Thu
Mar 29 2007
05:16 pm
KCDC Public Hearing report
By: michael kaplan

I made the comment at the KCDC Public Hearing on March 27 that I was opposed to all Redevelopment and/or Urban Renewal Plans because they give KCDC, acting as an agent of the City and County, blanket authorization to seize properties and make them available to private developers.

In response, Dan Tiller stated that, following a change in the statute in 2006, the State Legislature "permits seizure for public use only."

Mr. Tiller's statement was inaccurate and misleading.

Here, in fact, is what the revised statute says (in part):

This act generally excludes from the definition of public use for which this power may be used either private use or the indirect public benefits resulting from private economic development and private commercial enterprise, including increased tax revenue and increased employment opportunity.

However, the following designated purposes are excepted and allowed even if there are private benefits:

3. The acquisition of property by a housing authority or community development agency for urban renewal or redevelopment under title 13, chapters 20 and 21.

Land acquired by eminent domain may be sold, leased, or otherwise transferred to another public entity or to a private person or entity if fair market value is received for the land.

==

Topics:
Number9's picture

Did Mr. Tiller misspeak?

Submitted by Number9 on Thu, 2007/03/29 - 7:50pm.

Or was this as I questioned, a way to remove the working poor from their homes?

It is clear he did not understand the 2006 State Statue.

Will KCDC declare with City Council approval a redevelopment district that will compromise the property rights of working people of modest means?

Or will the old standby of blight by used? The City has a plan to help individual homeowners. I hope they choose that plan instead of the normal KCDC route. High hopes they will do the right thing.

Rachel's picture

Or was this as I questioned,

Submitted by Rachel on Thu, 2007/03/29 - 7:58pm.

Or was this as I questioned, a way to remove the working poor from their homes?

Absolutely. I had to go out to the KNS the other day and I overhead the receptionist say that she overhead a phone conversation from somebody in KCDC telling Bruce Hartmann that the City has decided to move anyone with an income below the poverty line out of the area. Also, Ragsdale will then use his $50,000 in discretionary $$$ to bribe them all to relocate to Farragut.

Sheesh.

Rachel's picture

P.S.

Submitted by Rachel on Thu, 2007/03/29 - 8:02pm.

I was opposed to all Redevelopment and/or Urban Renewal Plans because they give KCDC, acting as an agent of the City and County, blanket authorization to seize properties and make them available to private developers.

Dan Tiller may have misspoke, but so did you. ALL Redevelopment Plans do NOT give KCDC "blanket authorization to seize properties and make them available to private developers." Many of the plans passed by Council these days severely constrain when and how KCDC may take property. The south waterfront plan has very stringent limitations in it.

michael kaplan's picture

rachel wrote: "The south

Submitted by michael kaplan on Thu, 2007/03/29 - 8:47pm.

rachel wrote: "The south waterfront plan has very stringent limitations in it."

actually, not so stringent. the 'dilapidation' requirement could be challenged in court by a prospective developer, as the KCDC attorney himself admitted in one of those last community meetings (which were attended by so few people).

Rachel's picture

So a developer will find a

Submitted by Rachel on Thu, 2007/03/29 - 9:03pm.

So a developer will find a parcel he wants and then if KCDC doesn't declare it dilapidated, sue?

That sounds completely bizarre. Maybe I misunderstood you.

one of those last community meetings (which were attended by so few people).

Every community meeting I attended was very well attended. I confess I missed one or two. Those must be the ones you're referring to.

Rachel's picture

Dilapidation & South Waterfront

Submitted by Rachel on Thu, 2007/03/29 - 10:19pm.

Thinking some more about this - maybe you meant a developer could sue to have the dilapidation requirement replaced with the less stringent "blighted" requirement?

But even if that happened, KCDC would still have to declare the parcel blighted. Call me crazy, but I can't see them doing that to please a developer over City objections. And the City - through both Council and the admistration - has made it completely clear that they don't intend to allow KCDC to assemble parcels for private developers.

Also, let me point out - for the 50th time or so - that we don't want to completely prohibit the City taking certain property to turn over to private parties. Taking property to assemble a large parcel for a private development sucks. Taking a property that the owner refuses to keep up to the detriment of the surrounding neighborhood and selling it to a private individual who will "develop" it (i.e., fix it up & maintain it) is an entirely different matter.

StaceyDiamond's picture

removal from homes

Submitted by StaceyDiamond on Fri, 2007/03/30 - 3:07pm.

Until you have been forced out of a home so a developer can remodel and raise the rent to 5 times what it was and and you suffer a severe financial crisis you will think it can't happen. It does happen, sometimes through the city, sometimes through developers. When they got rid of College Homes for the Hope neighborhood, those folks had to go somewhere. Only about 3 could return and buy a house. Now KCDC is talking about doing that to another project. Those folks will have to go somewhere. I don't trust the "visioning" plan in North or South. People are unlikely to be outright forced from their homes from KCDC. But, I could see KCDC hasseling low-rent landlords and the landlords eventually sell the homes to someone who will do a paint job and then charge much higher rents, thus forcing out the low-income residents. I hope it doesn't happen, but I've sure seen it happen.

Up Goose Creek's picture

Vultures

Submitted by Up Goose Creek on Thu, 2007/03/29 - 10:06pm.

Well I did hear of an out-of-town developer telling a homeowner "you don't know who I am -- I get what I want". Gave me the warm fuzzies all right.

