County to city: "So sue me." City to county: "OK."

Submitted by Bbeanster on Tue, 2007/10/16 - 4:35pm

The city filed suit against the county today over the stormwater ordinance.

Topics:

Bbeanster's blog

vote

Bean, what happened to the

Submitted by knoxvegas99 on Tue, 2007/10/16 - 5:24pm.

Bean, what happened to the supposed negotiations? Any word?

Larry Van Guilder

Dunno.Didn't Haslam say

Submitted by Bbeanster on Tue, 2007/10/16 - 6:08pm.

Dunno.
Didn't Haslam say negotiations and lawsuit could proceed on parallel tracks?

Sort of like Reagan's old "Trust, but verify" motto, I think....

Pretty sure this is right.

Submitted by Rachel on Tue, 2007/10/16 - 6:20pm.

Pretty sure this is right. If I understand correctly, the County has 30 days to reply to suit, during which they'll keep talking.

I'm glad to see the City keep the pressure on.

"The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones." - John Maynard Keynes

Per today's Sentinel

Submitted by Tee on Wed, 2007/10/17 - 10:06am.

Per today's Sentinel article: "The committee’s first meeting last week was postponed as engineers for both governments met on their own, and later said most of the issues could be resolved with minor tweaks to the county’s ordinance."

It sounds to me like they are making a lawsuit mountain out of a minor tweaks molehill. Heaven forbid they actually listen to expert opinion.

Umm, they spent I don't know

Submitted by Rachel on Wed, 2007/10/17 - 12:21pm.

Umm, they spent I don't know how much time and $$ getting expert opinion - and then County Commisison threw a bunch of it out the window.

"The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones." - John Maynard Keynes

Heh. Well, I was referring

Submitted by Tee on Wed, 2007/10/17 - 1:05pm.

Heh. Well, I was referring to the experts within our own City and County engineering departments. You are correct that they spent much time and taxpayer money on the expert third-party review that the City insisted upon, only to turn around and come up with "the list" of issues they are now suing over.

Regarding the County Commission amendments to the ordinance, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure there were only 2. One regarding the pipe material that can be used in certain situations, and the other raising the minimum fine for violations from $50 to $250. I think raising the fines was a good move. However, I do have issues with County Commission ignoring the recommendations of the engineers on pipe material. They, too, should try listening to the experts.

First they reduced the fine

Submitted by Rachel on Wed, 2007/10/17 - 1:23pm.

First they reduced the fine from $1000 to $50. Then on second reading they "increased" it to $250.

"The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones." - John Maynard Keynes

no, rachel, first reading

Submitted by Oh da Clone on Wed, 2007/10/17 - 7:15pm.

no, rachel, first reading was proposed to be $50-5,000 with a minimum of $1,000 for fines against land development projects. The $1,000 part was struck by Commission. On the second reading, an amendment to change the range from $250-5,000 for all fines was approved. So, it went 50/1000 to 50/50 to 250/250. Remember, the fines are not only for developers. They could also be for you and me :)

a minimum of $1,000 for

Submitted by Rachel on Wed, 2007/10/17 - 9:08pm.

a minimum of $1,000 for fines against land development projects. The $1,000 part was struck by Commission.

That's the part I remember. I remember Bruce W. saying something like "$1000 will get their attention," which was about the only non-wimpy thing he said all day (gee, we're recommending one version of this, but if ya'll want to make big changes, that's ok with us....)

Most of the big problems are created by developers. As anybody who's paying attention knows.

As for the fines applying to me, I've got no problem with that. If I create that kind of problem, I ought to pay for it. And I don't plan to lobby Lumpy to get me out of it.

"The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones." - John Maynard Keynes

I think TetraTech actually

Submitted by reform4 on Wed, 2007/10/17 - 4:38pm.

I think TetraTech actually recommended other materials, although
they didn't mention what types. I believe it read that the "city
should offer more flexibility". There are two kinds of plastic
pip: PVC and HDPE. From what I've read in othe water districts,
HDPE can be better than concrete, but it's more expensive, so that's
not something anyone here would use. PVC *may* work as well *IF
PROPERLY INSTALLED*- that's the catch. Many districts are moving
away from CMP (corregated metal) and rightfully so, but somehow
Commission took "more flexibility" to mean CMP. TetraTech should
have been much more specific re: pros/cons in their report.

-----------------------------------------
Fighting for Reform and Representation, Fourth District
Steve Drevik, Commission Seat 4-B
http://www.reform4.com

Properly installed is a problem

Submitted by Joe328 on Wed, 2007/10/17 - 8:08pm.

Reinforced concrete, PVC, and metal pipe all have advantages and disadvantages. Some metal drainage pipes installed over fifty years ago are still in good condition in Knoxville. Some concrete pipes have failed in less than ten years. Most failures are a result of improper use or installation. Concrete pipes with cracks or flaws can collect water and freeze which destroys the pipe. Metal and PVC properly installed with reinforced concrete, will withstand better because of the pipe acts as a liner protecting the concrete. Several metro areas in the U.S are repairing damaged concrete pipes with PVC or metal liners to protect the concrete.

