museum be pursued when the one just up I-75 isn't doing all that great itself?

The Museum of Appalachia is a cultural museum. The proposal I put out there, which arose from numerous conversations with East Knox County residents, is for a science museum. It would exhibit the area's geological and paleontological history, its biodiversity, and perhaps early human settlement prior to the arrival of Europeans, so it would complement the Museum of Appalachia, not compete with it.

I agree with you that residents are better served by finding development approaches they can live with, but that sort of creative thinking has been part of the conversation for as long as I've been paying attention. The presence of some angry individuals does not imply an absence of more constructive participants. There is good reason for that anger too, and TDC could have done more to build bridges to the community during the latest round of sector planning than they did.

TDC seems trapped in conventional thinking. The Ochs report did a little to jar them loose, but a concrete, constructive proposal from the community would be even better, whether it's a science museum or a crossroads that celebrates local food, music and art or some other idea. Morph some of the creative thoughts that are out there into an actual business plan, and TDC might just come around.

I like where this is going.

Submitted by B. Paone (not verified) on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 1:03pm.

* Common ground attained! We both believe that this project can yield scientific as well as economic resources. Our only difference is that of viewpoint - you have an eye to the past with Appalachian studies, while I have an eye toward the future with natural air quality and urban/rural integration research.

I would say, however, that while your example already exists under two similar applications (the aforementioned Museum of Appalachia as well as our painfully-neglected East Tennessee Museum of Natural History downtown), mine doesn't exist locally in any appreciable application. At least, not that I've been able to find, but I could be mistaken. (Being married has me used to being wrong, so I wouldn't be surprised if a nature trail/air quality research station/urban-rural integration study exists.)

Pragmatically, it would seem to make more sense to develop an as-yet-undecided commercial application, surrounded by the aforementioned nature trail/research station, and use the funds derived from successfully marketing this unique concept to support the existing museums AND possibly create specifically what you're talking about in an alternate location. (South Knoxville, maybe? But that's a whole 'nother journey.)

* I agree. Both sides dropped the ball in varied aspects. I just don't see the point on making it such an all-consuming focus after all these years. I don't care if people are mad at one another; I can't tell people who to like. But is it asking too much to go back to ripping on one another AFTER the problem is solved?

I don't think so. Yeah, there's some bad vibes on both sides. But we're not idiots. We can get past that and address the issue(s) at hand in an open and honest manner - on both sides.

* I'm game if you are.

* I'm game if you are. Good,

Submitted by sugarfatpie on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 3:01pm.

* I'm game if you are.

Good, now stop acting like a 5 year old.

Likewise.

Submitted by B. Paone (not verified) on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 4:12pm.

:-)

prehistory

Submitted by rikki on Sat, 2010/04/24 - 10:18am.

while your example already exists under two similar applications

Apparently you don't understand the difference between human history and natural history, but I don't understand what an air quality research station/urban-rural integration study is, so I guess we're even.

The museum I'm envisioning might include nothing about humans at all since it would cover a time period during which humans did not exist. It would explore the formation of the mountains themselves, plus all the forms of life that evolved and lived here, the cycles of glaciation and retreat. There could be tie-ins with the Discovery Channel or other experts in computer graphics and scientific visualization.

It could exhibit the incredible diversity of life in our mountains: fish, mussels, aquatic insects, flowering plants, mosses, ferns, salamanders, etc, as well as extinct forms like ground sloths and sabertooth tigers that once lived here.

The closest comparable museum is in Martinsville, VA, and the natural history museums in NYC, DC and LA would also be good reference points.

You didn't make a distinction in your reply.

Submitted by B. Paone (not verified) on Sat, 2010/04/24 - 2:01pm.

* In re: the difference between human and natural history - For what it's worth, you have my assurances that I am aware of at least the basic differences. However, as copied from a portion of your previous reply:

"It would exhibit the area's geological and paleontological history, its biodiversity, and perhaps early human settlement prior to the arrival of Europeans, so it would complement the Museum of Appalachia, not compete with it."

...I hope you can see why I didn't understand you were making a distinction between the two, as human history appears to be part of what you're considering. My apologies if I somehow misconstrued.

