First of all, everyone should note that the Redevelopment Plan refers rather often to the Vision Plan.  The Vision Plan has been officially adopted by City Council.

Second, remember that the reason we are even doing a redevelopment plan is that under state law it is necessary for an infrastructure TIF, which is what the Action Plan calls for.  We are NOT doing a redevelopment plan for the traditional purposes.

Then note that Randy leaves out several rather significant quotes from the plan:

"The only properties to be acquired under this plan are:  1) dilapidated properties for which the owners have elected not to submit proposals in acccordance with this plan, 2) properties that are purchased voluntarily, or 3) properties required for public ownership and construction of public improvements." 

I see zilch about allowing acquistion for the 2nd, 4th, or 5th reasons Randay lists.

Assuming no one objects to #2, let's address #3:  this is the classic use of eminent domain for things like parks and street improvements.  I haven't heard anyone involved in the process raise objections to this. 

Ok, condition #1:  First of all, note that "this redevelopment plan does not contain any provisions or development requirements for properties that are defined as 'blighted' but not 'dilapidated.'"  Then note the definition of "dilapidated".  This is important because an ordinary person would think that a "blighted" property is in worse shape than a "dilapidated" one.  Not true here.  The plan says "'Dilapidation' is a more narrowly defined subset of blight, and for purposes of this statue is defined as extreme deterioration and decay due to lack of repairs to and care of the area." 

These are precisely the kind of structures that the Old Sevier neighborhood has been begging the City to deal with for YEARS.  They are the kind of properties that are now aquired under the City's Homemaker's program by eminent domain if all else fails and sold to - gasp - other private individuals who will take care of them.

One can argue whether this authority should be left strictly where it is, or included in this redevelopment plan, but it's not something evil, nor unwanted by most in the community.

Finally, I'll also quote the entire paragraph that Randy took one sentence from because it spells out the intent of the plan:  "Although the redevelopment area as a whole contains blighted areas, several buildings in the redevelopment area contain active businesses, and numerous sound residential structures comprise established neighborhoods that should be preserved. The intent of the Vision Plan is to stimulate the VOLUNTARY revelopment, reuse, or improvement of private property in target areas through a highly defined series of public improvements. A map of the properties within the district boundaries identified as redevelopment candidates has already been completed and is part of the adopted Vision Plan, and does not currently include single family residential structures. The Vision Plan does not include or recommend the involuntary public acquisition of private property for economic development purposes (transfer from one private owner to another private owner). Acquisition of private property for public improvements, both as a partial and/or total purchase, is required and recommended in the Vision Plan, with the intent that such property will remain in public ownership with associated improvements made to benefit and be enjoyed by the general public. Single-family properties located in the Old Sevier and Scottish Pike neighborhoods are not identified for redevelopment, but acquisition for public ownership and improvement will likely affect several of these residential properties."  (emphasis added)

I just got my copy of this late yesterday afternoon and haven't had time to study it all carefully.  I certainly am not prepared to say that I support every single bit of it as written.  But it's important that we all understand ALL the elements in context.  I hate to sound like our Glen, but "read the whole thing."

BTW, this will be on both the City and KCDC websites Monday morning.  Personnel stayed late last night trying to get it ready, but computer problems intervened.

One final note of interest is that the plan, if adopted by the City, will authorize KCDC to take any action in furtherance of the plan without further approval by the City.

Considering our heritage with TVA is that any surprise? That is not the role of government, it is not constitutional, and most importantly it removes all checks and balances and also removes any representative authority. Who votes for the KCDC Board?

Those who are doing everything they can to make this fair should address this issue. It should not stand.

If you are not concerned about local government in Knox County you are not paying attention. Expect to learn more about the word "deleterious".

Thanks for the insight R. Neal.

I think the most common situation will be people who have lived in substandard houses all thier lives, who don't want to move and don't want the government telling them what to do.

Another situation that could occur is when the homeowner is in a nursing home and is not able to authorize repairs. To give an example I'll relate a tale from my brief foray of living across the river. The house next door WAS in the worst sort of dilapidated condition. The city had done some repairs in the early 80's but they only went so far. After Mr S. died Mrs. S. went into a nursing home but she still came to visit a few times a year, from what I heard she still held onto the illusion that she could move home and she would have been very disturbed if someone else had taken over her home.

Now a greedy neighbor would have wanted that house gone in a heartbeat and would have been all over the city to have it torn down. I didn't say a thing. The rest of the neighborhood was improving and when I sold after 7 years my house had appreciated 97%.

After Mrs S. passed away someone bought the home and is turning it into a showpiece and I'm guessing the heirs got a price they were happy with. Alls well that ends well.

What about the hypothetical case of someone who's just beginning to fix up a house that is in part dilapidated. But they're thinking it may cost almost as much to bring the property entirely up to code as to build new. Would the building inspectors come down extra hard on this hypothetical person because they are a troublemaker? Does a piece of the neighborhood fabric get torn down because the bedroom cieling is too low?

A more common case is buyers won't buy into a neighborhood when they are afraid if they put their heart and soul into a property and then it could be taken away regardless of $. Unfortunately this has happened already with the Fregonese plan.

Also, just to clarify your remarks, are you saying that there are limitations or exceptions regarding what properties the city could take within the urban renewal zone as allowed by state law?

In a word, yes.  That's my understanding, but I want to clarify it at or before the Oversight Committee meeting Thursday.  Bill Lyons and Dave Hill said at the public meeting that conditions on the use of eminent domain have been put in redevelopment plans before, and would be put in this one.   KCDC can only do what the plan authorizes.  And although my use of language was poor - yes, there are references to all the things you mention in the plan - the plan EXPLICITLY authorizes property to be taken (p. 11) under three conditions:  1) dilapidated properties for which the owners have elected not to submit proposals in accordance with the plan, 2) properties that are purchased voluntarily, and 3) properties required for public ownership and construction of public improvements.

The City actually already has the ability to do all three of these RIGHT NOW if it so choses.  Except that this actually gives owners of dilapidated properties MORE protection since they get a chance to go through a process for showing how they plan to improve their property.

And I quoted the entire paragraph you mention not to quibble with you but simply for the reason I said I did - it very clearly spells out INTENT, which is important.  That is that the plan "does not include or recommend the involuntary public acquisition of private property for economic development purposes (transfer from one private owner to another private owner)."

Look, it's clear the City has no intent to come into this area in a wholesale way and take private property to sell to developers.  It's been clear from the beginning of the process, and they've gone way out of their way in this document to continue to spell that out.  In fact, we wouldn't even HAVE a damn redevelopment plan if we didn't need one for the infrastructure TIF.

One last point - anybody who REALLY thinks that KCDC is going to go out and condemn property that the City didn't intend to be covered by the plan - even if it turns out that state law allows them to do so - is just plain wearing a tin foil hat.  KCDC doesn't work that way.  They don't have a big pot of $$ sitting around to spend on condemned properties for one thing - guess where they have to get that from?   And the current chair of KCDC is Bill Haslam's first cousin, for God's sakes.

I understand that this is an issue, and I'm interested in getting the language precisely right myself.  But IMO we've got another facet of the Action Plan coming up that is likely to have a whole lot bigger impact  - and that's the proposed form-based codes.  There's a big public meeting on those Thursday night at 6 p.m. at Kerbela Temple.

I sure would like to see more folks paying attention to what those are going to end up looking like and less attention to getting hysterical over a pretty damn small threat of the use of eminent domain for "nefarious" purposes.

Ummm, I do believe the digit used the word "nefarious," although it seems to be gone now.  Either I read it incorrectly last night, or some editing went on.  Nevertheless, there has been plenty of insinuations and downright accusations thrown around about the City acting in bad faith.  God knows it's happened before, and anybody who knows me has heard me yell about it, but it's just not happening this time.  At least there's no evidence of it so far.

