I'm bothered by the way the boundaries were expanded without notification. Owners OR occupants were mailed an ordinary letter as required by the new state law but the letter did not indicate that their property was within the boundary unless someone opened the map at KCDC.com. Although they weren't required to do so under the new state law KCDC has said that they mailed certified letters last week but I have yet to find a neighbor who has recieved one as of today's mail. It's been suggested that they sre stacked up at the post office waiting for a slow mail day.

This just bothers me on a fundamental level. Isn't there something about due process in the constitution?

Here's the new state law, freshly minted this summer at the request of Mr. Nance.

(link...)

And no, I don't hate the Waterfront Development. I just want to have some protections in place for the owners and occupants.

In my opinion, the Redevelopment Area should include ONLY the area for which there is a master plan. If the city wishes to produce a master plan for the ridge, they it should do so and submit it to the public and Council for approval.

I was there as well.  Mr. Kaplan is entitled to his opinion.

But I didn't hear anyone who actually LIVES in the boundaries of the redevelopment area outside the immediate waterfront request they be removed.  (One resident of Phillips Avenue wanted Phillips removed but it IS included in the vision and action planning areas.)  Actually, I heard several folks (including Mamaw) suggest the boundaries be broaded even more to take in Log Haven and the Rose Property.

Also, questions from residents of Old Sevier (which includes most the area Mr. Kaplan speaks of) centered on how the TIF $$$ might be used within their neighborhood.

I understand what the state law says.  But I have also been told that although City Council cannot take away KCDC's state granted powers, they can limit which of those powers will be used in each redevelopment plan.  In essence, each plan is a contract mutually agreed upon between Council and KCDC.  This plan does indeed limit those powers in a pretty substantial way.

And finally, I will repeat my earlier assertion that anybody who thinks KCDC will just run around with their infinite pot of $$$ condeming and buying up property against the express wishes of the City administration and City Council just plain needs a tinfoil hat.

Please remember that the only reason for even defining the redevelopment area is to enable the infrastructure TIF.  And we need this ASAP so that we can start capturing the increased property taxes from developments like the Glove Factory.

Council conducts a workshop on this tonight at 5 in the Small Assembly Room of the City/County Bldg.  Another community meeting is scheduled for Monday at 6 at the Drop In Center.

P.S. Mamaw is right to be concerned about the notification.  And if the P.O. is just sitting on the certified letters, shame on them.

Only 11 members of the public attended the workshop tonight. It's interesting that, at the front end of the project when the Vision Plan was first presented, hundreds of people attended. At that time, none of the houses on the ridge were included in the master plan and even the model omitted most of the little wooden blocks representing these houses.

Now that the plan includes over twice the area and has moved up the ridge, nearly no one attends the meetings.

Per Hayes Hickman, KNS, "City officials reassure landowners".

The most likely scenario in which eminent domain would come into play, Hill and KCDC officials explained, would be in the case of an owner who is unwilling to work with the city to improve their property. As they explained, those same sites can, in turn, threaten surrounding property values.

...

Hill said he understood the concern, though. He related stories of some developers already using "hardball tactics" and implied threats of condemnation to convince working-class South Knoxvillians to sell their land now.

Move along now, nothing to worry about.

It is far better to exhaust the residents with countless meetings and slowly show that it is just better to sell your property than it is to fight.

#9, then what's the answer?  If the City weren't having so many public meetings, you'd claim that they were making secret, backroom deals.  Too much openness means some kind of "wear them out" conspiracy.  Seriously, what's the answer?

And Mamaw may be right about some meeting fatigue.  However, I'd suggest a more positive explanation for at least part of the low turnout - and that's that all those meetings the City has held have allowed a lot of folks to get comfortable with most of what's going on.

Meetings are meaningless unless our governments representatives actually listen and implement input from the residents.