* It's hard to argue against gleaning ANY kind of knowledge, but in this case I don't know if making the development a natural history museum would realize the kind of profit we need from such a commercially viable piece of property. What's more, I would imagine a museum dealing with the natural history of the Appalachian Mountains would be better suited in an environ that had more mountainous features than the proposed rolling acreage.

I like the idea, but I don't see how we can make it as commercially viable as other applications on the table.

Meanwhile, my idea (I'm going to assume your previous comment of not understanding what air quality research stations or urban-rural integrations studies was a try at a joke, since by all accounts you're a pretty well-read person concerning the environment in general and area environmental issues in particular) would complement the commercial aspects of the proposed development - whatever shape it takes - instead of curtailing or preventing commercial applications as your museum would likely do if built on the site.

Finally, while both ideas stand to produce a fair amount of knowledge if done properly, research into ecological air quality control as well as urban-rural integration is arguably a bit more valuable to the long-term quality of life for our particular area. We could most certainly use any air quality control measure we can get in the Valley, and Knoxville ain't gettin' smaller anytime soon - it'll need room to grow into farmland eventually, and anything we can learn about how to better integrate urban applications into rural environments can only help us in the long run.

So, unless the natural museum idea can generate a significant sum of cash, I wouldn't be really sold on it as a replacement option for Midway itself. It's a cool idea in general, though, and if we can develop places like Midway intelligently and with an eye toward long-term responsible growth, we'd have money for stuff like that and more.

But I guess fair is fair - how much money would your idea make for Knox County?

But I guess fair is fair -

Submitted by R. Neal on Sat, 2010/04/24 - 2:57pm.

But I guess fair is fair - how much money would your idea make for Knox County?

So you are opposed to every alternative that has been proposed, including the "no build" option, except your own.

So, how much money would your idea make for Knox County? (Sorry if you've already answered that and I missed it.)

The Midway Rd land is just a

Submitted by rikki on Tue, 2010/04/27 - 9:11am.

The Midway Rd land is just a couple miles from the confluence of two ancient and majestic Appalachian rivers, the Holston and French Broad, making it a perfect setting for a natural history museum.

Such a museum would attract school groups from all over East Tennessee and adjacent states, vacationing families, etc, giving it a major commercial impact. It would nicely complement a revival of the historic crossroads at the heart of Thorngrove. Along with Seven Islands Wildlife Refuge and golf course, such an attraction could bring enough visitors to support produce stands, restaurants, craft and antique stores, the sort of commerce Thorngrove Pike and Kodak Rd supported for centuries, and which still remains here and there.

I am not joking when I say I don't understand your idea. I know what the individual phrases mean, but you are using them so vaguely it's impossible to decipher whether you're talking about some sort of university annex or a park or an industrial air-cleaning plant, and the commercial viability of any of those notions is not apparent.

News Sentinel report on the

Submitted by R. Neal on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 8:09am.

News Sentinel report on the meeting...

.

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 9:46am.

Other than Mike Edwards, Todd Napier, Mike Strickland, Jack McElroy, and Brian Paone, is there anyone who thinks this can work?

Back years ago a civil engineer showed a geology report in the final County Commission meeting that approved this very stupid land purchase. It was a twenty minute plus Power Point presentation. Commission slept through the whole thing. The engineer showed putting a sewer plant at Midway would be impossible due to the cost.

And he was right wasn't he?

This happened because the local government ignored the obvious. There is no break even for any use of that land. It was a bad purchase. And no amount of additional money spent will change that.

Also, the road infrastructure will not accommodate the traffic so more money would have to be spent moving utilities and widening roads. It is on the wrong side of the Interstate junction for a distribution facility.

Add the numbers up. There is no commercial use that breaks even. Taxpayers from all over Knox County oppose this because it cannot work. It is another Convention Center.

All there is to support this bad idea is the ever present, "If you build it they will come".

Who is they? Business is leaving this county, not coming to it. Read the papers. The image of Knox County is not favorable to new business. The impression is we have a corrupt incompetent government that can't even balance it's own books. We are drowning in excess industrial space and have no need for this park.

They will come to a park that is on septic? Does anyone really believe that? With all the open industrial parks they would chose septic over sewer? Only the group above of useful idiots believe in this park. And you have to give Edwards and Napier a pass, it is there job to believe.

