Fri
Apr 8 2011
09:33 am

We are told that a prominent local real estate executive claims realtors, builders and developers were not included in hillside/ridgetop protection planning process and that the proposal will hurt the real estate business.

We are also told he is organizing a protest at the April 13 County Commission workshop and is urging all employees and associates to attend. He is also said to be coordinating with the local homebuilder's association and other members of the local realtor's association, who will provide downtown bus service for the workshop departing from KAAR's West Knoxville offices.

Rachel's picture

a prominent local real estate

a prominent local real estate executive claims realtors, builders and developers were not included in hillside/ridgetop protection planning process

Piffle. Anybody who wanted to be heard was heard. Has been heard. Many times over.

Truly, I don't understand why these guys are fighting this so hard. No one has yet given me a real reason - a lot of emotion, but no specific issue(s) with the plan. If there are specific issues, we could all sit down and hash them out. That's not how this is going.

It reminds me of what is going on in D.C. right now. You can't have a negotiation when the two parties involved are coming from completely different frames, and only one side is really interested in reaching a good product.

vernon's picture

Is this a surprise?

How do people hash things out when no one will hear citizen suggestions and complaints.Commissioner Norman has said "there will be no compromise."Commissioner Hammond has turned a deaf ear on requests to let opposition to the plan have even one opportunity to speak at the workshop.As I have said there are some highly pissed people about this process.Its a wake-up call, that some on commission are out of control and need to be reined in.
The process should matter more than the results.

S Carpenter's picture

Dear Vernon,

I've attempted to engage you in a conversation down on the other thread if you're interested.

SC

p.s. Tks, I'll check in again after work.

EconGal's picture

my very personal reaction

Rachel,

Thank you for the usually thankless task you do as an MPC person.

I paid no attention to this hilltop/ridge plan thing until a few weeks ago. I saw the articles in the paper, skimmed them casually, but since I'm not a developer, nor do I live in the run-off area below a (potential or current) construction site, I placed my limited energy on other issues.

Until I saw the map that showed which properties were "affected" by this plan. Then I realized that you guys had gone from preachin' to meddlin'. (That's an old church joke.) It was no longer theoretical. Your plan (seems to?) impact my property (at least based on that map), although I never previously considered that possibility.

So hell yeah, I'm interested in this thing. I've read the plan and talked to two MPC commissioners. I've spoken to MPC staff. No one has yet given me a consistent answer to straitforward questions. Nor are their answers consistent with my own interpretation of the document.

I was told that the reason that all (potentially?) affected property owners aren't being notified is a lack of $17,000 for postage. I have offered to pay the $17,000 postage, if that is the hold-up. If every Knox County property owner went to that interactive map and looked at their land, there would be an uproar in this county.

I am not in the real estate business, the construction business or anything that has to do with dirt, water towers or Tony Norman. (I don't think I've ever met him.) Never been to an MPC meeting. But I'm about to attend my first.

rikki's picture

You should include your

You should include your straightforward questions that have not been answered here.

Are you planning to develop your property?

vernon's picture

Rikki you don t live in Knox

Rikki you don t live in Knox county or own property here , why do you care?

EconGal's picture

question

Am I PLANNING to develop my property? No.

But there could become a time that it is too much for me to take care of. Or I get tired of a bunch of land. When I bought it I "saved" it from an evil developer. He ran into money problems and could do anything with it. He had a main road cut into it (now my driveway) and had a plan before MPC (or someone) for a subdivision. (I say "someone" because I have no idea how this process works.)

I bought the land and built one house on what is nearly 100 acres. The neighbors (all of whom live on quarter-to-half acre lots) love us for it.

But one day I might want to dust off his old plan. The land doesn't look particularly steep to me. I would have never dreamed that some of it would be restricted in any way.

And my question is this: how can they (whoever "they" is) come in and change my allowed property use years after I've owned the property?

rikki's picture

You said you don't live below

You said you don't live below a current or potential construction site, but apparently you do. Or maybe your house is on the ridge. In any case, there is very little in this plan that is restrictive, so I encourage you to take a look at it and see how it works.

