Rachel,

According to MPC the workshop has been changed at last minute to April 13, 2011 at 8:00am, I guess in an effort by proponents of the hillside proposal to quash the people who want to know more about this issue and prevent it from being televised. A friend of mine sent this to me, it was sent to all commissioners today and members of the real estate community. People are extremely upset with Tony Norman and Mike Hammond for the way they scheduled this workshop. This is why people are upset, the process should be more important than the results.

The email sent to Commissioners and real estate community:

Dear County Commissioners,

Just found out the workshop for the Hillside and Slope Protection Plan has been scheduled for Wednesday, April 13th at 8:00 AM.

One of your colleagues was quoted as saying "if we do this as soon as possible and early enough in the morning, no one from the other side will show up".

Does anyone realize and understand how Tony Norman is grossly manipulating Commission, the public and the system. He is doing everything in his legislative power to squelch communication, manipulate you and thwart opposition to his Plan. He is so emotionally consumed by his Plan, he will stop at nothing to make sure it passes as he drafted.

Tony keeps saying the "opposition" is putting out false and misleading information. Not one time has he stated a specific false or misleading fact put out by the "opposition".

The Plan was originally put on the MPC Commission agenda for a vote during the holidays, with less than 2 weeks notice and before MPC Commissioners had a chance to read the Plan.

Many MPC Commissioners were under the impression the Plan could be changed or amended by County Commission and/or City Council and would come back to the MPC Commission amended, for a final vote.
.
Tony tried to limit public debate on the issue at the Commission meeting.

Tony stated publicly, on four different occasions, that there was absolutely no room for compromise only to later suggest there may be room for compromise after he counted votes. Tony has not yet considered any compromise to his Plan.

Tony demanded a 60 delay when he thought he might not have the votes after accusing the "opposition" of using delay tactics.

Tony demanded rules be established limiting discussion from the "opposition" which has never been done in the history of Knox County.

Tony has helped direct MPC in spending nearly $400,000 in tax payer's money to develop his Plan.

Tony helped orchestrate the scheduling of the Commission workshop to be as soon as possible, with little time for notice and early in the morning.

Are the Property Owners of Knox County, the Chamber, the Board of Realtors and the Home Builder's Association all manipulating the system or is Tony Norman manipulating the system?

You know this does not feel right.

Do you know who the "opposition" is?

The "opposition" is the tax payers and job creators!!!!
The "opposition" is your constituents and the citizens of Knox County!!!!

If you go to KGIS.org and pull up both Tony Norman's and Joe Hultquist's subdivisions, you will see that neither of their subdivisions would exist, as developed, under Tony's Plan.

Go to KGIS.org, go to search, search by address, type in Tony's address 3520 PLUMWOOD, in the top right hand corner of the screen where it says Select a Map Theme go to MPC Proposed Hillside Protection Plan. You will see a (+) and (-) symbol across the top of the screen. Hit the (-) symbol to zoom out.

Joe's address is 2240 FISHER.

Check out your family's property, your friend's property, other developments and affordable housing projects that would not exist if Tony's Plan had been enacted years ago.

Has anyone asked what the long term economic impact will be if this Plan is approved?

In the future, we will not be able to build affordable housing in Knox County. Try to find affordable housing in Asheville, NC or Boulder, CO. You will not find affordable housing in these cities. All of the affordable housing is in adjacent counties and miles away from the city. Maybe that is the objective?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's all a vast conspiracy. I'm not going to respond to any of it except for two thing: 1) I live in the same neighborhood as Joe Hultquist, and it definitely COULD have been developed as it exists under the plan. 2) The plan was debated at the MPC meetings in October and November before it was voted on at the December meeting. AND we had two workshops. If we wanted to be sneaky we sure were doing it wrong.

To the reality-based readers of KV - sorry for getting the date wrong. Tony Norman tells me it was never the 18th. Either the person who originally told me the 18th got it wrong, or I misheard.

Anyway, it's still 2 weeks away, so no harm, no foul.

Did you vote in favor of it in december?

Why would you schedule a workshop on an issue like this at 8 am with less than two weeks notice?

This says it all-

(link...)

Since it has been demonstrated that the hillside plan creates opportunity for more efficient and cost-effective development, the opposition has shifted strategy. Their message is now "Oppose the plan because we hate Tony Norman!"

I did vote in favor of the plan, as I suspect you know.

I corrected a factual error in Vernon's post about MPC. I've no interest in debating the demonology of Tony Norman.

BTW, we ALWAYS get our agenda packets 6 days before the meeting, although we get a preliminary agenda a week prior to that. That's the way the system works. And the plan had been available on the MPC website since at least Sept.

If you have a problem with the 8 a.m. meeting time, take it up with Mike Hammond. As County Commission chair, he sets up workshops. I don't like the early time much myself.

When a person representing groups, is calling one person of an elected body unsavory names, think man!

Consider that one man on the Commission would be very easy to overcome if he/she was such a person, and he was not right. When one represents profit-making (or at least desiring) entities, at least use a smart strategy.

For one, you just convinced me that the person on the Commission you complained about must be in the right, and I was on your side before.

Considering that MPC did not approve the Hillside and Ridgetop Protection Plan until December 9, 2010, and as of today, neither the Knoxville City Council nor the Knox County Commission has approved this plan, A question comes to mind.

What came first, this Hillside/Ridge Top Protection Areas, (HP), Classification for Land Use or the Hillside and Ridgetop Protection Plan?

This excerpt is from the “One Year Plan Update for 2011”, from the MPC, that was just approved on first reading at City Council Tuesday night. This exact same language also appeared in the 2010 One Year Plan Update.