KnoxAction has been honest and straight forward from day one. I can't think of a group that has done a better job trying to protect Knox County. Their work should be applauded by every taxpayer here.

Interesting point I heard at last nights meeting.

Submitted by sugarfatpie on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 3:03pm.

Interesting point I heard at last night's meeting.

TVA's own geological study of the Midway exit is preventing them from putting their substation on this land.

.

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 3:07pm.

"TVA's own geological study of the Midway exit is preventing them from putting their substation on this land."

Commission, TDC, and MPC had this same information. They chose to ignore it.

MPC was told that TVA's

Submitted by Rachel on Sat, 2010/04/24 - 3:00pm.

TVA's own geological study of the Midway exit is preventing them from putting their substation on this land.

MPC was told that TVA's geological report prevented them from putting their facility on the SOUTH side of the interstate, where they initially wanted it. So they moved it to the north side, within the business park land.

If something has changed since then, I would be pleased if someone would furnish details.

To the point everybody keeps

Submitted by Rachel on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 4:31pm.

To the point everybody keeps making that TDC and MPC have been completely unwilling to change:

Have any of you actually READ the rezoning request and staff report from 2006?

TDC was asking for heavy industrial. MPC staff recommended and Commission approved busines park I (most intensive kind of business park) for most of the property and highway commercial for the section along the interstate. The only mention of sewer was that TDC was working with KUB to get a new sewer treatment plant built, presumably on the French Broad.

Fast forward to now: TDC is asking for BP I and highway commercial. MPC staff recommended and Commission approved BP II (less intensive) and NO highway commercial in order to keep the interchange from ending up like the Straw Plains exit. And the off-site sewer treatment plant, which would have opened up the entire area to development, is dead.

So make your arguments that a business park at Midway is a bad idea, but stop saying there's been no movement on the part of TDC/MPC. It's just not true.

As far as I can tell, it's the other way around. The community will accept a business park under no circumstances.

In concept, I agree with Paone. There's way too much time being spent yammering at each other and reliving real and perceived injustices of the last ten years, and not enough spent trying to work together to find creative solutions. Frankly, that's the reason I didn't go to the meeting last night. I didn't think I could sit through another night of hostility and insults.

It's not nearly as important for one side to "win" as it is for us to end up with a good outcome. I think some people have forgotten that, or at least their behavior makes it look that way.

.

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 4:52pm.

"In concept, I agree with Paone."

On civility or the Business Park? It appears to be both. I know, you think your clever vote in MPC gives you cover. It wasn't that clever.

you think your clever vote in

Submitted by Rachel on Fri, 2010/04/23 - 4:55pm.

you think your clever vote in MPC gives you cover.

What the hell? Gives me cover from what?

Not for the first time, I have no idea what you're talking about.

you think your clever vote in

Submitted by sugarfatpie on Sat, 2010/04/24 - 12:13pm.

you think your clever vote in MPC gives you cover

Got to agree with Rachel here.

She clearly thought about this project harder than most on MPC and her vote gives her no "cover" that I can see.

She asked hard questions of both sides and in the end made a responsible vote.

She deserves credit and admiration for that.

Lisa Starbuck

Submitted by Lisa Starbuck on Sat, 2010/04/24 - 12:34pm.

OK, I've been too busy with real life to be on here and having just read most of the stuff being posted here and at the News-Sentinel, all I can say is I don't know where to start.

Brian, I really have no idea where your vitriol, especially towards me personally, is coming from since as far as I know I have done nothing to you and have only helped you in the past.

First off, you say all my arguments were based on emotion. I was emotional that night - in fact, pissed off for two reasons. First off, we were promised a workshop and instead when we get there we find that we have 5 or 6 commissioners sitting on the stage at Carter beside a podium with a microphone and Tank Strickland announces it is only going to be a listening session and the residents have to get up on the stage to address commission - very off-putting for most of them, and also for me. Just a sound off, with no dialogue, no opportunity for questions, etc. More of the same crappy process we've had since Day 1 and NO opportunity to actually discuss Midway, what it means, what the options are, etc.

Secondly, I had just found out that commission had arbitrarily decided to remove the vote on the sector plan from their April agenda and move it to May to get past the election, and of course, the community wasn't informed and still wouldn't know about it if I hadn't gone up at the end and asked them to announce it. So, yeah, I was probably too emotional.