And Bean, I agree that Dave Hill's conduct on the stormwater things was horrible.  Since the spouse is a water quality person, we follow these things closely.

But honestly, I've been deeply involved with the south waterfront effort for a year now, and I honestly can't find much fault with how he's running this particular show.  I've remarked to the spouse that sometimes it seems there's two different people - the stormwater Dave and the south waterfront Dave.  'Tis a puzzlement.

Look, I'm not saying anybody should roll over and accept blindly what the City and/or consultants hand out.  Up to this point nobody has - there's been literally 100s of eyes on this.  But when folks are actually running a good process using good practices maybe we should try to encourage them to keep doing it instead of hitting them over the head.

Bubba - nice pics.  They are just the kind of thing we want to preserve over here.  Everybody pretty much agrees on that.  So the point is....?

And Carl's Lane has never been included in the study area.  I really don't know why.  If it's important, I would think some folks would have asked by now.  But if the community wants me to do so, I'll ask on Thursday.

As for the boundary, with a public meeting on the redevelopment plan 9/5, a Council workshop 9/7, another public meeting on the 9/11, and the formal public hearing on 9/14 (all before anybody takes a vote), it would seem that there is ample opportunity for discussion about it.  Also, most of the area added to the boundary is in Old Sevier and I thought the Old Sevier folks WANTED the boundary enlarged, but perhaps I misunderstood that.  I'll check with them on that.

Do you remember how Dave Hill got all huffed up when I said I was going to plant strawberries on my acre lot on Blount Avenue and said "are you trying to stop waterfront development!" What was that all about?

Umm, no.  I remember a lot of joking by quite a few folks about your "strawberry patch."  I didn't see anybody getting "huffed up".  I also remember Alvin Nance telling you that agricultural land can't be taken by eminent domain for industrial parks after you said that the new state law said ag land couldn't be taken by eminent domain.

Also, most of the area added to the boundary is in Old Sevier and I thought the Old Sevier folks WANTED the boundary enlarged, but perhaps I misunderstood that.  I'll check with them on that.

Just checked on this.  I was correct.

Do you support allowing agricultural crops in the waterfront red zones as they are allowed in all other residential zones in Knoxville?

Yes, Martha if that makes you happy, I'll support it.  I wouldn't want you to lose out on that strawberry patch.

But it doesn't mean the new state statute is going to apply to your property - that talks about land "predominately" used for agriculture.  I don't think a residence with a garden or strawberry patch is what they had in mind.  NOT that it matters anyway, because NEITHER THE CITY NOR KCDC INTENDS TO TAKE YOUR PROPERTY TO SELL IT TO A DEVELOPER.

The Old Sevierites want some of that infrastructure TIF money.  How stupid of them.

And yes, they wanted the new development at the top of the ridge included, primarily under the new form-based zoning, but it's gonna get done before that can happen anyway.

Thanks for your support with the gardens, and I mean that sincerely.

You're welcome, and I also mean that sincerely.  However, I expect some strawberries in payment.....

Yes, that's interesting. Living in a rental one time, received a subpoena delivered by a deputy with a notice of delinquent homeowner association fees. The homeowners assoc. was threatenting to take the property. Even though they knew exactly who the owner was and how to contact them, they delivered the subpoena to the occupant. Of course, I immediately contacted the homeowner and the homeowners assoc. fees were paid.

Everybody has heard the old Will Rogers comment about how you have to keep one eye on the kids and one eye on the government, but, in a pinch, the kids will be alright on their own.

Still sage advice. 

My son rents on Scottish Pike & was given a note that he has to be moved within 30 days. Since this is an involuntary move for this redevelopment, is there any compensation made to people who can ill afford to move in this bad economic time - particularly someone who lost his job and is in very dire situation? Thanks.

weareonespirit

Could you send me a private mail with the adress? I hadn't heard of any developments going in on Scottish pike at this time. I thought the city was putting most of its attention to public improvements in the Lincoln street/ Langford avenue area off Sevier.

