Comments from the City

Submitted by Dave Hill on Sun, 2007/01/14 - 10:51am.

From time to time, I've read the blog comments about the South Waterfront project. For those who intend to participate in the process, the MPC will consider making a recommendation on the SW Code at their February 8th Regular Meeting. City Council will not consider the SW Code at their Jan 16th meeting, as had been tentatively scheduled. As the SW Senior Director, I intend to continue addressing any issues raised, and to seek resolution if possible. If MPC does not postpone the SW Code and passes it on to the City Council, then City Council will likely begin its formal review of the code on February 13th. We'll post any new public meetings on the city's website (www.cityofknoxville.org\southwaterfront).

Throughout the South Waterfront process, we have endeavored to provide any information available to any interested citizen. We have also listened to public input and made sincere efforts to reflect what we heard, not only during the development of the Vision Plan, but also through many revisions to the five drafts of the SW Code that have been generated thus far.

The point I want to make is that public debate of the SW Code is welcome and will improve the final product. All participants in the process are serving their interests well, including waterfront property owners, neighborhood residents, Oversight Committee members, members of the general public, MPC Commissioners, and Citiy Council. And yes, I would venture to say that city administrative officials and the SW consultants are also performing well. Although there have been some tough choices and a few emotional disagreements, never once have I felt that any participant did not have sincere concerns about the future health of the South Waterfront.

For all the rhetoric and philosophic discussions, I have a few comments. First, the South Waterfront project has a 20-year life and will be continually monitored to avoid placing any additional burdens on city taxpayers. Existing industrial sites may continue to operate for as long as they like, and may rebuild or expand their current operations. This will remain the case until such time as the property owner decides there is a compelling economic agrument to relocate and either sell or redevelop their property. The same is true for neighborhood property owners - it will remain a private decision to stay, sell, improve, expand, or redevelop their own property. We will also work to develop Homeowner Assistance programs for residents who face financial challenges and want to stay. While we have released a Draft Financial Strategy for South Waterfront Public Improvements, we have never said that we have all the money we need, nor have we said that all needed funds would come from city taxpayers. Several different funding sources have to be aggressively pursued, including state & federal grants and private donations. Many cities have enjoyed considerable implementation success using private donations. The financial monitoring referenced above will include a side-by-side comparison of private vs. public investment. There will be some front-ending of public improvements as stand-alones or through development agreements, but certainly not to the extent of "If we build it, they (private investors) will come."

The South Waterfront has never been portrayed as a superior lifestyle choice as compared to suburban or rural locales. It's ability to capture no more than (and typically less than) 2-3% of the regional market share for different land uses shows that it is more of a niche market than it is a dominant shift in urban lifestyle preferences. I believe the creation of another lifestyle choice enriches our entire community.

The final comment I have is that of trying to reach public concensus. I have a different perspective than others. My advocacy position (and job) is to facilitate open debate and public decision-making. I want to be able to say that a realistic plan has been adopted that will not become a shelf document. I'd like to be able to say that we have assembled an array of tools, including a TIF district, the SW Code, and capture of grant funds and private donations that enable high quality, market driven redevelopment of the South Waterfront. The challenge is that I have not said that every person's concerns will be resolved to their own satisfaction. I truly respect everyone's right to express and advance their own interests, and whenever possible, we have made changes to the better. The decision to present the current version of the SW Code to the MPC and City Council is derived from a judgement call, and I never said that either myself or the SW consultants are the sole arbiters in the process. We try to listen to all the comments, debates, and arguments, which in several cases are conflicting - and try to exercise proper professional and ethical judgment. That's why MPC and City Council are properly positioned to receive professional recommendations and public hearing comments before making their final decisions - democracy in action.

I will continue to defend the South Waterfront process as a good one - public input has been consistent throughout. My only ask is that we maintain civility and don't assign questionable or rotten motives to those who disagree with us. I'm amazed at the things people can say to each other when they are not talking face to face.

Dave, thanks for your

Submitted by R. Neal on Sun, 2007/01/14 - 11:11am.

Dave, thanks for your thoughtful post about the SW project. Hope you will hang around and participate in some of the, uh, spirited discussion.