However, all of the statements I made were factual and I would challenge you to identify something that is incorrect. I have sources for every single statement I made that night and the ones listed below. You are the one who has posted so much misinformation that I don't even know where to start correcting.

I have actually participated in this process for the last several years and I know what is fact and what is fiction, as opposed to someone who is coming in after the fact blasting away about something they really don't have the facts on and castigating the residents for not cooperating with the Development Corporation.

You seem to have bought into the idea that the Dev Corp is spreading around that we need more land and that's why we don't have a Volkswagen or Confluence Solar coming here. Volkswagen required a 1,000 acre site. Confluence Solar required an electrical substation that only Clinton could immediately provide. Confluence Solar only needed 25 acres, not the 250 you claimed. The idea that somehow Midway Road is going to provide contiguous land for a business park is also flawed. There are sinkholes and slope constraints that are going to make the development of the site more a few acres here and a few acres there kind of thing. Even the Dev Corp says the biggest plat will be around 25 acres, which is exactly the same thing we have in other existing business parks, like Hardin or Pellissippi Corporate or Westbridge or Eastbridge. They will be lucky if they end up with 1/2 of the acreage being developable because there's a lot of the land that can't be developed, which even they acknowledge and show on their plans. There's a 30 acre dripfield for the onsite waste system, the KUB and TVA substation, all the land required for their "green" stormwater system, roads, and steep slopes that can't be developed.

They have 450 acres of land on I-140 that we paid $5 million dollars to jointly develop with Blount County and the cities of Maryville and Alcoa. It has plenty of land for any company that wants to come here, but there aren't any takers. In fact, it's not even on their website, although Midway is. If it won't work there - on the interstate, next to the airport, convenient to ORNL, etc., why would we think the interstate will somehow overcome all the other limitations of the Midway property? The interstate is really the only amenity the park would offer, and it has several detriments, not least of which is the lack of sewer.

I'm not trying to put you down or make you madder than you already seem to be, but if there are any facts you would like to know about Midway, I would be happy to point you in the direction of finding your answers if you want. In fact, call me and I'd be happy to talk with you about it and take you on our "Detroit tour" so you can see why developing this property as a business park isn't necessary.

As to what to do with the land, developing it for anything is going to be problematic because of the lack of sewer. I do know that the land is going to do nothing except get even more valuable and 5-10 years down the road, it will still be there. In spite of the misinformation going around, all the houses on the property (at least the last time the Dev Corp reported on it) are rented and drawing income. The land itself is leased out for hay, so the idea that there is no income from the property is false. Of course, the income is going to the Dev Corp, not to Knox County directly.

The community has never had a chance to work on what to do with the property. The Dev Corp has made it plain from the beginning that an industrial park is what they purchased the land for and that's what they are going to do with it. There have been ideas floated from the community for everything from a horse park/race complex to a farm to grow food for Knox County schools. Nobody has ever even attempted to engage the community except to say that we could have a say in the color of the buildings of their business park.

Here's some information and facts you may not know about. It's all true and I have KNS articles to back up every fact.

The Development Corporation’s track record shows a history of mistakes and miscalculations. The 155-acre Sterchi industrial park property was purchased in 2000 for $3.6 million dollars and was donated to Parks and Recreation in 2006 after being unsuccessfully marketed as a business location for five years. The Development Corporation’s management of the Coster Shop/I-275 Business Park project resulted in the contamination of the water supply for about 150 residents of the Burnett Creek community in South Knox County in 2001. TDC, the City of Knoxville, and TDC’s subcontractors were sued in federal court for a half-billion dollars over the dumping of material from what became the I-275 Business Park into a sinkhole, which was settled for an undisclosed amount in 2006. The development of the former Farmers Market property, which was given to TDC by Knox County, was grossly mismanaged. TDC eventually sold 30.5 acres for $7,639,285 to Target in 2004. They kept 12 acres for their own store and sold the rest to a partnership headed by Houston-based shopping center developer Levcor Inc. for $8.95 million, effectively getting their land for free and making a tidy profit of a little over a million dollars. TDC left significant dollars on the table during this contentious, expensive RFP process, with allegations of insider deals and mismanagement running throughout the process. As soon as the new Target and adjacent shopping center was built, the City of Knoxville annexed the entire property.