____________________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs

I had posted some information here last night that I had found that contains information published during their initial planning where they had information about compensation for renters who would be displaced. Don't know what happened to it.

Here it is: (link...) - see page 11. Sounds like there is some recourse if people are displaced, even temporarily, due to the redevelopment of the area.

weareonespirit

In Knoxville City Ordinances: Sec. 2-741. Relocation assistance and real property acquisition policy.
The department of finance and accountability is authorized to adopt a relocation assistance and real property acquisition policy for persons and entities displaced as a result of a city-funded project.
(Ord. No. O-106-07, § 1, 5-22-07)

weareonespirit

I'm going to suggest that he speak with Madeline Rogero with the city's community development office and see if the city has any plans for help in these cases. I hope you or he will report back with the results.

IMHO the issue of privately displaced renters wasn't adequately adressed in any of the public meetings. Wasn't adressed at all that I recall. I wish that more renters had been actively involved in the process. I think that they were just busy with their jobs and families, plus as a great orator so aptly put it, they're bitter about getting any consideration from the government.

Perhaps if your son is between jobs he has time to kick up a fuss. Better late than never. I belive he his more likely to get results when you can put a human face on the dilemma.

____________________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs

I appreciate your suggestion to contact Madeline Rogero. I have sent her tonight a detailed email outlining the situation.

My son, is unfortunately, not in the physical condition at this point in his life to do anything right now. He is working on application for disability at this point. This notice to vacate the apartment in 30 days has put him in a very bad situation at the moment. He is trying to adjust to new medication and stress makes his condition MUCH worse.

If someone could move up his name on the waiting list for HUD apartment due to this, that would be wonderful. If he could qualify for funds for relocation, that would be fantastic. But, like you say, it will all depend on if the property is going to be one of those required to be removed.

From the drawings on this website: (link...), it appears that the location where the house presently stands will not have a dwelling in the end (the property is vacant in the drawings of AFTER). So, that is why I am thinking that the city may be purchasing the property from the owner.

weareonespirit

Thanks for the input and suggestions. It is a bit difficult to have full knowledge of what is happening from 4 hours away - but this site has helped me out.

I have several good leads for rent by the week sort of thing for a temporary place until a spot opens up in HUD apartments. From what I found out today, this notice from his landlord will actually help him to move up on the waiting list. So, now instead of a 30-90 day wait, they are saying 2-5 weeks, but most likely in the 2-3 week range. So, that is not so bad.

Thanks for your help.

weareonespirit

Another person to contact would be Alvin Nance with KCDC. You may have to attend a KCDC board meeting if you aren't able to get through to him personally.

I must admit I'm a little bewildered by your statements. I only know of one apartment on Scottish Pike and the last time I saw the occupant he was healthy and employed. Besides, his landlord has no intention of selling as far as I know. That's not to say there isn't an apartment tucked away in a basement I haven't noticed.

I know of no development plans at current. I did see a video at the sunsphere that seemed to indicate another tower at the end of Scottish Pike (In a low density zone no less?!). Couple that with rumors of a large price being turned down by a homeowner makes me wonder if something was afoot a year ago. So much for sticking to a plan, hunh. But with the current economic climate I'm guessing the developers and their bank are grateful to Mrs D for turning down the offer.

It's not like buyers are lined up trying to buy River Towne Condos. I hope City View fares better. At least City view put some effort into marketing their project to homeowners instead of taking the easy way out by selling huge chunks of the project to investors.

____________________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs

I will try Alvin Nance. My son lives in a duplex - one side is owner occupied and he has the other side. The owner also owns the house next door - so I think that when he bought the properties it was as an investment. It was my understanding that the owner's parents are in Real Estate & have done quite a few "flips" that have done very well. I think they bought the property in 2001 or 2002. . .but I am not sure.

weareonespirit

weareonespirit