Hey folks - unless it is "confidential," who is "The Seventh Son" who is commenting over on the knoxnews article about Campfield regarding the Bistro scrap?

Guess he hasn't had time yet to introduce a bill that bans nude portrait paintings behind bars that serve alcohol.

"SB3363: Abolishes the metropolitan planning commission of Knox County; transfers all duties, responsibilities and functions of the commission to the Knox County Legislative Body."

Other bills against ICLEI are in the hopper state wide. Is this part of the ICLEI/Agenda 21 backlash? Rutherford County is torn up over their planners. Several caption bills from there about this.

Condemnation Of The Comprehensive Plan & Proposed Zoning Ordinance & Zoning Map

WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of Rutherford County government to protect its citizen's constitutional and basic human rights, the Republican Party of Rutherford County respectfully asks that both the County Planning Commission and the County Commission reject the Comprehensive Plan and propose Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. It is unwarranted and not needed as it infringes on a property owner's right to sell and profit from the development of their property; and,

WHEREAS, we respectfully ask that the proposed Zoning Regulations be reformed in a way that will not devalue property, that will not discourage development, that will not interfere with a property owner's right to sell and develop their property; and,

WHEREAS, the needs of human beings and the Constitutional rights of American citizens should never be sacrificed or infringed upon to promote non threatening environmental concerns and views; and,
WHEREAS, local County and Municipal government should NEVER grant or in any way hand over authority and control of it responsibilities, obligations to its citizens to ANY outside organization, commission or authority and any previous actions of this kind should be returned to local authority of "elected" officials; and,

WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan and therefore should be rejected, both for its lack of compliance and for its violation of property rights of Rutherford County citizens; and,

WHEREAS, the purpose for people owning property and choosing to live in rural areas are to benefit from lower taxes, less government interference, fewer regulations, and with the understanding of fewer government services. The County's plan to build greenways, bike lanes, and expand government services will result in higher taxes, less freedom and intrusive government. We oppose these efforts; and,

WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map down-zones thousands of parcels in the county without any notice, consultation, or request from the property owners. This is a egregious property rights violation. This action would significantly devalue said properties; and,

WHEREAS, government should compensate property owners at or above market value for any and all land to be set aside as open space, public use, greenways, bike paths, and public parks. Furthermore, the government should be responsible for the upkeep and expense of such public spaces and uses of land, when mandated by government; and,

WHEREAS, the zoning map places many industrial areas, particularly the heavy industrial including mining and quarries, in areas surrounded by residences. And the allowable setbacks place these uses essentially on the doorsteps of homes. This action would significantly devalue said properties; and,

WHEREAS, the 200 foot proposed setback of quarries from residential property is inadequate and the previous setback of 1500 feet should be maintained; and,

WHEREAS, the proposal gives the Planning Director sole decision making authority over zoning requests "based on the interpretation of the Planning Director." Zoning regulations should be explicit and NOT open to interpretation; and,

WHEREAS, in 902K1,2 of the proposed zoning changes, it requires property owners to set aside a minimum of 20% as open space without compensation to property owner or buyer. Furthermore, it requires the property owners to "maintain" and "improve" the open space at the property owners' expense. This action would significantly devalue said properties; and,

WHEREAS the plan's call for RL housing, one dwelling per unit acre, is excessive and would severely devalue a person's property value for resale. The Plan's call for tax benefits deductions would not adequately compensate property owners for their losses. This action would significantly devalue said properties; and,

WHEREAS, in 1003F a provision states "In the interpretation and application of this ordinance, all provisions shall be liberally construed in favor of the governing body." This grants too much power to government and violates property owner's fundamental rights; and,

WHEREAS, in 1005B7c it states that development shall not result in ANY increase to the water surface elevation of the base flood level. The requirement of "ANY" would be impossible to meet economically. The standard federal requirement of "1/10 of one foot" should be maintained. This action would significantly devalue said properties; and,

WHEREAS, in 1005B12 the zoning changes stops using the traditional blue-line definition of rivers and streams and replaces it with an undefined and broad interpretation. This leaves property owners and developers wide open to abuse as they would fall under federal mandates for streams and environmental oversight and protection. This action would significantly devalue said properties; and,

WHEREAS, in 1107 (Conservation Subdivision Standards) the section is excessively restrictive with no associated benefits, there is no conceivable way that any person would be interested in participating in this as proposed. This action would significantly devalue said properties.

WHEREAS, in 104B2 of the zoning change proposal would prohibit and or discourage the growth of small business in rural areas; and,

WHEREAS, in 40402B of the zoning change proposal would severely limit the ability of profitable agricultural activities. The government should not engage in mandating and controlling what crops and livestock are grown and let the marketplace and property owner be the determining factor; and,

WHEREAS, the government should not force residential property owners to install water sprinkler systems in homes. This is an over reach of government that can result in

severe damage to homes caused by sprinkler malfunctions. This action would devalue said properties; and,

WHEREAS, sidewalks, bike paths, tennis court fencing, property fencing, landscaping, curbing and underground utilities should not be required by government in rural areas. This should be determined by the property owners and the marketplace; and,

WHEREAS in preserving of trees plants and open spaces should be left to the discretion of the marketplace and the property owner. This is excessive government interference. This action would devalue said properties; and,

WHEREAS, The Republican Party of Rutherford County, Tennessee here by adopts the Republican National Committee's resolution condemning the United Nations Agenda 21 as a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992; and,
RESOLVED, The Republican Party of Rutherford County will support efforts to seek the replacement of elected officials, appointees and the dismissal of government employees that promote excessive government interference, that promote the environmental extremist plan known as Agenda 21, that promote policies that infringe upon a property owner's right to development and profit from the sale of their property and violates a property owner's fundamental property rights.

Adopted this day: 1/17/2012, by unanimously approval
Austin Maxwell,

Chairman, Rutherford County Republican Party
615-893-7219

Director@RutherfordGOP.com
NOTE: RNC Resolution on United Nations Agenda21 attached

Republican National Committee
Resolution Exposing United Nations Agenda 21

WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992; and,

WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into local
communities throughout the United States of America through the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) through local “sustainable development” policies such as Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, and other “Green” or “Alternative” projects; and,

WHEREAS, this United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so-called “sustainable development” views the American way of life of private property ownership, single family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, and privately owned farms; all as destructive to the environment; and,

WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, social justice is
described as the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment which would be accomplished by socialist/communist redistribution of wealth; and,

WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy National sovereignty is deemed a social injustice; now therefore be
RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee recognizes the destructive and insidious nature of United Nations Agenda 21 and hereby exposes to the public and public policy makers the dangerous intent of the plan; and therefore be it further
RESOLVED , that the U.S. government and no state or local government is legally bound by the United Nations Agenda 21 treaty in that it has never been endorsed by the (U.S.) Senate, and therefore be it further
RESOLVED, that the federal and state and local governments across the country be well informed of the underlying harmful implications of implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 destructive strategies for “sustainable development” and we hereby endorse rejection of its radical policies and rejection of any grant monies attached to it, and therefore be it further
RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of the Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, all Republican candidates for President who qualify for RNC sanctioned debates, and to each Republican state and territorial party office and recommend for adoption into the Republican Party Platform at the 2012 Convention.
Passed, Fall RNC Session 2011

I'm glad you didn't decide to copy and paste War and Peace or the Bible.

WHEREAS, the purpose for people owning property and choosing to live in rural areas are to benefit from lower taxes, less government interference, fewer regulations, and with the understanding of fewer government services.

Gee, Alan, did the Republican Party of Rutherford County poll every rural resident in the State of Tennessee to arrive at this assertion?

Because, like, I live in a "rural area" due to having received a free patch of dirt. I know redmondkr got a free patch of dirt, too. We're both on family property and--I'd venture to guess--we're neither one "regulinators."

Kinda presumptous of the Republican Party of Rutherford County to make this assertion on the part of every rural resident in the state, don't you think?

I was told that for the first time in 20 years MPC had zero rezonings or subdivisions submitted one of the last meetings of 2011. MPC recently attempted to make up for a drop off in rezonings by doubling fees.For a 65 acre tract the fee just for rezoning is now $7000.00.The general feeling in the community is that we have too many activist staff members and apparently they have have pissed off the wrong people. Its also pretty well known that Mark Donelson, the head of MPC, spends most every Friday golfing, and he has been reprimanded for it by current and previous county mayors.The state set up MPC, if people are dissatisfied with it,although it would seem unlikely,I guess the state can take it down.Regardless there needs to be a major shakeup in that department.

I was told that it was damn near impossible to get AIDS through heterosexual sex.

Shouldn't there have been some kind of pubic hearing before filing such a bill? Has anybody ever seen Stacey or Frank Niceley at an MPC meeting? How are they qualified to make such a decision? Niceley doesn't even live in Knox County, and after this session won't represent any part of KC anymore.

It seems like people in rural South Carolina have a point. Planners are not elected nor accountable. Should planners have this much power? How is that constitutional?

(link...)

These folks seem to be all "It's my land and I'll do what I want" until their neighbor wants to put in chicken houses or low income housing.

Look...It's the deal we make for a sustainable society. Do your part and let's make this place a great state to live in.

(Sorry, I keep forgetting it's really all about greed. My bad!)