A closed secret process with no public input?

Yeah, pretty funny from a group that was complaining 6 months ago that H/R had not had enough participation and had failed at public notification.

I'm sure Council on the whole will pay no attention to Plan B (honestly, couldn't they have picked a name that didn't make me think of birth control?), but Commission - geez, who knows?

In my opinion, the sooner they show Edwards, Rice, and this do nothing except inflate salaries and payroll chamber, the better off the community will be.

The Chattanooga chamber operates on a shoestring budget and is much, much smaller than the Knoxville oligarchy, yet the Chattanooga heads continue to reap development sucess while the Knoxville Chamber sputters, spins, and cracks jokes, bringing no new jobs to Knox County and relocating no industry to Knox County.

They can not even keep local companies from relocating their new offices to Blount County and Roane County, i.e. Team Health and H.T. Hackney Company. It is my understanding that Clayton Bank may be headed to Blount County and the old NOVA Information Systems operations center may be also be headed to Blount County.

What is leaving and what is about to leave, coupled wiht the ongoing failures of the chamber to do anything except pay themselves extraoirindariy well, are indicators that this body does not work and should be disbanded. In my opinion, Edwards has no credibility and tends to act like a bafoon and a general rube, when we need professional recruiters and relocaters in the mix, not these types of knox it alls.

.. that the Chamber was developing an alternative plan? I don't recall seeing any kind of notification until now, when the plan is complete and ready to submit.

Were property owners involved and their voices heard?

Didn't think so. That makes the original H/R plan superior in that respect to "Plan B", in that there was an open, public invitation for property owners to be involved and be heard.

(Hypocrites are such easy targets...)

How do you tell someone that they can't use their land the way others have for two hundred years?

That's been going on since the mid-1920s, when the SCOTUS ruled that zoning was within the police power of the state.

mailing letters to every property-owner who may be affected by proposed Plan B... yeah, right.

??

Rachel, I would like to know what isn't right with Plan B. Why won't you tell us? It bothers me you are doing what you accuse Mike Edwards of doing.

No need to take notes. Everybody will say exactly what they've said 18 times before, except the Chamber will now push their "Plan B." I do hope somebody calls them on a) the lack of info on who developed the plan, and b) the total lack of public process on it.

But I won't hold my breath.

Looks like a realtor/crowd here, maybe 20, the Chamber folks, two LWV observers, and that woman Rikki. :) No sign of George, I'd expect him to steer clear.

John Stancil and Finbarr Saunders also present. Bill Lyons in the corner.

About 10 more realtors just walked through the door. I wonder if George has managed to change their hearts with his frank discussion and confrontation of his fellow realtors.

a group of folks who "have substantial experience in engineering, land planning, real estate development and legal and regulatory matters and have had extensive dealings with the Metropolitan Planning Commission?"

Wow; he's sure a busy guy.

Casey Self reading (I think) Jamie Dobb's letter.

Primary point: legislative bodies should not erode their responsibilities by ceding decision-making to an overworked Engineering department, and MPC has more expertise than Engineering as well.

Speaker (missed name): 'property owners not notified', 'no supporting documents', 'more layers of government.' Brings up potential for lawsuits. He's reading a detailed statement prepared by someone else, it appears. Astroturf?

Axel Rheam (sp?), lives in Jefferson Co, Sierra Club, speaking for Knoxville Sierra Club members: "This is not a takings issue." Points out that cars have to downshift at 8% grade, half that of the plan minimum (for commercial, that is).

Casey Self reading (I think) Jamie Dobb's letter.

Primary point: legislative bodies should not erode their responsibilities by ceding decision-making to an overworked Engineering department, and MPC has more expertise than Engineering as well.

Speaker (missed name): 'property owners not notified', 'no supporting documents', 'more layers of government.' Brings up potential for lawsuits. He's reading a detailed statement prepared by someone else, it appears. Astroturf?

Axel Rheam (sp?), lives in Jefferson Co, Sierra Club, speaking for Knoxville Sierra Club members: "This is not a takings issue." Points out that cars have to downshift at 8% grade, half that of the plan minimum (for commercial, that is).