What you'll likely find is that you can do as much or more with your land under this plan by taking advantages of the numerous incentives for building on the flatter areas and leaving the steeper slopes undisturbed.

vernon's picture

If you have an approved

If you have an approved concept plan, its good for two years if you don't plat it.If this slope and ridge proposal gets approved and you forget to renew your concept,you re screwed.The previously approved plan is out the window and suddenly your plan gets reviewed under the new restrictions and who knows how much you loose with density relocated to a small portion of any land with the slightest grade.Clearing limits will also have to be navigated.
Bottom line- to be safe make sure your concept plan is not expired prior to the vote currently scheduled for April 25.

rikki's picture

Smart developers would likely

Smart developers would likely want to trash an old concept plan and work up a new one to save money on excessive clearing and full-width roads. There is also a much better chance that their density allowance will increase since the plan only adds restrictions above 40 percent, where the laws of physics are already a bigger imposition than any law of man.

A developer who follows your advice would likely end up spending more money to build fewer houses.

vernon's picture

Wrong as usual rikktoria-not

Wrong as usual rikktoria-not every not wants to live in a condo.this plan crams all units to a corner of the property,lots sizes are sacrificed.

rikki's picture

Vernon, what is an adequate

Vernon, what is an adequate lot size?

vernon's picture

Most people want a

Most people want a traditional subdivision with a yard to call their own.If they have kids they don't want to share walls,a fenced back yard is desirable in case they have a dog.People typically want as large a yard as they can afford.Developers try to create as many sellable lots as possible,the more lots the less cost in each one and the cheaper the price point can be.Some lots will be flat some will have a steep slope for people who want a basement.Typical lot sizes are 60-90 feet in width,for this buyer.
There are builders and developers who find a niche for cluster homes or condos, but the majority of residential developers have found consistent success in producing what young families want,the traditional neighborhood.

Rachel's picture

the traditional

the traditional neighborhood.

ok, i'm not gonna argue about what most people want.

however, the modern subdivision of knox boxes is in no way a "traditional neighborhood." island home park, fourth and gill, old north, parkridge, etc. are "traditional neighborhoods."

cubedoctor's picture

traditional subdivision

Jeez Rachel…..When they put the roads in those subdivisions they were still using Mules and Steamrollers. What do you consider a traditional subdivision that was developed after….say…1960?

Do you consider that there has been a traditional subdivision put in Knox County while you have been serving on MPC?

I hope the migraine is giving you a break.

Rachel's picture

Ah, I'm just crabby tonight.

Ah, I'm just crabby tonight. MPC week prep AND taxes.

I question Vernon's use of the term "traditional." "Typical" is not the same thing a "traditional." But I should have just shrugged it off.

Thanks for the concern about the migraine. I finally got up w/o it yesterday after 11 days straight of pure hell. Now just thinking about that puts me in a much better mood....

vernon's picture

Ok you may be using that

Ok you may be using that phrase as it has been used as a new urbanist term,I just used the phrase to characterize a typical subdivision. the only difference in the examples you name is that they are old.
Westmoreland Hills has an old section and a new section,are they not both traditional neighborhoods?

cubedoctor's picture

60’ lot

Hey Vern….unless you like your garage door and your front door almost next to each other maybe separated with a window and both facing the street you can not get a house on a 60’ lot. Ranch homes without stairs are popular with the empty nesters and they require a larger footprint. Three car garages (two cars and a bay full of lawn equipment,bicycles and recycling bins) are also in demand and that takes a larger footprint and does not work at all for a front load home.

You are right about homeowners liking their own private green space in their own back yard where they can fence in the kids and dogs. The garden centers sell lots of trees and shrubs to those folks.

Nowadays if a project has the word condo in it, lenders will not make a loan for prospective homeowners. It needs to be a PUD to get financing.

cubedoctor's picture

Lot size

80’ wide by 120’ deep

Anything less than 80’ wide makes a side load garage hard to make work as you need 22’ to turn into the garages. There is a 5’ drainage easement around the perimeter of each lot so 2 lots together make 10 feet on each side to use for drainage.

vernon's picture

I agree I was just trying to

I agree I was just trying to give an answer that cover all price ranges and lot sizes, and although 60 footer does require front loading 2car max gar, They still pop up every now and then.I agree that 80 to 90 is most workable for mid level buyers and is minimum for side entry garages.As you probably understand there are not many people given the choice that will buy into the new urbanist model. Northshore town center is a testimony to that.

rikki's picture

So Vernon is whining that no

So Vernon is whining that no one wants the tiny, cramped lots he thinks the hillside plan would require, yet he's happy with a 60-ft-wide lot. Only with your prompting did he nudge that up to 80'. 80x120 is a quarter-acre. That's 4U/acre.

Most of the example densities MPC has provided average between 2 and 3 units/acre, so the lot sizes are actually a good bit larger than what Vernon says most people want. Tiny, cramped lots are nothing but a figment of his imagination.

That explains a lot. It explains why a small set of people believe their property rights are being eroded when in fact they are being given new tools that would lower construction costs and allow more units, making their land more usable and more valuable. It explains why the plan's opponents can only make proclamations, but can never back up their claims nor say what it is about the plan they dislike. It explains why the discussion never advances past square one.

How many opponents of the plan don't understand anything about it except that they're against it?

vernon's picture

In trying to answer your

In trying to answer your question I gave you a range of 60 to 90 ft lot widths.The point I was making is that in most scenarios like the one you posted a week or so back,you had i think a 15 acre tract and you had to move all the units to the front two acres because of slope and clearing limits.I am trying to get you to understand that those projects won't work.The problem has been you clamor about density and density doesn't matter if you sacrifice the lot size that the buyer wants.Also the clearing limits are so vague that after you cross that hurdle and clearing limits are taken in to account ,I fear your unit count will be eroded even further under the currently proposed plan.

I hear this thing is dead after yesterday so I m not sure it matters.The chamber pointed out at the workshop that there is no need for new regulation or further empowering of MPC for anything less than 40%,which really makes alot of sense.

Oh well,hope that helps , have a good day.

cubedoctor's picture

134 subdivisions with hills in the name

“How many opponents of the plan don't understand anything about it except that they're against it?”

It appears that number may be in the hundreds….and the problem the commissioners have is they are probably also voters and contributors. This has indeed become political and that is bad for good decision making.

If Tony would just drop back and punt, we could absolutely come to a compromise, but with the fur up on his back and his ass to the wall on “no changes,” it does not look good for putting a first round of guidelines in place that could be tweaked as needed in the future.

There appears to be two groups that have concerns. One group just wants no plan at all, and they are sending interesting emails all over town. The other group wants to have some form of a plan but not one as strict as what Tony is selling. We need something in the guidelines addressing the ridges and the very steep slopes and the group that came to the workshop agrees with that premise. A guideline (but not an absolute rule) for clearing of natural woods (on a per situation basis) and the rehabilitation of disturbed slopes (with reasonable parameters and using native plant stock) would also be good to help those with environmental concerns. (Not implying there are any tree huggers in this discussion….rikki….heh)

Rikki….you are not realizing that a large percentage of a property gets used up by roads, drainage easements, detention ponds, utility easements, storm water systems, recreational facilities etc. A 50’ Right Of Way takes up a lot of ground. A cul-de-sac is a 100’ circle of ground.

The over 40% slope stance the Chamber is taking is not reasonable unless you consider that they are just really addressing the most onerous slopes and the ridges.

Smaller lots are much harder to get the drainage to work correctly around the buildings. Oddly enough, flatter lots are harder to work with to get the water to drain away from the buildings. A proper swale needs to be 10’ wide and with a decent slope or the water collects. Water will not run fast enough during a heavy rain event in a grass swale at say 2% slope. A flat road will not drain and a 4% or greater slope works much better for positive drainage to the storm water system. When it rains heavy and there is flooding and peoples basements flood it happens for the most part around town where buildings were put on the flatter land early on in Knoxville’s history.