I think most folks want the project to be a huge success. At least I do. Obviously on a project this large there will be disagreement between some parties on just about every aspect.

I agree, though, that the planning is by all appearances playing out in public forums for the benefit of the community and taxpayers. The proof will be in the pudding when ground is broken.

On relocation of the industrial properties, I had heard that most owners were on board as long as they were "made whole" in the process. I hope this is proceeding along those lines, because it would seem critical to the project's success in terms of the overall vision, even if it means taxpayers have to foot part of the bill.

What about environmental cleanup issues at the asphalt terminal?

What about environmental cleanup issues at the asphalt terminal?

Submitted by Dave Hill on Sun, 2007/01/14 - 11:26am.

I'll hang around to address substantive issues. Environmental clean-up issues will impact most of the South Waterfront properties, especially at the water's edge. For example, the Cityview condominimums (the former Glove Factory site) received a TDEC permit for their project by continuimg to operate monitoring wells placed to observe groundwater impacted by a petroleum-based tanks that were on the site years ago. Viability of industrial relocation and feasibility of mixed use redevelopment will be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Grants may be available for some environmental clean-up. We also know that, by committing to a Riverwalk along the shoreline, we have to address grading, archaeological, stormwater, and shoreline stabilzation issues that will require TVA and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) federal permits. These costs have been anticipated in the 20-year Draft Financial Strategy.

Thanks, Dave. Millions of

Submitted by R. Neal on Sun, 2007/01/14 - 11:35am.

Thanks, Dave. Millions of interesting details to be addressed. Relocating the industrial sites would be a major improvement even if nothing else ever happened. Hope it pans out.

I will continue to defend

Submitted by Rachel on Sun, 2007/01/14 - 10:34pm.

Ditto from me. And kudos to Dave, for doing a great job managing an extremely complex effort.

Just curious, Dave: What's

Submitted by michael kaplan on Sun, 2007/01/14 - 11:15pm.

Just curious, Dave: what's your salary?

Relevance?

Submitted by James D. on Sun, 2007/01/14 - 11:42pm.

Just curious, but what is the relevance of his salary?

Here we have a public servant trying to reach out to this forum and you ask a question about his salary?

Michael, have you been to any of the SW meetings?

Welcome to our forum

Submitted by Number9 on Mon, 2007/01/15 - 12:01am.

Dave, it is good of you to join us here at KnoxViews and like Randy I appreciate your thoughtful introduction. I hope it will be more than just an introduction. Bill Lyons has spent many hours at KnoxViews and it’s predecessor "South Knox Bubba". Heated discussion is better than no discussion at all. We all have learned a great deal in this forum. I believe you could benefit from participating here.

You wrote, “Throughout the South Waterfront process, we have endeavored to provide any information available to any interested citizen”. Is it enough to make information available to any “interested citizen”? Doesn’t your responsibility go farther than that? Shouldn’t every citizen in Knox County have access to the information in the public meetings?

Early in this process I wrote on KnoxViews that these meetings should be Televised on Knox Community Television. I have shown that anyone can use sources like YouTube to present public domain information. With the technology at hand in the City of Knoxville couldn’t the information from the public meetings have been made available for all citizens?

Not everyone is able to attend meetings in South Knoxville. Just because people could not attend does not mean they are not interested. I again make the request to Televise or broadcast on the Internet the meetings. All citizens have a right to know what is happening. You could have done better in the communication. I hope you will make an effort to remedy this.

A quote from your post, “First, the South Waterfront project has a 20-year life and will be continually monitored to avoid placing any additional burdens on city taxpayers.” How is that possible? You cannot speak for future Mayoral Administrations. It is most likely that you will not be working for the City in 20 years. My understanding is that you work at the convenience of Mayor Bill Haslam. Should he be re-elected his term will expire in 2011. This project will span many City Mayors and many City Administrators.

You ask us to trust both you and Mayor Haslam but we have to understand you will not be here for the entire life of the project. Is there a way that this pledge to monitor and prevent a burden on taxpayers can be codified?