UPDATE:
Renee Hoyos, TCWN: "Plan B..sad.. Chamber had other opportunities to give their input. 30% slope will not be protected, all of our steep slopes will be cleared, only the tippy-tops will be protected."

David Vandergriff: "Trees have utility value."

Debra Van Meter?? Pres of West Knox Co Neighborhoods: 23 neighborhood associations voted to support the existing plan.

Proposed plan amendment not sufficient. Spending a lot of time whining about the old plan rather than presenting "Plan B."

Chamber sticking to belief that the plan will be taken as is and passed as ordinance. They don't understand or don't accept that new ordinances have to be written based in ideas in the plan.

"Advisory Committee" wrote plan:
Gary Novell, Chris Newtan, Schaad Companies, Robin Askew, Mike Edwards, Garrett , and some names I didn't catch.

"Knoxville was founded by developers." "They built on the ridges over steep hillsides." {Uh, yeah, they were defendable positions against Native Americans and enemy troops. And they didn't wipe out all the trees to build the house.}

Plan B considers "prominence" of ridgetops, e.g., a ridgetop between two larger ridgetops doesn't necessary warrant protection.

NORVELL; talking about slopes, but folks in office are pointing out Chamber's time is up and it's time for them to leave the stage. He's quickly running through slides of steep developments including... Ayers Hall?

Lisa Starbuck: Owns 12 undeveloped acres that would be affected, but I support plan, and would rather enhance its value rather than degrade it. Task Force was careful to consider all the constituencies. Chamber plan had NO public input.

Broyles: I got a few names, and you said 'a group of other people', but that's not enough, we need a full list of names of people who worked on it and their affiliation. Amy pointed out the Native American thing and the need for defensible positions (and the fallacy of Chamber argument). "We don't have to worry about people taking our scalps."

BEST LAUGH LINE OF EVENING.

Broyles: "I don't think you realized the name of your plan was the same as an emergency contraceptive."

Tom: "We considered this plan to BE emergency contraception!"

Awesome.

Brown apparently wants to "pick from each of the plans and create the best plan." OMG. He wants Commission to rewrite it all.

Broyles, Norman, Brown, Ownby, Hammond

Brown, NDV, JoeB, mayor Brown, and someone else

If I came up with a plan, would it be added to the roster of plans for Commission to consider?

If 10 other organizations with 'engineers' came up with plans, would Commission have to consider 15 plans?

The plan has no visible merit compared to the existing plan- there would be a case for modifications of the existing plan, but if Chamber refuses to play that game, they should just sit on the bench and watch.

It's interesting that you didn't respond to my criticisms of Plan B nor offer anything but platitudes in support of it. Instead, you asserted your experience and authority, but then undermined it by saying you don't understand how to value trees except in terms of board-feet of lumber.

Those sorts of valuations are already part of the Knox County planning literature, contained in both the stormwater manuals and the tree plans. The actual calculations were done by researchers with the American Forestry Association, and they are not all that complicated. Hydrologists know the rates at which different types of soil and roots absorb rainfall, and they simply compute the cost of equivalent, artificial control structures like detention ponds, culverts and concrete channels. Basically, it's "What would it cost to do artificially what trees do naturally?"

Likewise, with air pollution, you take basic transpiration and growth rates and multiply them by biomass to get a measure of the air filtration services trees and plants provide.

This whole ICLEI thing is pretty hilarious, but it conflates water use (that's stuff like drinking, cooking, bathing, cleaning, irrigation, cooling, lubrication, etc) with stormwater control, which only has to do with rainfall events. Certainly people who are paranoid and not especially clever will find your conspiracy theory compelling, but I wonder whether the Chamber really wants to be associated with such nonsense.

Water is a resource that is becoming increasingly valuable as the world population passes 7 billion, and I would think that a sensible economic development organization would recognize that as an opportunity here in water-rich Appalachia. I'd think preserving the value of that resource would take precedence over polluting it and degrading the natural filtering capacity forests provide.

I did ask Edwards if he would like to comment. He politely declined.

But, but... they're located in EUROPE! Nothing good can come of that.

It seems that expertise in that area is very relevant.

Environmental Science is the discipline that focuses on:

Understanding the physical, chemical and biological principles underlying the structure and function of our environment;
Understanding how, and to what extent, human activities have interfered with that structure and function;
Identifying solutions to existing environmental problems while preventing further environmental degradation.

Environmental Science:Northern Kentucky University

He says this MPC Hillside plan was copied from Ashville

Does "he" have any evidence to back this up? Do you have a link to the Asheville plan that matches word for word?

Read the plan; there's a full list of task force members and their affiliations. MPC planners are obviously trained and experienced in land use planning and development.

Could you return the favor and tell me where I can get a list of the people who worked on the Chamber plan and their affiliations?

Didn't think so.

That's not what the plan as passed by MPC says. It includes all residential land, and the 2 du/acre kicks in at 15%. However, Tony Norman and MPC have drafted some small adjustments, which I just heard once and haven't had a chance to explore in detail.

I do know they relax some of the requirements, and this may be one.

But I'm puzzled about ag land. The current zoning code says you can only build 1 du/acre on ag land (flat or hilly), and I don't think the H/RT plan proposes changing that.

Goose, it is confusing and no, it's not just AG zoning. What the plan says is that no CHANGES are proposed to the current residential density limits in each zone until you get above 40% slope, which are CURRENTLY limited to 2 d/u per acre on slopes above 15%.

Here's the table from the MPC's Hillside Plan web page:

Slopes less than 15 percent
Current: Any use allowed by the property’s base zoning.
Proposed: Any use allowed by the property’s base zoning.

Slopes between 15% and 25 percent:
Current: Residential uses at up to 2 dwellings per acre. Various policies for limited office, medium density and commercial uses have been adopted in several plans, including the Technology Corridor.
Proposed: Residential uses at up to 2 dwellings per acre, and limited office, medium density and commercial uses in all hillside areas.

Slopes between 25 and 40 percent
Current: Residential uses at up to 1 dwelling unit per two acres.
Proposed: Residential uses at up to 1 dwelling unit per two acres.

Slopes between 40 and 50 percent
Current: Residential uses at up to 1 dwelling unit per two acres.
Proposed: Residential uses at up to 1 dwelling unit per four acres.

Slopes over 50 percent
Current: Residential uses at up to 1 dwelling unit per two acres.
Proposed: No development.

You don't need to worry about my sincerity because I always show my work. You can look at the facts I've cited to support my claims and decide for yourself whether my conclusions are justified.

On the other hand, your claim that in the 90+ posts in this thread there are only two criticisms of Plan B (who wrote it and "it's not flexible enough for developers") suggests that you are either functionally illiterate or profoundly insincere.

And that density remains possible because the limits within the slope thresholds are not rigid limits. They are used to calculate a density budget and a clearing budget for the whole parcel. The developer retains flexibility to "spend" that budget as he/she feels best suits marketing and engineering goals.

For example, on a parcel where the <15% slopes are in a floodplain that can't/shouldn't be disturbed, the site planner can move both the density and clearing allotments upslope, realizing densities that may be nominally over the limits.

The Hillside Plan doesn't change the allowed density on that 3-acre parcel. It does limit you to 50% clearing, but that doesn't seem to be much of a problem, given what you describe.

What it does is relax setbacks, parking requirements and road width, all of which should help you maximize what you can achieve in that space. Conceivably you could earn a 7th unit by putting a portion of the land in a conservation easement, though I'm not sure how practical that might be. In any case, the Hillside Plan seems to put you in a better situation relative to existing regulations.

As far as my assumption about a mix of slopes is concerned, you're right, I do assume that. Partly this is because the rolling topography of our area is consistent with that assumption, but it's also because typical uses of smaller parcels -- one or two homes -- fall within the plan's constraints, and it's mostly larger parcels and projects that it affects. 3 acres is right about the minimum size that's big enough for multiple dwellings but small enough to fall into a single slope threshold.

You expect people to search through something from months ago without knowing how to find it?

If there is a tactic here it is clear who it is coming from. I've never seen people play games like here. I've asked reasonable respectful questions. This isn't a discussion. It is taunting.

What part of "I already responded to your questions in this thread" don't you understand? Since you are too helpless to notice when someone responds directly to your posts, I will repeat myself: the restrictions in the Hillside Plan DO NOT START AT 15% SLOPE. 15% slopes is where the incentives and allowances for reducing footprints and moving construction downslope begin. The Chamber's plan obliterates those incentives and allowances.

As another favor to my helpless friend, here is the thread I referred to that discusses flexibility. Please stop being so pathetic; you are embarrassing yourself and the Chamber.

(down)

"Well, what say you?"

I observe that you have pointed out that clearing and grading is the key issue, more so than slope. Which is not the drum that has been beat for so long. Everyone else talks about slope as the key issue. So I recognize that you have distinguished what is really at the heart of this. And it only took a couple hundred comments. That tells me that some compromise has occurred and it is a good thing.

There are four plans today. The original MPC Plan. The Della Volpe Plan. The original MPC Plan with three minor adjustments by Tony Norman. And the Knoxville Chamber Plan.

That is a lot of plans. Why shouldn't all the plans be sent back to MPC and from them all a compromise plan be formed?

Back to you reform4. What say you? The rest of you could join in, it isn't like participating is a bad thing.

In the City the Hillside Plan is law once it is passed. Not so in the County. So in the City, since it is law and since it devalues property, it is a taking.

Man, I've never seen anybody pack so much incorrect information into such a short paragraph.

If passed, there is no difference between the plan's legal status in the city and in the county.

The plan is not "law" in either place. It's a plan, a guideline. It is not regulatory, like an ordinance. Any new ordinances passed must agree with it, but the plan itself isn't law.

As for the takings issue, you need a short course in land use law. A REGULATION is not a taking unless it deprives the owner of all economic benefit of his/her property (see Lucas v. Carolina Coastal Commission) - not some of it, all of it. That's because SCOTUS ruled back in the 20s that zoning (which can change the value of property - in either direction, BTW) is a legitimate use of the police power of the "state." In other words, localities have the right to enact ordinances - including zoning - that they think protect their citizens.

And finally, a plan is NEVER a taking because it's not law.

No one here has made any valid point why compromise should not be sought out.

You've already demonstrated that you can't even keep up with what people have said in this thread, much less in the dozens of previous threads throughout the years most of us have been following this topic.

Your claims about which valid points may or may not exist are a joke. You can not simultaneously plead ignorance of what has already been said and make authoritative claims about what has already been said. Which is it?

If a developer wanted to build near your home, he would have to notify, at his expense, the property owners around the proposed development.

If you're saying that the law requires this now, you're wrong. If you're saying the plan requires it, you're also wrong.

This "Plan" is about preventing development in Knoxville long into the future. It really has nothing to do with the hillsides.

That's just silly. Why would anybody want to "prevent" development? Is it really that hard to understand that some folks just want to make sure we have good quality development?

Statements like this one are why I'm trying to limit my interaction with you. As I said before, you don't want to have a reasonable discussion.

That's what I was thinking.

Given the other business involvements of the Plan B staff, such a Mike Edwards maybe didn't spend that time bringing new tenants to our empty business parks (THATs the reason!!!), I'm sure I could calculate the cost of Plan B at north of $2M, unless they totally half-assed the plan on 30 minutes.

I meant that the money for the salaries for staff is already budgeted and spent, whereas any "notification" money would have to come from new funds. Also, if you notify about one plan, wouldn't you set a precedent requiring notification of all plans and plan amendments? It would be a very expensive undertaking.

Current homeowners would almost universally see property value increase. The only exception that comes to mind is if one tried to subdivide land that was sloped to a degree that it's value was negligible to begin with.

In other words, it protects homeowners from unscrupulous developers who would build a project that would lower the property value of the immediate community. Despite the SCOTUS ruling, you should really refer to development groups as corporations and neighborhood residents as people. To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

You are correct on one level. TYP's issues were directly related to poor development choices. But you are insinuating that, in this case, we should side with the poor downtrodden developer instead of the neighborhoods. Your logic is ass-backward and faulty. Are you a Republican?

BTW, the TYP went down because the public was not informed. The TYP wanted to build some group homes and drop it in an unsuspecting neighborhood. That did not work out too well, did it?

I'll call bullshit here. The TYP went down because their proposed projects lacked the infrastructure and planning to support the project. In short, the money wasn't there to complete the projects.

What if I wanted to restrict development on land that was <15% slope simply because I can see the development from my hill? Address that.

Then you could get the Leprechans riding Unicorns to follow you to council meetings. When did we start using fantasy scenarios to make points about reality here?

That property value increase would be in direct proportion to the devaluation of my property. And why is it my business what my neighbors property values are?

Why should your neighbors have to subsidize your speculative behavior? You are trying to raise the value of your property by lowering the value of theirs. This goes contrary to virtually every argument made by the Chamber when they talk about recruiting businesses, yet when we simple tax-payers and community members says hey I don't want my quality of life destroyed by someone stealing my property value you get your panties in a wad and get all pissy. Grow up. Fell free to speculate all you want. Go to Vegas, play the lottery, buy land to flip. But don't come before this community and pretend to be pro-anything because the reality is you're just a jonesing gambler looking to get someone else to pick up your tab.

You would have my land "sit in the back of the bus" because you believe that any development is bad. You have got what you want, so screw everyone else.

That's not true. What I do believe in is smart development. If you are coming in with a development that will change the fundamental nature of an area then you have an obligation to develop in such a manner that the change is positive. If you can't demonstrate this to our MPC as lenient as they are, then the odds are your project shouldn't have been considered to begin with.

That property value increase would be in direct proportion to the devaluation of my property. And why is it my business what my neighbors property values are? Seems to me that property values in an area are all tied together.

For developed property, yes. Let me explain to you the concept of "tragedy of the commons." It's a term used by economists to account for exploitation of a resource that affects those around them.

In the simplest case, let's say buy the land around a lake, and I own the land encompassing the river that feeds into that lake. You have your nice vacation home, and maybe build some rental cottages on that beautiful lake that represents rental income for you. I decide years later to build a sausage factory and dump entrails into MY river. The next thing you know, your rental income drops 50%, maybe even to zero.

Now, by your argument, I haven't despoiled your property value at all, I've just raised the value of my own property by building a factory spewing intestines, ears, and shit into the lake. And by the argument in your second sentence, I've raised your property values.

Now ponder that for a bit and get back to me.

(link...)

"yet when we simple tax-payers and community members says hey I don't want my quality of life destroyed by someone stealing my property value" So there you have it out of your own keyboard, Stealing your property value is bad, but stealing mine is just fine?...........or just when the government does it. I pay taxes too. I don't pay them so the government can take my property rights.

The above is your entire paragraph where you took my quote out of context. Below in bold is what I said. Don't be a pussy and try to twist my words.

Why should your neighbors have to subsidize your speculative behavior? You are trying to raise the value of your property by lowering the value of theirs. This goes contrary to virtually every argument made by the Chamber when they talk about recruiting businesses, yet when we simple tax-payers and community members says hey I don't want my quality of life destroyed by someone stealing my property value you get your panties in a wad and get all pissy. Grow up. Fell free to speculate all you want. Go to Vegas, play the lottery, buy land to flip. But don't come before this community and pretend to be pro-anything because the reality is you're just a jonesing gambler looking to get someone else to pick up your tab.

You don't have a right to steal.

BTW, you would need to get a permit for grading, run your factory Plan by the MPC, inform the community, get an NPDES permit, run all your plans by codes enforcement, and the list goes on and on and on.

Yes. It's called regulation, with the intent of protecting the rights of the other parties that don't own the property. Your argument hinged on pure consideration of the property rights of the undeveloped property owner. You've just admitted there's a role for regulation to protect the other members of the community and the values of their property.

Absent the restrictions (excuse me, "takings") you mentioned above, it would be the right of the river owner to build his factory.

Thank you for finally seeing the light.

When one start changing the circumstances surrounding a situation then the person instigating the change would be the one stealing. You're really not this stupid, are you?

This reminds me of an anecdote from when I was at a forest service ten year plan meeting. The topic at hand was timber harvesting practice and exactly what to do about storm felled timber. The pro lumbering woman that was there was insistent that we begin building the roads to get to the future tornadoes immediately. Your argument reminds me of hers. Your premise that the village is stealing from you for not allowing you to poison the well from your own property is beyond stupid.

I looked at the woman and asked her how she knew where the tornadoes would touch down.

This is different from a developer. A developer has a specific plan which will likely increase or decrease the value of the property around it as well as the quality of living of the immediate residents. He knows ahead of time what this plan is and must include it in any presentation for zoning change.