In Knox County, there are 134 subdivisions with hills in the name. In developing in Knox County, hills are an occupational hazard.

rikki's picture

That's a good point about

That's a good point about roads, drainage, etc taking up acreage, but that's why the plan includes smaller roads (40' ROW for the road and utility, iirc) and setbacks, tighter curves, etc. It's quite possible within the plan's guidelines to build a neighborhood with large lots. Better still, with creative siting, the uncleared trees could provide backyard privacy, plus reduced mowing, more interesting landscaping opportunities, more birds at the feeders, shade and other value-enhancing features.

It's not Tony Norman who is unwilling to compromise but the plan's opponents. They repeatedly talked about how we need better enforcement, but none suggested any solutions. Commissioner Briggs suggested increased bonding requirements, and there were hints that the county is understaffed. If Burchett were interested in compromise, he could offer to hire new inspectors, but the rumor is he plans to cut that staff.

It's pretty obvious that the opposition is not interested in working toward solving the problems the plan addresses, other than with lip service. The Chamber's 40% proposal is based on the superficial perception of "it's a protection area so it must be restrictive," but the reason for including slopes under 40% is to trigger the relaxation of existing guidelines. All proposals to change the slope threshold are a defacto admission that the person is operating in the realm of misunderstanding, and not respectful of the issues nor the task force's work.

cubedoctor's picture

You understand I am agreeing

You understand I am agreeing with you on some of your points….which could be considered by some an act against nature. You know…the whole polar opposite thing.

However….allow me reply to some of your points, not with criticism, but with the experience of “been there, done that.”

One can put in roads now that are less width than county specs but they are private roads without an approved variance. The problem is parking large trucks along the curb during construction (sometimes on both sides of the street) and normal traffic being able to navigate by without the mating of mirrors and bumpers. I think the road and utility width is safe and works well with underground utilities as they are now. You can’t put utilities in the same ditch by code. Forced main sewer can not be in a ditch with potable water for obvious reasons, electric lines and telephone and cable TV do not go together because of interference to digital and analog communication. Gas mains can not be with electric lines. Transformers have to be placed on every other lot line. Street lights go at each transformer. Fire hydrants are placed about every 5 lots on one side of the road. Water meters in pairs at every other lot line. Sidewalks can not be placed over parallel ditches so any digging for repairs can be done without busting out sidewalks and having to repairing them back. It is greener to put a 2 or 3 foot grass strip between the curb and the sidewalk. The stuff that most people can not see because it is buried is most times a trick to place and meet codes, which are necessary to prevent a utility fuster cluck. All of this has to work around piping for storm water, catch basins and gravity flow sewers, all of which have to go in first to achieve proper slope. That fluid stuff does not run very good up hill. There are umpteen different inspectors involved in this process from the county and from the utility companies. My point being 10’ behind the curb is necessary to accomplish this work…..unless you don’t put in sidewalks…which is a bad thing in my opinion. A 50’ ROW makes the best subdivision roads.

To put in a 50’ ROW you must grade a 60-70 foot path so the Trackhoes can sit perpendicular to the ditch they are digging outside where the curbs go, and for the narrow area allotted to the utility being installed.

I like Tony, but if he was selling my lots or houses I would be…
(link...)

Rachel's picture

unless you don’t put in

unless you don’t put in sidewalks…which is a bad thing in my opinion.

Please talk with your fellow developers. Every single month - including today - we have some guy whose approved concept plan included sidewalks come in to tell us that he didn't put them in and now the subdivision is all built and it's too hard and could he please be excused?

cubedoctor's picture

public safety

I consider sidewalks and street lights a necessary amenity in a subdivision for public safety…..and people need a place for their dogs to crap when they go for walks. Not everyone has the time to take their dog downtown to poop.

Treehouse's picture

Trackhoes

"To put in a 50’ ROW you must grade a 60-70 foot path so the Trackhoes can sit perpendicular to the ditch they are digging..."

I'm not from around here so I'll say what I've been thinking since I moved to Knoxville 30 years ago (and I know nothing about siting buildings). With small hills and valleys in East Tennessee, is it essential that huge machines be used? I understand that TDOT has to use them because they move lotsa dirt (and then leave an ugly mess behind usually) but we could save many lovely hillsides if houses could be placed between trees and slopes according to the existing contours. Knocking down all the trees, completely changing the water flow, and then spending time and money putting back some topsoil and new vegetation doesn't make sense to me.

cubedoctor's picture

regulations

I agree with you Treehouse but……there are lots of rules and regulations concerning the digging of ditches that people have to stand in to install utilities or piping. Every time someone uses bad practice or judgment and a ditch caves in and kills a worker, OSHA, the state and the county pass more regulations. The way we are doing it now is by the regulations and requires the equipment and processes we use which in many cases require moving much extra dirt to lay dirt banks back so that ditches are considered safe for humans to climb into. Ten feet of a thousand foot ditch may need these regulations but….with the regulations you have to do all thousand feet the same way. Are we over regulated? Who knows?

Rachel's picture

If Burchett were interested

If Burchett were interested in compromise, he could offer to hire new inspectors, but the rumor is he plans to cut that staff.

He says flat out when asked that he's cutting staff. He didn't say in that particular group, but one can read between the lines.

Here's the other ironic part about enforcement - a good bit of it is on COMMISSION'S shoulder. MPC can make a recommendation about a good density for a parcel - say, for arguments sake, 3 du/acre. And then the developer goes and cries to Commission and they give him 5.

Or MPC can rezone something office and add a condition requiring a development review. Again, developer goes to Commission and "poof!" development review vanishes.

Commission is part of the problem.

cubedoctor's picture

staff and inspectors in Public Works

There are more than enough staff and inspectors in Public Works now. No one has been let go during the recession even though development is down by 90% or more. They just need to be more forceful with the flagrant violators and stop wasting time on those of us who try to use best practice but lose a shovel or two of mud over the curb and on the road in a heavy event. I have my projects checked during and after a rain event and if it is on a holiday or weekend when I do not have anyone working, I do it myself (or send my wife who is also a licensed contractor/developer.) I always take a flat shovel, a broom and a five gallon bucket. Very seldom in my career, has any silt left on of my sites or migrated to a stream. Turbid water is another matter as it is almost impossible to control when Gaia is generous with her water and in a hurry to deposit it. Silt protection, no matter how well it is installed …..can fail under some conditions and in some events.

Here is one of my catastrophic events.
(link...)

We were digging to connect a sewer for a new home to the tap at the main line. Since it was a gravity sewer trunk line it was installed in the low area (which is correct engineering) which is where creeks usually choose to exist. The sub-contractor digging down for the connection spilled about a dozen roundish dirt clods from his bucket as he dug for the tap and they rolled 20 feet or so down the hill and a few fell into the creek. The backhoe operator was too lazy to get off the machine and pick them up so…..farmer McMillan was nice enough to find the infraction and send pictures to TDEC and Knox County.

This infraction resulted in 5 trips to the site to meet county staff, TDEC state staff and a biologist to determine a plan to remove the clay from the creek. They would not let me remove the clay without a written plan for doing the work. My wife finally got pissed and waded out with the water up to her ankles and using a colander from our kitchen, scooped up the clay and removed it from the creek. I also had to attend a meeting so I could be lectured on the damage that is done to the environment by events such as this. She still drains my food with the same colander used in the creek reclamation.

My point being….valuable resources were tied up with this issue while just down the street VJ (Rachel, you know VJ) was on Washington Pike making an environmental mess from hell…..that he later walked away from when the Banks took it over.

On the bright side, one of the Banks has hired my wife to fix the mess behind the Weigels so they can sell the property. I am sure the job is too large for her to use our colander.

Rachel's picture

VJ, who's that? :) And I

VJ, who's that? :)

And I never knew that a colander was a valuable development tool. Learn something new every day.

Ridge Top Resident's picture

Welcome to the party

You have made the point that many have been hammering that property owners are not aware that they are about to have their property rights trampled all over here. Join the other property owners who feel the same way you do at (link...). We can certainly use your help. Let them worry about the realtors showing up, it is the everyday property owners that should have them concerned.

reform4's picture

Will this be an organized shout-down?

.. like the 'health care forums' by 'interested parties?'

Rachel's picture

Econgal, Call me (you can get

Econgal,

Call me (you can get my # off the MPC website) and I will be happy to give you as straight an answer to your questions as I can.

EconGal's picture

Thanks. I'll try to call you

Thanks. I'll try to call you tomorrow.

Rachel's picture

In an email to realtors

In an email to realtors urging them to rally against the plan, there was a list of bulleted items about the evilness of the plan. One of them said:

*The new Real Estate Transfer Tax will further impact home sales and closings!

Here's what the plan says about a Real Estate Transfer Tax:

Real Estate Transfer Tax

The state currently uses a real estate transfer tax to acquire park land throughout Tennessee. Although this an extremely small portion of real estate transfer costs, the accumulative effect of thousands of transactions can be appreciable. It is recommended that Knoxville and Knox County officials work with state officials to amend the state law to direct a portion of the tax revenues, particularly those that collected in the county, for use in park and open space acquisition in Knox County.

So the "new" tax is just asking the state to share with the county what's already collected.

Whoever wrote that realtor memo is either shamefully ignorant of what the plan actually says, or just plain shameless.

Bbeanster's picture

Cubedoc, you are aware that

Cubedoc, you are aware that one of VJ's numerous environmental messes involved polluting the McMillan family well two years ago, aren't you? Numerous complaints about violations on the side of the ridge where his grading contractor was working were ignored, and one day after lots of blasting the well water turned brown. It still hasn't been remedied, and the family has to tote in drinking water and take baths at the in-laws' house.
So Farmer McMillan has a gracious plenty of reasons to be pissed off and vigilant.

cubedoctor's picture

Summer Rose

Yes, I had heard that about the well. The stream I pictured behind the house I was building is in Summer Rose which shares a property line with farmer McMillan's family farm. He actually reported the developer, which was not me, but I took the heat because my subcontractor got the clay in the stream. My point was the energy and time spent on my infraction compared to major violators such as….well….you know.

Bbeanster's picture

Gotcha, Cube. It does sound

Gotcha, Cube.
It does sound extreme.
Especially compared to, well, you know...

mack mackerel's picture

David Moon: County development plan morally wrong

Rachel's picture

Wonder what he thinks about

Wonder what he thinks about the half-truths, untruths, and character assassination employed by plan opponents?

Guess all those are just peachy, morally speaking.

vernon's picture

Actually I think the

Actually I think the opposition has taken the high road,your problem is the citizens of Knox County don't believe you when you tell them this plan is really good for them.

Rachel's picture

Yup, all those emails I've

Yup, all those emails I've gotten demonizing Tony Norman were really classy.

So was the smear campaign against the League of Women Voters and other non-profits. (Not to mention you sneeringly referring to League members as "hens.")

So was the developer who called plan supporters "extremists" at a Commission workshop.

So was the hyperbolic email from KAAR to its members raising the spector (completely falsely) of a new real estate tax.

Etc. etc.

You have a very strange idea of the high road.

burntorange68goat's picture

Rachel, You might want to

Rachel,

You might want to review the comments of Commissioner Norman and Joe Hultquist during the MPC mmetings in October, November and the first joint MPC/City Council Workshop on this Plan, along with the January, February and March, County Commission Meetings, before you start claiming anyone has or has not used the "High Road" during the these meetings.

Rachel's picture

Ah, the tdit defense. I see

Ah, the tdit defense. I see you didn't refute any of my examples.

I haven't seen Tony or Joe telling fibs, attacking non-profits for daring to speak, etc.

BUt guys, here's the thing: I have absolutely no problem with someone opposing this plan IF they can tell me which elements of the plan give them heartburn and why.

Then we could have a real debate, and maybe even change some things.