What are we going to do with the old business parks? Where will the money come from? The existing parks are losing jobs as companies close, leaving behind their empty buildings. Where’s the plan to revitalize these parks, and shouldn’t we address this issue before building even more parks?

1. Transmission Technologies – lost 57 jobs, Forks of the River
2. Panasonic – lost 600 jobs, Forks of the River
3. Sea Ray – lost 575 jobs, Forks of the River
4. Imagepoint – lost 450 jobs, downtown Knoxville
5. Phillips – lost 520 jobs, Straw Plains
6. Anderson News – lost 400 jobs, Wesbridge
7. Goody’s – lost 800 jobs, West Knox
8. PBR – losing 250 jobs by end of 2010, Westbridge

According to the Commercial Information Exchange, there is 2.1 million sq. ft. of empty industrial/office space that is larger than 10,000 sq. ft. for sale and over 1.6 million sq. ft. that is larger than 10,000 sq. ft. for rent in Knox County. There is over 500 acres of industrial or office zoned land for sale. This does not include TDC’s properties, special use properties such as churches, retail properties that could be re-purposed, like empty big box retailers, or properties or land that is vacant but not actively listed with a realtor.

TDC is using the same numbers about job creation at Midway Road from 2006 – jobs numbers that Midway is going to generate even though all the conditions have changed. No longer industrial where anything goes, originally based on having a sewer plant instead of constraints of onsite waste treatment, based on economic conditions of 2006 and now everything is different.

The educated workforce is the primary draw for businesses seeking to relocate. According to News-Sentinel articles with quotations by economic development experts including TDC and Knoxville Chamber personnel as well as UT’s Dr. Matt Murray, location is not the primary factor in deciding to relocate a business. It’s not location, it’s not incentives, it’s the educated workforce. There are many other types of economic development we could be doing that would be more effective than building a new business park at Midway Road.

It's Strawberry Plains not

Submitted by Joe328 on Sun, 2010/04/25 - 9:04pm.

It's Strawberry Plains not Straw Plains. Other than that I liked your post.

Karst conditions

Submitted by goose creek (not verified) on Sun, 2010/04/25 - 7:44am.

I recently received a brochure for a seminar - "Foundation design in Karst terrain" to be held in Johnson City.

Interesting timing.

I'm probably going to go as I need the CEUs. Anyone have questions I might ask?

P.S. Excellent research, Lisa.

Lisa Starbuck in today's KNS

Submitted by R. Neal on Sun, 2010/04/25 - 9:26am.

Lisa Starbuck in today's KNS editorial section:

Midway Business Park unlikely to bring jobs

Regarding wastewater, I heard....

Submitted by reform4 on Mon, 2010/04/26 - 6:41pm.

.. that at the meeting they committed to an actual WWTP (not septic) on the site and that the plan would serve ONLY the business park and would not accept any outside connections.

True?

No that is not true. The WWTP

Submitted by sugarfatpie on Tue, 2010/04/27 - 7:55am.

No that is not true.
The WWTP still depends on a septic tank and a drip field for treatment.
There was no commitment on outside connections.

Onsite system

Submitted by Lisa Starbuck on Tue, 2010/04/27 - 10:19am.

My understanding is that it is a hybrid system. It has certain limitations like a septic system does and has a 30 acre drip field. You can't put certain types of chemicals into it or use a lot of water or it will overwhelm the system. But unlike a septic system, it is not just a holding tank. It chews up the waste and filters it. But it still can only handle domestic waste streams - basically human waste.

As far as outside connections, the system can only handle a certain volume and it will be everything it can do to manage the waste of the business park. These systems chew up a tremendous amount of land.

One of the big problems is that we believe if the business park is built, it will promote development around the park, which will drive the need for a sewer plant on the French Broad. There is 100 acres that is zoned commercial around the park that the MPC forced the community to compromise on in return for taking out the business park in 2000. Are we going to downzone that property if a business park goes in? Are we really going to tell Pilot and Weigels they can't put in a gas station at the exit where a business park exists? How would you put in a Pilot with no sewer? Will we allow each parcel to own and operate their own waste water system? It's ridiculous and it will be all the argument needed to drive the push for a sewer plant on the French Broad.