I can remember when PVC first came to this area in the 1960s, Knoxville refused to allow it for sewers. The only reason they changed was because cast iron pipe was no longer being produced.

I'm not an engineer, but I know engineers who disagree with Knoxville on the one pipe decision. I understand that sometimes concrete is the better choice and other times PVC is the better choice, it depends on the site, load, area to expand, water flow, and more.

Why not let the engineers do there job, and decide which pipe to use for each site. Most developer don't use an engineer in making the decision about drainage pipe, thats what really needs to be changed.

Well, you have 30 days to

Submitted by Lobster on Tue, 2007/10/16 - 6:41pm.

Well, you have 30 days to respond to practically all civil suits, per the Tn. Rules of Civil Procedure. But, negotiations can continue at any stage, and they will continue here. The fact is, both sides have said publicly there has been some progress made, but they remain far apart on a resolution. The city has decided to institute legal proceedings for two reasons. One, to add pressure to the County to negotiate in good faith. And, perhaps more importantly, to simply have the ball rolling in the event that negotiations do not bear fruit.

At the time of passage of the "lumpy amendments", Commissioner Lambert said on camera that "I don't think the City will sue us." For the 3,940,833rd time, he is wrong.

Owings

Submitted by D Mac on Tue, 2007/10/16 - 7:00pm.

And, Owings said he had no problem with the watered down ordinance and that he could defend it, or something like that, should the city sue. Once again, bad advice by the County law dept. But at least he is now telling the commission to do a "redo" of the storm water vote because of Lumpy and Cate's outed "conversation". (Of course Cate is denying he ever talked to THAT man about storm water.)

Commissioner Lambert said on

Submitted by Factchecker on Tue, 2007/10/16 - 7:28pm.

Commissioner Lambert said on camera that "I don't think the City will sue us."

...because of Lumpy and Cate's outed "conversation". (Of course Cate is denying he ever talked to THAT man about storm water.)

Talk about foot in mouth. But Repugs don't get characterized as such.

Way to go.........

Submitted by volzfan59 on Wed, 2007/10/17 - 1:37am.

Way to go Lumpy! This fool just keeps screwing up.

Lumpy, PLEASE, PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE................RESIGN!!!

The differences aren't

Submitted by reform4 on Wed, 2007/10/17 - 10:35am.

The differences aren't minor- see reform4.blogspot.com, I have a link to the PDF.

One major issue is that the county director can just overlook any violation, making the 'rule' not an ordinance with the power of law, but little more than a suggestion.

I would think that's a huge issue for the city, much bigger than CMP.

Yes, I've seen the list. The

Submitted by Tee on Wed, 2007/10/17 - 11:15am.

Yes, I've seen the list. The statement attributed to City and County Engineering experts that issues can be resolved with "minor tweaks" was made after that list was reviewed by representatives of both departments.

For anyone who missed it, here is the response to the lawsuit from the head of the County Stormwater department. http://www.wbir.com/pdf/stormwaterdefense100507.pdf

Pay special attention to the portions regarding the City's participation in writing the new County ordinance (that's right...they helped write the darn thing), the absence of liability for pollutants that originate outside the City's corporate limits, and the comments from EPA policy makers who were "impressed with Knox County's approach" in addressing pollution prevention.

Question??

Submitted by More to come... on Wed, 2007/10/17 - 10:55am.

If this is SO very important that the city in fact should sue the county over the non-agreement of the 'As Strict As' policy, Then where were the city's people during the county's public meetings this summer? There were four. If it was that important to the city - it should have been just as important four months ago. Why did they not speak up then- if the 22/23 'tweaks' they are talking of- do not match the 'ASA' policy then they need to get with the experts and work it out. But now they want to go to court over it? And spend our money because............................

Yield you not to ill fortune but go against it with more daring.

Virgil

First they reduced the fine

Submitted by Tee on Wed, 2007/10/17 - 4:26pm.

First they reduced the fine from $1000 to $50. Then on second reading they "increased" it to $250

The minimum fine was $50 prior to the new ordinance, so, in the end, it was increased. Not as much as had been recommended ($1000), but an increase, nonetheless.

Interestingly, the City's minimum fine remains $50.

dealers of all kinds of p.v.c pipes

Submitted by Manju (not verified) on Wed, 2007/11/21 - 8:42am.

Ad Description/Text: Manufactures of P.V.C Bendes, Junction Boxes & all kind of Electrical Conduct
Country: India
State: Karnataka
City: Bangalore
Zip Code: 560026
Telephone No: 9972480679/9902274201
Address: Door No.243/5, 2nd main H.B.G. Layout 2nd cross, Devrajaurs nagar old guddadahali, Banglore-560026