Sadly, that's far from the discussion we've been having. In fact, the "discussion" we've been having kinda makes me embarrassed to be a Knox Countian.

vernon's picture

Seriously?

you don't know what people don't like about the plan?Tony has said "no compromise"repeatedly, opposition has asked for the same changes for a year now.I have been to these meetings and no one has ever said one word to shut up a non profit. I have heard Tony ask that no one speaking in opposition to the plan be heard.That should embarrass you.All the opposition has said is 15% is too low to start regs,notification should be done, and we need clear, acceptable, clearing and grading limits.
Sorry you don't like that but the message has been clear and consistent from a wide spectrum of people.Maybe it's time you listen to those requests,make adjustments and get an acceptable plan in place to protect the scenic ridgeways which is what EVERYONE wants.
Do the right thing,work towards a compromise.

Rachel's picture

no one has ever said one word

no one has ever said one word to shut up a non profit.

Nope, they just sent emails to Commission Council, the Mayors, MPC, the press, and everybody else they could think of (including the health dept, fergawdsake), b'ccd to a bunch of non-profits about how the evil LWV was violating its non-profit status by speaking to Commission.

Nothing but a blatant attempt to intimidate non-profits into shutting up.

It was b.s. And it didn't work.

burntorange68goat's picture

Rachel, Do you have some

Rachel,

Do you have some direct knowledge of the individual that sent the now infamous email out to the world? Because if you don't, how do you know what the intent was, why they were sent, or if the email had anything to do with the issues surrounding the Hillside and Ridgetop Protection plan? Maybe the sender, after watching the LWV political activities wanted to make a statement about the blurry line that many Non-Profits walk with a Non-taxable status, while taking positions on Political issues.

You are just mad because you were filmed advocating for a position, as an MPC Board Member, wearing a LWV Button. Get over it.

Rachel's picture

You are just mad because you

You are just mad because you were filmed advocating for a position, as an MPC Board Member, wearing a LWV Button.

Why the dickens would that make me mad? It wasn't an accident that I wore my button to the meeting, you know.

I was angry that someone calling himself Jeff Baker felt the need to attack non-profits all over town. Both tacky and ineffective.

P.S. For the record, I am NOT an LWV Board member.

vernon's picture

I m just saying you might

I m just saying you might want to back off the accusations that you have no proof of.Someone sends out an email and it's automatically the anti slope and ridge evil boogie men.

Rachel's picture

Dude, did you SEE the email?

Dude, did you SEE the email? It was all about how the LWV shouldn't have spoken in favor of Hillside/Ridgetop. No mention of the zillion of other times the League has spoken to Commission or Council.

Just who do you think sent it - some self-appointed watchdog of tax statuses?

cubedoctor's picture

Give Rachel a break

You know you guys could give Rachel a break. She is a public servant, doing what she fells is best for the county. Doing the MPC Commission gig does take a lot of personal time and effort.

MPC has their proposed plan, Tony has his position on changes to the proposed plan, County Commission will vote up or down. Even though some citizens and some commissioners wanted to have another discussion today, the majority of the commissioners present at the last workshop voted not to have another public meeting, saying they have heard enough discussion. The County Commission will have a vote at the monthly meeting next week and a decision will be made, unless they vote to postpone.

Ridge Top Resident's picture

Postpone

You mean postpone again?

cubedoctor's picture

Freudian Slip

Oops…a Freudian Slip

“doing what she fells is best for the county”

Fells is like “fell a tree” which is part of the issue here.

“Feels” is the word I should have typed.

Damn unconscious mind!

Rachel's picture

You know you guys could give

You know you guys could give Rachel a break. She is a public servant, doing what she fells is best for the county. Doing the MPC Commission gig does take a lot of personal time and effort.

Thanks for the defense cd, but not necessary. I knew when I took the job that I would disappoint some folks with my votes, and that I would be attacked by others. It's too bad we treat our public officials - especially volunteer ones - that way, but it's just the way it is.

Ridge Top Resident's picture

True

It is certainly not personal, let's call it a significant disagreement on principles.

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

Local .GOV

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