Dunno, Scott --
Actually, I'm being unfair to Lumpy on this score. He's involved in the Airplane filling station preservation efforts, and doesn't seem to be a tear 'em all down kind of guy.

Back to DeFreese, this is a "forever" kind of decision for an unelected officeholder to make.

This reminds me of an earlier exchange on Knoxviews (Thanks again for such a valuable forum where we can get into the weeds on these things) about historic schools in neighborhoods (link...) along with the recent Jack Neely Metropulse cover story. (link...) In an attempt to provide some solutions our office explored and implemented the idea of one parcel redevelopment districts for such schools and presented it to council a few years ago. Council and Commission approved the TIF for Brownlow created under this policy. The impetus for this is has always been neighborhood driven. Such structures can be real pluses, or, obviously, real minuses. Anyway, a very interesting and challenging public policy question.

Excerpt From Link to earlier post...

"This was about the time that problems emerged with the South High property in south Knoxville. We were approached by many people, including many in South Knoxville as well as Knox Heritage, about any role the city could play. We did find some solutions that would help the proposed development but tax abatement just did not seem to fit the situation and the project went on hold. At that time I began to explore the option embedding a solution to this problem in a larger policy – the redevelopment of historic schools that were no longer in use. In most cases the neighborhoods had a great interest in home ownership but the schools presented tremendous challenges to any potential developer.

The area around South High likewise did not seem to be good for a redevelopment area any more than did that around Brownlow. Our template for redevelopment areas was certainly broader than just one structure. At that time we became convinced that it was in the neighborhood’s interest, and certainly in the city’s interest, to see if we could pursue one-parcel redevelopment area under a program specifically tailored for helping abandoned historic schools. We checked this with the appropriate lawyers and were told it was indeed acceptable under the applicable state laws and regulations. We envisioned a program geared to restoring historic school buildings – all producing no property taxes at all - for home ownership. While South High was our first concern we also recognized the applicability to Brownlow and perhaps to others. We discussed this concept with council members Frost and Hultquist and both thought it was a very good idea. I communicated this policy to council in early 2005. We received very favorable reaction."

The KNS left out large chunks of the history of the efforts to save this building. Below is the email I just sent to the reporter:

I read your story in the KNS this morning with interest. You did a good job of capturing the current situation; however, you left out some very important history.

Sincerely,

Km Trent is trying to re-write history. I was on the School Board at the time and the neighbors in South Knox didn't give a rats rearend about tearing it down. It was the arrogant elites of Knox Heritage "that went nuts". Knox Heritage went to South Knox telling them that the school board was going to come over there and build a large metal building to house the facilities department. Which was the furthest thing from the truth.

It was all lies and misrepresentations by Kim Trent and her rag tag followers.

I don't need the minutes, which I doubt record every comment by board members anyway. I know what I heard. I remember well because a lot of folks commented on it.

BTW, are you saying you didn't say that Kim had made a believer out of you, or are you saying you didn't vote to surplus the building?

I did, however, let me memory trick me on one thing. It was August 2005 when Commission voted on South High. And it wasn’t 9/11 that pushed up the price of building materials; it was Katrina.

I doubt Dewhirst wants to take it on -- he didn't have much success with Brownlow. these old schools are difficult undertakings.

As I recall, Burch was arm-twisted into taking the South project, and probably agreed to do it as a "good will" kind of deal. I don't think he anticipated making a killing. And although he was frustrated when Pinkston threw the monkeywrench into the works, I observed that Burch wasn't broken hearted -- not so's I could see it, anyhow.

I suspect that Pinkston's dislike of Joe Hultquist drove his opposition to this deal, since many of the supporters of preserving South High were active supporters of Joe's.

**Clarification: What's I'm saying is that, contrary to what Pinkston said, it wasn't some kind of insider deal to benefit a favored developer.

Gee, that's what we were all saying about Leigh Burch back in 2005.

How can a children's rec center be next to condos? Aren't the building adjoined?

Answer to the first question: Huh?
Answer to the second question: The Rec Center property is adjacent to the South High property. The buildings themselves are nowhere close to joined.

Clearly you don't know much about this building. Were you keeping track of this in 2002-2005 when all the work on the proposal was going on? Did you read the feasibility study? Did you attend any meetings?

If not, then I don't really put much stock in your opinions.

Got any idea what Lumpy's pastor wants to do with the building?

Just what South Knoxville needs! And right next to the "children's rec center." :)

For the record, I didn't admit that I "lied" twice. Lying requires intent to tell a falsehood.

I got some of my facts wrong because I was relying on my memory and didn't bother to look back at the record. That was dumb, and I'll try not to do it again. It's very embarrasing to get the facts wrong.

You have a lot more critics than the Cawood's. Hate to disappoint you but I'm not, have never been or intend to be a Cawood. Not that there's anything wrong with that. So when you "alege" (sic) you allege incorrectly. Have a nice day.

Well, he was defeated when he ran for re-election.

I personally know about a dozen of the people who post here over the average month. And some of them personally know more people who post here. That duplication claim sounds like a charge loaded with envy that you can't get so many to post at your place.

Pam Strickland

"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut

Wouldn't that be wonderful!

Dreamer, nothing but a dreamer.... Doesn't hurt to dream.

Not to rain on your parade, but that use - along with many others - for South High was explored by the task force back in 2003-2005. The only use we could find that would work was residential.

As I've said before, it's too bad that Pinkston killed that deal. We had a developer lined up ready to sign a contract to put $2.8M (it would probably cost more than that now since the cost of building materials went way up after Katrina) into the building. He was also willing to go along with clauses saying he couldn't flip the building and had to finish within a certain time period. The community had worked on this deal for 3 years. It had the support of the community, the school board, and county administration. We would have saved a historic building, turned it from an eyesore to a community asset, and put it back on the tax rolls. Commission did none of the work putting the deal together. All they had to do was say "yes."

Of course, Leigh Burch was only willing to pay $100 for it. Pinkston didn't think that was enough to "protect taxpayer's assets." So he protected them by killing the deal and letting the building sit another 3 years without mainentance till it may be well beyond repair.

If it's sold at auction now, there are absolutely no assurances about what a new owner will do with it.

I'm sorry to keep dwelling on this, but 3 years after that Commission meeting, I'm still angry. I may always be angry.

That's a lovely idea for the JWP.