Let's take a real life example, the development at Northshore and Choto. The proposal to MPC was based on a model that , for lack of a better term, promotes a decentralized, village concept. There is an assumption that the developer will develop that property with a strong consideration for the surrounding neighborhoods. That is what he said he would do, but beyond that, IT IS THE SMART THING TO DO. It serves the developers self interest by making his property more valuable by increasing the value of his rent because , by providing pedestrian and greenway access he is increasing the potential revenue stream. Should he choose to limit traffic beyond that provided by auto it would presumably do the opposite and lower the value of his investment. It, would however, be cheaper up front.

It goes beyond this, however. It will also affect the property values of all the surrounding neighborhoods. Should this corner be developed with the entire community of Choto in mind it will likely transform it into one of the premiere communities in the southeast. It also has the option of just being more helter skelter sprawl and lowering the property values in the surrounding neighborhoods.

Your position would suggest that this choice is the option of the developer while my position is that the developer has a moral, ethical, and since that was the general idea presented to the MPC, legal obligation to do the right thing. He is also likely to make more money by doing the right thing.

I find your position that the neighborhoods are stealing from the developer by calling for him to do the right thing to be ridiculous. If the developer was not interested in being a positive force within a community he should not be allowed in that community. Frankly, that's the way I view regulation for this entire area.

It's not. You're wrong. And that's that.

You all have beat this to death. But you still won't answer the most basic question.

The answer to your basic question would be this. First your basic question contains a false premise and that is that the MPC plan is the most severe hillside plan in America. Second, this plan is clearly in the best interest of the community as a whole.

When you can explain why it is in the best interest of the residents of a subdivision to let a developer with a piece of poorly chosen land grade out a section that will erode the area around the swimming pool and tennis courts out to the drainage pond, then you would have an argument. Until then you should wake up to the reality that you ain't in Kansas anymore.

And a damn fine job he does, too.

How much did they spend on that plan? Was any of it taxpayer money? Why didn't they notify all affected property owners?

(link...)

"MPC Offers Needed Revisions to Hillside & Ridgetop Plan
0diggsdigg

The Knoxville Chamber announced on Monday that it was encouraged by MPC's proposal that County Commission drop the Hillside and Ridgetop Protection Plan originally proposed by MPC and consider a revised plan that addresses issues raised by the Chamber and other business groups.

The Chamber consistently opposed the original MPC plan for going too far on hillside regulations and not far enough in protecting scenic ridges. MPC proposed that almost 40% of Knox County be designated as a protected area, but acknowledged that its plan related only to erosion and did not provide scenic protection for ridgetop areas. The MPC plan was rejected by County Commission and has been postponed by City Council.

As an alternative to the MPC plan, the Chamber proposed Plan B, which focused on slopes greater than 30% and provided specific standards for consideration of development proposals. It also proposed adoption of specific ordinances and regulations governing development in steeply sloped areas, with the provisions of the plan to be considered advisory guidelines. That would leave final development decisions in the hands of City Council and County Commission.

After the Chamber raised these issues, MPC acknowledged that its plan did not adequately address those concerns, and MPC proposed significant revisions to its own plan. The revisions include:

* Making the plan advisory in nature until specific codes and regulations are adopted.
* Revising the density and clearing charts to make it clear that the proposed limits are recommendations and not legally binding.
* Adopting specific standards for consideration of development plans and concept plans, rather than subjective review by MPC.
* Recommending specific changes to codes and regulations.
* Specifically acknowledging that City Council and County Commission are not bound by the plan and may approve more intense development plans.

With these revisions, MPC is effectively incorporating many of the key Plan B concepts into the revised MPC plan. While the Chamber continues to believe that Plan B is better than the MPC plan, the proposed revision of the MPC plan addresses many of the critical issues.

The Chamber looks forward to receiving the revised draft of the MPC plan and is hopeful that it will appropriately address these concerns. The effect of MPC's proposed revisions is that development will continue to be controlled by the codes and regulations, not by a vague plan, and the Chamber plans to work with MPC and the City and County Engineering Departments to ensure that the Plan B concepts are incorporated in those code and regulation amendments and used for consideration of future development proposals."