The KNS reports that a new joint city-county task force has been formed by Knox County Commission and Knoxville City Council to create ridgetop development regulations. The panel was formed following complaints about the South Knox KUB water tower.
According to the article, Knoxville City Council member Joe Hultquist has gotten a commitment from KUB to at least study the cost of tearing down the water tower and replacing it with something less intrusive.
Submitted by Lisa Starbuck on Thu, 2008/04/17 - 10:32am.
Props to Joe Hultquist and Tony Norman for getting this task force in place. I am a member and looking forward to tackling this subject. All meetings will be sunshined so anyone can attend.
has gotten a commitment from KUB to at least study the cost of tearing down the water tower and replacing it with something less intrusive.
By all means, during this time of low cost living, inexpensive food and fuel, and low energy costs, let's check into tearing something down and rebuilding something else.
And even if we don't wind up tearing it down, we'll at least spend the money on a study to look into tearing it down.
Is there an alternative, cheaper, world that some people are living in these days?
I'm all for making sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again, but unless the water tower is leaking mercury, benzene, or e.coli into the local drinking water, leave it alone.
That's the idea. I salute Joe H. and Tony N. for making "lemonade out of lemons" - that is, using the watertower as a way to draw attention to protecting our ridgetops.
This is something I've been squawking about for years, and I'm delighted to see the task force formed. Hope to make a bunch of the meetings.
P.S. Be grateful to Commission - Lumpy Lambert tried to get himself added to the task force (I'm sure with the idea of gridlocking its work), but Commission said no.
Submitted by Factchecker on Fri, 2008/04/18 - 7:30am.
Good question. Has anyone heard of objections to the views of Buffalo Mountain? Maybe the novelty factor helps, though.
But let's also compare benefits. I don't think people see why we need the water tower. Our pressure has been good, and indeed the need for the tower, as I recall, was mostly due to new ridge top developments that have plundered Cherokee Bluff.
However, every kW-hr we get out of wind turbines, assuming we don't grow our power appetite (and why should we?), means that much less coal that doesn't have to be mined off the land (including other ridge tops) and burned in the atmosphere. A lot of pollution is no longer being produced, and that means the resulting carcinogenic particulates, nitric oxides that destroy lung tissue, radioactivity, mercury, sulfur, and CO2--all disappear from our air.
I can walk up a hill beside my house in Loudon County and see Buffalo Mountain. It takes a pretty clear day to make out the windmills, but you can easily see the unreclaimed contour mining any day.
Submitted by Brian A. on Fri, 2008/04/18 - 10:04am.
This isn't the best example, as I assume the ridges around downtown aren't high enough to be great windmill sites.
But it does raise a broader question about ridgetop protection. I assume most people agree that strip mining mountains is bad. But beyond that, is there a wide-spread consensus on what people want to forbid on ridges?
To me the real issue is the granting of high density development in the area around the water tower. the water tower is just one of soon to be many examples why that should never have been done. And a mechanism should be in place to prevent that happening in future. So I assume the ridge top protection will implement very strong zoning constraints to avoid that sort of development in future? Not the kind that get tossed aside at the drop of a hat.
Submitted by Up Goose Creek on Fri, 2008/04/18 - 12:51pm.
Rumor has it that the owners of the Loghaven property SE of the tower will log the property. Is this a case of "we'll take our trees and go home" if they don't get the development they want? Or it market conditions forcing them to get whatever income they can.
I hope this is just a bluff. It's shortsighted to destroy the value of this property just for spite.
____________________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs
It seems too late, at least for many who must daily view the current desecrations. Horse is already out of the barn.
Anyways, good luck to the effort of preventing further eyesores!
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
Props to Joe Hultquist and Tony Norman for getting this task force in place. I am a member and looking forward to tackling this subject. All meetings will be sunshined so anyone can attend.
has gotten a commitment from KUB to at least study the cost of tearing down the water tower and replacing it with something less intrusive.
By all means, during this time of low cost living, inexpensive food and fuel, and low energy costs, let's check into tearing something down and rebuilding something else.
And even if we don't wind up tearing it down, we'll at least spend the money on a study to look into tearing it down.
Is there an alternative, cheaper, world that some people are living in these days?
I'm all for making sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again, but unless the water tower is leaking mercury, benzene, or e.coli into the local drinking water, leave it alone.
It is definitely NOT too late on this one. Look around, there are lots of ridges left -- all endangered.
I agree -- forget the stupid hideous tower, it's unfortunately too late. Just don't let it happen again.
That's the idea. I salute Joe H. and Tony N. for making "lemonade out of lemons" - that is, using the watertower as a way to draw attention to protecting our ridgetops.
This is something I've been squawking about for years, and I'm delighted to see the task force formed. Hope to make a bunch of the meetings.
P.S. Be grateful to Commission - Lumpy Lambert tried to get himself added to the task force (I'm sure with the idea of gridlocking its work), but Commission said no.
Had someone erected two or three large windmills on the same ridge, would the response here be the same?
Brian A.
I'd rather be
cycling.
Or a solar panel farm.
Good question. Has anyone heard of objections to the views of Buffalo Mountain? Maybe the novelty factor helps, though.
But let's also compare benefits. I don't think people see why we need the water tower. Our pressure has been good, and indeed the need for the tower, as I recall, was mostly due to new ridge top developments that have plundered Cherokee Bluff.
However, every kW-hr we get out of wind turbines, assuming we don't grow our power appetite (and why should we?), means that much less coal that doesn't have to be mined off the land (including other ridge tops) and burned in the atmosphere. A lot of pollution is no longer being produced, and that means the resulting carcinogenic particulates, nitric oxides that destroy lung tissue, radioactivity, mercury, sulfur, and CO2--all disappear from our air.
The view of Buffalo mountain was ruined years ago by strip mining.
A television tower and some windmills actually distract the eye from the still visible and ugly scars all over the mountain.
You can't do worse than has already been done. It is a curse upon the Cumberland mountains to have ever had coal exist there.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
I can walk up a hill beside my house in Loudon County and see Buffalo Mountain. It takes a pretty clear day to make out the windmills, but you can easily see the unreclaimed contour mining any day.
This isn't the best example, as I assume the ridges around downtown aren't high enough to be great windmill sites.
But it does raise a broader question about ridgetop protection. I assume most people agree that strip mining mountains is bad. But beyond that, is there a wide-spread consensus on what people want to forbid on ridges?
Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.
To me the real issue is the granting of high density development in the area around the water tower. the water tower is just one of soon to be many examples why that should never have been done. And a mechanism should be in place to prevent that happening in future. So I assume the ridge top protection will implement very strong zoning constraints to avoid that sort of development in future? Not the kind that get tossed aside at the drop of a hat.
Rumor has it that the owners of the Loghaven property SE of the tower will log the property. Is this a case of "we'll take our trees and go home" if they don't get the development they want? Or it market conditions forcing them to get whatever income they can.
I hope this is just a bluff. It's shortsighted to destroy the value of this property just for spite.
____________________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs
Post new comment