Thank you for stating this is a project and not a plan. This has been a semantic argument for some time with gemini.

I appreciate your pledge to create and implement “Homeowner Assistance programs”. This has been needed and I believe it is a positive step. Hopefully it will extend to other parts of the City.

The idea to provide financial monitoring to “include a side-by-side comparison of private vs. public investment” is greatly needed. When can we start to see the pro-forma financial statements that will show how this will affect the City budget? I think this is where you need to walk a mile in the shoes of the taxpayer.

I know I beat the drum very persistently on the “If you build it, they will come” theme. Can you blame me? Both City Council and County Commission approved Universe Knoxville. That was the acid test. At that point we all understood that there is a serious "wishfulness problem" with the City of Knoxville and Knox County. That was a delusional project. How do you have an intervention for a government?

You need to understand our faith has been badly shaken. You ask us to trust you. Then work with us. Provide better communication and stop telling us that the “interested people” have been served. Your job is to serve all people.

You made a comment about not assigning motives to people or the Mayoral Administration. Fair enough. Then request to your supporters to stop the Ad-Hominem attacks. Even pseudonymous bloggers should not be called names, marginalized, or diminished. We can all do better. Let’s start today. I would like to know how you feel about these ideas Dave. Can you participate here?

Us?

Submitted by James D. on Mon, 2007/01/15 - 12:21am.

Who is "our" and "us"? Please speak for yourself when making statements regarding YOUR governmental paranoia...

I have faith in this plan/project/roadmap...whatever name it takes. I think it's been a good public process, regardless of YouTube coverage, and frankly, an example of good government, no matter who is Mayor.

Planning process

Submitted by Up Goose Creek on Mon, 2007/01/15 - 10:39am.

James, I can try to post a critique of the planning process if you are interested in reading it.

Nelle, One of my critiques is that most of the people who live within the zone do not have acess to the internet and they also have family/work responsibilities that can keep them from attending meetings.

One of my critiques is that

Submitted by Rachel on Mon, 2007/01/15 - 12:57pm.

One of my critiques is that most of the people who live within the zone do not have acess to the internet and they also have family/work responsibilities that can keep them from attending meetings.

I've heard this from you before. It's difficult to believe that with all the public meetings, no matter how great their personal responsibilities, an interested person couldn't make ONE of them.

Also, there is the telephone. Usually folks with concerns call Council. As of last week, Rob Frost told me he had gotten exactly two phone calls. And of course the affected neighborhoods each have two neighborhood reps, who they can also call with concerns.

As for getting the info orginally, if folks can't come to meetings, don't have Internet access, can't find time to stop by the Drop In Center during the numerous hours on all days of the week it was open last summer, can't call Dave or their neighborhood rep and ask for a copy of whatever they want to look at, then what the heck would you suggest? I'm serious. Were we supposed to go individually to each household to discuss this with folks?

Perhaps there's really not such a big problem in the process. Maybe things are pretty quiet because almost everyone who wants to participate has already found a way to do so.

That is a tired canard

Submitted by Number9 on Mon, 2007/01/15 - 1:04pm.

Were we supposed to go individually to each household to discuss this with folks?

All snarkiness aside, if the meetings had been broadcast on Knox Community Television that is effectively what would have happened.

Most people do not have any idea of the scale or cost of this project. I have asked many people what they think of it and many were not aware of the project. Most were not aware of the price tag. The majority were indifferent.

Maybe they feel their input and time would not produce a worthwhile result. The idea that no one is calling City Council or coming to meetings does not necessarily mean people are pleased. It could be lack of knowledge, apathy, agreement, or indifference. Why not have the City pay for a poll?

Ok, one more comment and I'm

Submitted by Rachel on Mon, 2007/01/15 - 1:33pm.

Ok, one more comment and I'm gone for the day.

I don't think you realize the limitations of CTV. I agree broadcasting all meeting would be wonderful. But CTV has enough trouble broadcasting meetings from the Main and Small Assembly Rooms. It's just not realistic to expect broadcasts of meetings from the Drop In Center and other places where some of the meetings have taken place.

And TV is a one way medium. Info goes out, but it still doesn't come in. So it wouldn't address the need to get input at all.

And just as not all folks have Internet access, not all folks have cable TV.

Those folks you talk with - are most of them in the affected neighborhoods? south Knoxville? Downtown? Inside the city limits? Or your neighbors in Farragut? Not that everyone doesn't have some stake in this effort, but the stakes are not unrelated to geography.

We can and should do better...

Submitted by Number9 on Mon, 2007/01/15 - 1:34pm.

What is done is done.

Is the spirit of cooperation let me ask our host a question. Randy, would you or could you create a streaming video Server? Those tapes of the South Knox Waterfront meetings could be hosted at Knoxviews and played like YouTube. Maybe Michael Silence could help.

You would have thought that either the News Sentinel which does have such capabilities would have already done this. Ditto for the City of Knoxville. Maybe it is time to consider this.

If regard to the question of two way communication we have been doing that here on KnoxViews for a couple of years now. We are doing it at this very minute.

I have been dismayed at the apathy. Things like the Charter mess don't help.

Dodging those questions again?

Submitted by Rachel on Mon, 2007/01/15 - 1:35pm.

Those folks you talk with -

Submitted by Number9 on Mon, 2007/01/15 - 2:39pm.

Sorry, I thought that was rhetorical.

People from Bearden, West Hills, North Knoxville, West Knox County, and Farragut. Common denominator, they don't read much in the Sentinel except the funnies, Op-Ed, and the TV section. Almost none watch local TV news. Which was surprising to me. Most are not voters. These are friends and I like them. I would have to say their political party is the Apathy Party. Also most were men. Not heavy Internet users. Average people. Not everyone cares. Probably like most people in Knox County.

"Things like the Charter

Submitted by edens on Mon, 2007/01/15 - 1:45pm.

"Things like the Charter mess don't help."

You mean term limits, or your cable TV provider?

Opportunities for public input

Submitted by Nelle on Mon, 2007/01/15 - 9:49am.

Not everyone is able to attend meetings in South Knoxville. Just because people could not attend does not mean they are not interested.

I'm sure the city officials and consultants working on the South Waterfront realize that not everyone interested in having their say can come to a public meeting (though there have been lots of public meetings, and from what I've seen and heard they've been well-attended). That's why they've created other venues for people to have their say.

That's why they had a drop-in center in the neighborhood for much of last summer while the planning process was going on. People could come by at their convenience and ask questions and express opinions. And as we've discussed here at lenght before, all of the plans and ordinance relating to the South Waterfront have been on the city's website for the public to chew over.

I've got nothing against your idea of televising the meetings, except that it's not the ideal way to get feedback from the public and to foster a dialogue. It might supplement all the meetings and other discussion opportunties, but it certainly does not substitute for it.

Ad Hominem attacks

Submitted by Rachel on Mon, 2007/01/15 - 12:53pm.

Then request to your supporters to stop the Ad-Hominem attacks.

That's pretty funny, given who's said what just on this blog, but in deference to Dave's request for civility I'll say no more.

And I too find Mr. Kaplan's question odd - can you explain just what Dave's salary has to do (as my mother would say) with the price of tea in China?

A Response to Number9

Submitted by Dave Hill on Mon, 2007/01/15 - 3:06pm.

A couple of comments I have to offer - First, the topic of effective and productive public participation is an issue that never seems to have a pat answer. The primary goal is to reach those who are most directly impacted, and several efforts such as the Drop-In Center, open Oversight Committee meetings, community workshops and meetings, hand-outs, website offerings, phone calls, and newspaper coverage have all been part of the mix. There is a balance between cost and effectiveness - we have spent in excess of $75,000 to organize and implement the public involvement effort thus far, so as much as I advocate getting info out to people and to get comments back, there is a cost involved. Information overload is also a concern - we compete will alot of people trying to get their own message out. Could we have done better? Probably so. I have always felt that local government is the most responsive form of representation, and that those who are interested, particularly those who feel their interests have been diminished, know about the process and the meeting opportunities. I don't think any process can meet the objective of obtaining every citizen's input, no matter how significant the issue.

I also want you to know that the 20-year life of the plan/project (I think it's an adopted plan that is transitioning into a project) does carry with it the need to address momentum, accountability, and changing personnel. Neither Mayor Haslam nor I will be working for the city or on the SW in 2026. The adopted SW Action Plan indicates that a permanent organization should be established to oversee plan implementation within 2-3 years. This would require accountability on several levels - expenditures and revenue would be subject to public scrutiny and annual audits, elected officials will have periodic (probably annual) decision-making authority to maintain some public funding stream, and performance assessment (such as ROI) should be required to show the relationship between investments in public improvements to private investment that it spurs.

Finally, I am more than willing to acknowledge that public trust in government has decreased over the years. I take very seriously the responsibility and obligation to try to engender public trust. I think we have moved in a positive direction, but the only way to secure trust is to hide nothing, admit mistakes when they're made, and keep on talking to people.

Good information...

Submitted by Number9 on Tue, 2007/01/16 - 12:21pm.

This would require accountability on several levels - expenditures and revenue would be subject to public scrutiny and annual audits, elected officials will have periodic (probably annual) decision-making authority to maintain some public funding stream, and performance assessment (such as ROI) should be required to show the relationship between investments in public improvements to private investment that it spurs.

Positive goals all. A step in the right direction. How can they be codified?

I have written at length of my concerns of what happens if a piece of the South Knox Waterfront project fails such as a condo project. An example would be the condo project next to Maxey’s Boat Dock. After two years no units have been sold and the developer is in serious financial trouble. There is no negative impact to taxpayers because no TIF’s were used.

Gemini feels that if a developer has too few parking places and their condo project fails it is just a loss to the developer. Would that not require the TIF to become the responsibility of the City? I don’t recall Bill Lyons ever discussing what happens if a developer goes bankrupt.

I think the taxpayers have a right to know what the risk is when TIF’s are used.

Another thing that would help the communication of this project is too show the timeline cash flow responsibility of the City. This has been painted with very broad strokes. 139 million dollar price tag with currently 55 million dollars of TIF’s over twenty years. The density is so high and so dependent on condos it asks the question if that market can absorb that number of condo units. Market saturation is a concern.

Never said that

Submitted by Rachel on Tue, 2007/01/16 - 12:26pm.

Gemini feels that if a developer has too few parking places and their condo project fails it is just a loss to the developer.

Show me where I did.

SW $$$$

Submitted by Dave Hill on Tue, 2007/01/16 - 3:52pm.

About TIF's - There are 2 types. Project-specific TIF's, such as the one used for the Cityview condos on the former Glove Factory site, are backed by the developer's lender - the city has no liability for any unpaid debt. The SW district TIF, which covers a wide area, is city-backed and the TIF debt is repaid only to the extent that the district generates property taxes above the level generated at the time the district was approved (Sept 2006). TIF revenues will therefore depend on the degree to which market demand for new development is maintained. The risk is higher to the city in this instance, but we intend to handle this in two ways - (1) TIF funds will be used for publicly owned improvements that will provide a general public benefit (i.e. - streets, infrastructure, parks, etc.) and will not be used to directly subsidize private development costs. This is important because we do not want to artificially support development that can't compete in the market. (2) if we use an ROI approach to the use of TIF or any other funds, we can make incremental decisions based on the corresponding level of private investment. This is not a single project where all funds expected to be needed have to be obligated at one time. It's more a pay-as-you-go approach, tempered by observations of the level of private investment.

Another point I think is important - you asked for a cash flow timeline. So many times, government builds such a bureacracy that it can't respond quickly to market conditions. For the SW, we need to be flexible and nimble. We provded a fairly detailed list of public improvements that can be envisioned, but after that, we said the estimates would change. Each funding decision made on the SW is going have to be made separately (or in linked groups), and each project will be viewed in terms of the success of previous expenditures.

I don't see market saturation as a major concern. If the condo market sags, we'll see less condo projects and associated public improvements. Although the SW plan is residentially driven, it is far from exclusively condo. Also, there is nothing wrong with amending the Vision Plan if, when the plan is revisited in 5 years, other uses make more sense.