But I don't see how they could take the house without council's blessing. I'm no legal eagle though.

_______________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs

Rachel's picture

Well I did hear of an

Submitted by Rachel on Thu, 2007/03/29 - 10:11pm.

Well I did hear of an out-of-town developer telling a homeowner "you don't know who I am -- I get what I want". Gave me the warm fuzzies all right.

That's probably what Bill Baxter was thinking right up until the Council vote.

edens's picture

Are you suggesting, Stacey,

Submitted by edens on Fri, 2007/03/30 - 3:11pm.

Are you suggesting, Stacey, that Knoxville could be facing a slum shortage?

Up Goose Creek's picture

?

Submitted by Up Goose Creek on Fri, 2007/03/30 - 3:58pm.

Well Matt, sometimes people just happen to get attached to slums where they've lived for several generations and know all their neighbors.

And I can say from personal experience that it's quite nice to live in a slum where you don't have to lock your door or car because neighbors are watching out for you and the professional thieves will leave you alone because they're out working where the money is.

____________________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs

Rachel's picture

Are you seriously calling

Submitted by Rachel on Fri, 2007/03/30 - 11:20pm.

Are you seriously calling your neighborhood a slum? You would have kicked my ass if I'd done that. And rightly so.

edens's picture

Is that you, MaMaw?

Submitted by edens on Fri, 2007/03/30 - 4:26pm.

Is that you, MaMaw?

Tamara Shepherd's picture

I remember, Stacey

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Fri, 2007/03/30 - 9:50pm.

Stacey: "When they got rid of College Homes for the Hope neighborhood, those folks had to go somewhere. Only about 3 could return and buy a house."

You're funny, Matt, but play fair. You, of all people, should remember a Metro Pulse story my friend and former neighbor Calvin Taylor at CAC wrote on the very subject Stacey is trying to discuss. The problem is real.

Up Goose Creek's picture

Alias

Submitted by Up Goose Creek on Fri, 2007/03/30 - 10:33pm.

Yes Matt, it is.

And don't you get any ideas about pilferage. I've got a mean vicious dog who'll jump over the fence and... and... and... lick you to death.

The neighbors will give you the evil eye and take down your license number.

Just for the record: I do keep the little house locked up when I'm not working on it. So don't get ideas. I didn't when I lived there. I don't think the last renters did either. I'd go over to fix something, turn the key and discover I'd locked the door.

___________________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs

Up Goose Creek's picture

Slum

Submitted by Up Goose Creek on Fri, 2007/03/30 - 11:35pm.

Matt's the one who chose that word. It's an affectionate word compared to some of the language in the urban renewal statutes.

______________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs

Rachel's picture

Slum

Submitted by Rachel on Fri, 2007/03/30 - 11:49pm.

I can say from personal experience that it's quite nice to live in a slum

That wasn't Matt - that was you. And I still say you would have kicked my butt if I had said that about your neighborhood.

Up Goose Creek's picture

Evil eye

Submitted by Up Goose Creek on Fri, 2007/03/30 - 11:40pm.

Oh and the bit about eh evil eye applies to freecycle recipients picking up items left on the porch. I expect my neighbors to be more proactive if someone they didn't know took stuff from the house.

It's just one of those things a real live community does for one another.

_____________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs

Up Goose Creek's picture

The S- word

Submitted by Up Goose Creek on Sat, 2007/03/31 - 1:43pm.

Branner ave north of Woodland looks a lot like my 'hood. For those unfamiliar it is modest but mostly well maintained homes with industries at the edges.

Parts of Edens' former neighborhood resemble the homes South of Baxter, IMHO.

Consider how some people can get away with using the N - word and others can't.

____________________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs

michael kaplan's picture

update

Submitted by michael kaplan on Sat, 2007/03/31 - 2:23pm.

I sent copies of the lead message (above) to members of City Council and County Commission. Today I asked Mark Harmon if he had received it. He said yes, but asked whether this was a 'county issue.'

Am I missing something? Are we not talking about the second largest Urban Renewal Plan currently in place or proposed? Is this not affecting over 1200 property owners? Is KCDC not the agent for both the county and the city? Does the application of TIF for 'economic development' not affect taxpayers in both the county and the city?

S Carpenter's picture

City and County too

Submitted by S Carpenter on Sat, 2007/03/31 - 3:51pm.

KCDC plan goes to both County Commission and City Council in April (23rd and 24th, respectively, according to the timeline handed out at the KCDC meeting).

michael kaplan's picture

county vote rescheduled

Submitted by michael kaplan on Sat, 2007/03/31 - 7:48pm.

s carpenter wrote:

"KCDC plan goes to both County Commission and City Council in April (23rd and 24th "

in fact, it was announced at the hearing that the county vote was moved up a week. they'll vote on it on april 16 instead of april 23 as originally scheduled.

StaceyDiamond's picture

slums?!

Submitted by StaceyDiamond on Sat, 2007/03/31 - 3:54pm.

I'm not talking about slums, I'm talking about people being forced from their homes so the city can get higher property taxes or a developer can make a little more cash.

Up Goose Creek's picture

Displacement

Submitted by Up Goose Creek on Sat, 2007/03/31 - 5:03pm.

Stacey, you raise a good point about displacement and it's an important issue. I think most, if not all displacement will be as a result of private transactions, but having the spectre of KCDC gives unscrupulous speculators a scare tactic.

My apologies for sidetracking the discussion by repeating the S word.

______________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives