Michael Silence had a couple of articles in yesterday's News Sentinel about the TVA land use policy review and the public comments.

Read more after the jump...

There was a post here recently about the public response. The Maryville paper indicated that the responses "overwhelmingly opposed" sale of TVA land to developers. In comments on that post, Michael said "I talked to Gil Francis this morning and he says he did not give to the Daily Times a breakdown of the responses. He says there is not one yet." He also said he had been pestering TVA for a breakdown.

Apparently he got one. In this article, he says that 90% of the 4000 public responses opposed sale of TVA land to private developers.

(Note: the comment period on the proposed policy has been extended to Tuesday Nov. 28th. You can submit your comments to landpolicyhearing@tva.gov. A summary of the proposed plan is here.)

Of course Bill Baxter, who presided over the recent controversial "land swap" deals mentioned in the article, doesn't agree. He says "The first draft recommendation is too restrictive and penalizes economic development." And of course, KNS editor Jack McElroy agrees with Bill Baxter.

But here's a curious development. Michael Silence's other article from yesterday (which has mysteriously been moved to the paid archives only one day after it was published) says that TVA is reviewing its policy of not releasing the names of people who submit public comments. The article also says that KNS has requested the names of people commenting on the land use policy under the Freedom of Information Act. TVA says they are trying to balance FOIA requests and the public's expectation of privacy. (UPDATE: There was apparently a technical glitch publishing the article online. It is now available here.)

The real question is, why is the KNS so interested in the list of names? It's pretty obvious that 90% of the public opposes the sale of TVA land to developers. It might be interesting to know who the 10% are that don't oppose it, but it probably includes developers like Thunder Thornton and Mike Ross, and probably some Bush Pioneers and other prominent members of the KNOXGOB Downtown Developer and Prayer Meeting Club. It's not clear, however, why the TVA PR staff at the KNS would want to bring attention to that.

Anyway, here's what I think about TVA's land use policy, and I don't care who knows it (I am R. Neal and I approve this message).

There should be four guiding principles:

1. Proceeds from any sale or lease of land that was taken by eminent domain should be used to reimburse the original owners or their heirs for the current appreciated fair market value of the land. TVA should not make a windfall profit from running people off their land, in some cases at gunpoint.

2. Deed or lease restrictions should be included such that any commercial or recreational use must be open to and for the benefit of the public and may not include exclusive "clubs" or other types of exclusive development. It should require strict regulation and enforcement of environmental protections for such such things as bilge pumping, fueling operations and managing spills, waste holding tank dumping, etc. There should also be assurances of funding for strict enforcement of safe operating rules. In any case, TVA must remain committed to maintaining natural habitat and public access for outdoor recreation.

3. Reservoir land should not be used for industrial development except in the rare case where barge transportation is critical to the success of the project and only if the project will significantly benefit the local economy. And it should require strict environmental regulation and enforcement.

4. Residential development should be considered (here's where I might, gasp, agree somewhat with Bill Baxter, because I might want a lakefront house someday) but only if it will provide an economic benefit to the local tax base and reflect the character of the community. Deed restrictions should prohibit "exclusive" gated communities and require affordable housing and mixed office/retail/commercial use in a neighborhood setting. The mix of housing should match the existing mix of housing in the county/region. For example, if 80% of the housing is in the $100,000 or less range, then the development must allow for 80% of the new units to be in the $100,000 or less range. Or something like that.

Other than that, I think the proposed land use policies laid out by TVA seem about right. Frankly I'm a little surprised, but it's nice to see the new board reining in the go-go policies of the previous TVA administration.