gemini wrote:

"OTOH, KCDC swears they sent one to every property owner. So it's hard to fault that."

Actually, it's easy to fault that, without more information than KCDC's swear words. The letters seem to have been sent a long time ago. Mamaw never received hers. Others have reported not receiving them. What did KCDC do after learning not all property owners got their letters. Did KCDC send follow-up letters? Did KCDC check the database from which the letters were sent? Did KCDC include dummy addresses to check bounce-backs? Was it seeded with known addresses to check delivery date? Once they knew letters were not received, did KCDC check with the post office to see if they'd had some kind of foul up?

At the very least, investigation after that fact should be done in a good faith attempt to root out the problems. And since weeks ago reports were posted here (at least), one would think that perhaps KCDC could have taken the initiative to investigate, fix glitches, and send notifications out again.

I don't expect you to know the answers, gemini. OTOH, KCDC's swear words shouldn't be the end of the inquiry. Having managed the tedious business of direct mailing in the private sector in another lifetime, I can assure you it's standard practice to ensure your addresses are clean and to build in checks to determine if your mail house is getting your materials out in timely fashion and if the materials are going to at least some of the addresses included in the mailing. Managers in the private sector who don't monitor timely delivery of critical material would get their chops busted for sure with so many non-deliveries. What happens in the government sector?

Barring more explanation of what happened with the notifications, I'm afraid it's easy to fault "that."

Diana Conn didn't recieve a letter, and she would be looking for one.

Did I say that everyone got their letter?  I did not.  I don't know what happened; obviously there was a screwup somewhere.

I stand by my statement that folks who are paying attention know what's going on - especially with regards to the redevelopment plan, and especially in Mamaw's neighborhood.  Mamaw took care of that.

And there was an awful lot of Old Sevier folks at the public meetings......

jeff wrote: "I don't think he COULD have voted for the proposal."

My thought at the time was that Hall probably should have recused himself. I was wondering, too, whether Hultquist had any financial interest in the area.

Hall did say he owned property in the affected area. Since he could stand to benefit from it, I don't think he COULD have voted for the proposal.

Actually, I wondered if he was about to recuse himself...

And the one with all the apostrophes is quite right - KCDC should have followed up on the complaints about unreceived notices.  I don't know whether or not they did.

I guess what bugged me was that SOME (not on this board last night) were quick to insinuate that the failure of everyone to receive a letter was some kind of deliberate shell game, rather than a just a foul up.  As far as I can see, the City has acted with good faith on this effort.