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.