Are we going to downzone that

Submitted by sugarfatpie on Tue, 2010/04/27 - 12:33pm.

Are we going to downzone that property if a business park goes in?

Probably should. That land is unlikely to support septic.

Are we really going to tell Pilot and Weigels they can't put in a gas station at the exit where a business park exists? How would you put in a Pilot with no sewer? Will we allow each parcel to own and operate their own waste water system?

We should not allow each parcel to operate its own system. That would make managing pollution from the park more difficult.

It's ridiculous and it will be all the argument needed to drive the push for a sewer plant on the French Broad.

Yep. With another 20-30 million sunk in the project, when the WWTP fails the pressure to put in a plant on the French Broad will be immense.

And why should anyone think MPC and TDC will honor their current pledge of on-site WWTP only? They didn't honor their previous pledge to trade the business park for the commercial zoning at the exit.

Thanks for all you do Lisa!

And why should anyone think

Submitted by Rachel on Tue, 2010/04/27 - 7:20pm.

And why should anyone think MPC and TDC will honor their current pledge of on-site WWTP only?

That's not an MPC pledge; it's a TDC pledge. In spite of the way some of you talk, they are two separate entities with different responsibilities.

It's true that the BP sewage

Submitted by Rachel on Tue, 2010/04/27 - 12:06pm.

It's true that the BP sewage treatment system will only handle wastes from within the park. And it will only handle domestic strength waste, which will limit the kind of tenants who can locate there (TDC estimates that 80% of its current tenants could use such a system).

However, the system will still have a big drip field.

.

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Tue, 2010/04/27 - 12:23pm.

"(TDC estimates that 80% of its current tenants could use such a system)."

Good grief, you believe that? How is that even possible? Have you ever been to a Knox County Industrial Park? That is a fiction.

Is there anything in writing,

Submitted by sugarfatpie on Tue, 2010/04/27 - 12:34pm.

Is there anything in writing, with teethe, that actually requires either of these provisions?

Drip field

Submitted by sugarfatpie on Tue, 2010/04/27 - 12:46pm.

Given the vulnerability of this site and the surrounding area to groundwater pollution, the only responsible WWTP for ANY development at this exit is a zero-discharge system. The most practical would be an evapotranspiration greenhouse.

Here is a company that did one for an industrial site in MA:
(link...)

Here's one done by the same company for a town center
(link...)

If TDC is going to continue talking about this park as the "greenest park in the country", then they need to stop talking about anything but a zero-discharge system.

Of course talking about sane WWTP options doesn't mean I think the rest of this project works.

Business Parks

Submitted by Lisa Starbuck on Tue, 2010/04/27 - 6:36pm.

TDC estimates that 80% of its current tenants could use such a system

That brings up an interesting point. I would love to see a list of tenants in the business parks, what they do, and the number of employees in each - it would be nice if the Dev Corp would provide that information instead of just making claims that are difficult to evaluate unless you have that information.

I have done an informal survey of the number and types of tenants in each park when I visited them to take photos of empty buildings and vacant land.

Their claim may be true because most of the heavy industry is in Forks of the River, which they don't own or manage. Also, many of the businesses in the other parks are distribution/warehouse type facilities, which wouldn't be allowed at Midway. So technically you could say that distribution companies would work with their on-site waste treatment system, but they would be disqualified from being at Midway for other reasons.

.

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Sun, 2010/04/25 - 9:42am.

Bravo Lisa. Excellent work. Maybe Mike Strickland will learn something.

Discussing:

Confusion at the Alcoa South Plant (1 reply)
Tennessee: great for business, not so great place to live (1 reply)
Marsha & China (4 replies)
AI bubble burst? (2 replies)
Tennessee paying $637 million over 5 years for voucher software program (2 replies)
UT paying $2 million to fired professor? (2 replies)
A bear in Alcoa (1 reply)
Here are some good Presidents (1 reply)
Alcoa Hwy construction to extend to 2030 (3 replies)
Happy 250th, pfft (2 replies)
Smith & Wesson noise problem (3 replies)
Are Chat bots a waste of time? (1 reply)

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Wire Reports

Local Media

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

Comment viewing options

Discussing:

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Wire Reports

Local Media

Lost Medicaid Funding

Search and Archives

TN Progressive

Nearby:

Beyond:

At large:

Government

About