"Hillside/Ridge Top Protection Areas (HP)
This classification is used to identify hillsides, ridges and similar features that have a slope of 15 percent or more. Open space, recreation land or very low density housing (one dwelling unit per two acres) is recommended for slopes exceeding 25 percent. For slopes of 15 to 25 percent, housing densities should not exceed 2 dus/ac). Office uses may also be considered. Building height should not exceed 35 feet.
Location Criteria:
• Hillsides greater than 15 percent slope
Recommended Zoning and Programs:
City:
RP-1, OS-1 and a new hillside protection
zoning overlay, that has standards for various
residential and office land uses and the amount of
land disturbance that can take place relative to the
degree of slope.
County’s Planned Growth and Rural Areas:
OS, E, A (on slopes less than 15 percent) and PR;
a new hillside protection zoning overlay, that has
standards for various residential and office land uses
and the amount of land disturbance that can take
place relative to the degree of slope.
Other Zoning to Consider:
Other zones that require use-on review"

Was the Ridgetop & Hillside Protection Plan created to fit this Classification? How long has this Classification exsisted in the One Year Plans and the General Plan?

Hillside protection areas (slope protections areas) have been around for a LONG time. Look at some old sector plans.

Geez, haven't we been over this before?

This is a very interesting concept. After reading several articles about this "movement", I have come to the following conclusion.

The term, "New Urbanism", might as well be "Urban Renewal”, as it has to me, the same kind of disastrous, motives. The Urban Renewal movement that began in the late 1950’s and was in full swing through the early 1970’s brought about the destruction of inner city communities across this country, especially in the South, where African-American communities where bulldozed and replaced with Civic Centers, Highway Systems, Stadiums and Public Housing projects.

Government Sponsored “New Urbanism” concepts, plans and projects are not about choice. They are about control. Communities should be very careful when these types of far-reaching, Land control concepts are suggested. Land Owners are correct to be concerned about this current Hillside and Ridgetop Plan in Knox County.

As is shown by our population growth and where people chose to live, most people in Knox County don't want to live in the "City", or Urban environment. They have chosen to live with some land, a lawn, and many in suburban neighborhoods. “New Urbanism” on the other hand wants us all to live in urban areas, where we can cut down on our growth footprint, and all go back to the kind of tenement living that defined our Northern City's at the beginning of the 20th Century. No thanks. If an individual wants to live in the City, than they have the right to do so. If I want to live in a suburban community, than I should have the right to as well.

This “Plan”, the Hillside and Ridgetop Protection plan, is how the concept of New Urbanism will be implemented in Knox County. It puts property development control in the hands of MPC, Knox County Commission and the City Council. It takes control of property out of the hands of property owners, just like Urban Renewal did. Millions of property owners across the country lost their homes and land under imminent domain land takings, in the name of Urban Renewal. Here, MPC will use Zoning restrictions to limit how land can be used, with the goal of making construction cost skyrocket, and facilitating huge parcels of (Because of Zoning restrictions),undevelopable land to create Park Lands for the Park developers.

Didn’t our society learn anything from the results of the first wave of “Urban Renewal”?

It was a real workshop with a great crowd representative of the Community. The good news is that there was no mention of delaying this any further. The one point that I agree with here is that I to have heard about enough about this plan and how misrepresented it is.

The presentation that was made did a great job of explaining what all this plan does not change. It still seems like for all the time and money it would change something but evidently not. No real change, nothing to worry about, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Property owners should be notified in writing about a sector plan and other plans that would modify the use of their property.

How about this; the bureaucrats only vote on sector plan changes each year 90 days after notification of a proposed change. During the 90 day period, a COMPLETE version of the proposed change should be debated in public forum.

Only some who want to control others rights have the time to go to meetings to create more regulations that most people do not want or deem necessary in the first place. The notification should come in writing with your tax bill. Do we work for the government or does the government work for us?

One has to love the way those who think government should make all our decisions create so many meetings, and it is up to us to pay attention to their incremental agenda to take over individual rights.

And hey Vernon, here's a question about using 15% as a starting point for staff recommendations for residential development. Staff has been doing this for nigh onto 20 years. You say you've never encountered it. I've never heard any other developer complain about it.

And the guidelines in the plan are the same as we us now until you get to 40%.

So why all of a sudden is 15% this huge problem?

What might be helpful is if someone could put together a "before and after" side-by-side summary of the proposed changes.

As fast as I can respond to you on another blog, you come over here and make a fool out of yourself. To quote "Illogical attack. You lose." Anyone who would try to make the argument that more regulation increases property rights does not grasp illogical or the concept of rights.

Try sticking to explaining what it is you want to accomplish and why you think it is important. Try the truth. Maybe that will get you somewhere.

I have just received a Robocall, asking me to contact my Commissioner and tell them to vote for this plan because it will "Stop Flooding". I cannot believe that the recorded message claimed that this Plan would "Stop Flooding".

Will the lies never stop?

Wonder what group is paying for the Robocalls? To try something like that, in the eleventh hour of this debate. Sure seems like some group is desperate and will stoop to anything to get their way.

Someone or some group can spend money doing Robocalls, but money can't be spent to notify the owners of the effected properties?

I agree with RidgeTopResident on his post from the KNS, what the hell is going on here, what is the truth, what group would find this "Plans" passage so important that they would pay for a deceitful Robocall campaign?

It appears that the Robocalls targeted areas in the County that have seen Hillside developments that have been used as examples by the supporters of the "Plan", as bad examples of Development.

Keeping in mind that each and every one of these developments had been approved by MPC. No Guide, No "Plan", no ordinance, no Zoning, no Overlay District, no Hillside Protection district, will protect our Land from Bad development without enforcement.