I agree.  Please tell me exactly why and how the South Waterfront Vision, Action, and Redevelopment Plans have failed to implement input from the community.

gemini wrote:

"Please tell me exactly why and how the South Waterfront Vision, Action, and Redevelopment Plans have failed to implement input from the community."

=

i'm not aware of ANY public input in setting the expanded boundary of the redevelopment district. who in fact determined and set the boundary? is anyone aware of any public input? if so, please state place and time ..

I will stipulate that the boundaries were originally set in the DRAFT (remember, the document is still a draft) by someone at the City.  I believe Dave Hill said he did them, and he has said repeatedly that they are somewhat arbitrary and that his ideas were not infallible.

Since then, the draft has been posted on the website.  There has been one community meeting and a Council workshop.  Another community meeting and the official KCDC public hearing is scheduled for this week. 

The boundaries have, in fact, been changed slightly once already.  They have been pushed slightly higher up the ridge in Old Sevier, due, I believe, to the desires of many in that community.  There is no reason they can't be changed again before the final version of the plan goes to Council on 9/26.

BTW, the City has promised to make the new draft (the one that will incorporate public comments) available on 9/20 so that folks will have a chance to review and comment on it before it moves on for approval.

If there is a groundswell of community support to move the boundaries closer to the river, there is ample time to hear it and incorporate it.  So far, I haven't heard it, and like Mamaw I've been to all the meetings. 

 That's not to say I haven't heard a few folks express the wish that the boundaries be smaller.  But the concensus concerns/questions have centered on things other than boundaries.

Let me add that I think the boundaries are pretty much ok where they are.  And so far that's the attitude I pick up from the community.  Since my job on the Oversight Committee is to be an "at-large community representative," I do try to express both my personal opinion and that of the community at large, best I can discern it.

I think the City should have discussed the plan a bit with the Oversight Committee before issuing the draft.  I have said that to City officials.  But I also think the opportunity for meaningful public input into the plan has been clearly made available.

So I ask again for examples of how how the South Waterfront Vision, Action, and Redevelopment Plans have failed to implement input from the community.  #9, I originally put that question to you; you're being awful quiet about responding.

What exact part of the plan is a result of public input? The river front walk way? The good parking making it easy to access the river front walk way? Were they really going to develop the SouthKnox Waterfront without this? I think not. Except I am joking about the good parking.

Maybe the public input was the requet for blocking and surrounding the whole Phillips Street area with Condos? Or maybe it was all the residents in the Sevier Ave neighborhood letting everyone know they want to be considered a "blighted and/or dilapidated" area.

I bet the beautification of Sevier Avenue was public input.

By the way, why did Pilot close/sell their gas station on Sevier? They have owned that property since 1982?

I still can't tell if Mamaw has any faith in the process.  And I'd really like for her to go on record about that.

JaHu - read the redevelopment plan.  It specifically forbids taking private property to sell to developers.

Bizgirl, yes, public access to the entire waterfront was very much one of the community inputs to the plan.  And without this kind of plan we wouldn't end up with it.  We'd end up with a series of private developments with little or no public access.

And Phillips Avenue is NOT "surrounded" by condos.  There are condos proposed between Phillips and the river.  These would no doubt get built in the absence of a plan by the private market anyway.  But in that case, when the Phillips residents complained the condos were too high and blocked views of the river, the response would be "tough."  In the case of the plan, when residents made the same complaint, the heights of those buildings were lowered.  That will be incorporated into the form-based zoning code.

#9 wrote:  After all of the promises that existing homes would not be threatened by this project isn't it clear that is just talk?

Hell, no, it's anything BUT clear.  And I don't believe even Mamaw would agree with you on that, although maybe she would disappoint me.

Look, I'm not pretending that this entire effort is perfect.  That would be ludicirous.  Identifying ways to do it better is important.  But on the whole it's been well-executed and extremely sensitive to community concerns.  I wish we could celebrate that instead of knee-jerk assuming the worst.  But I guess that's not as much fun for some people.

Beating up on the City for doing what you ask it to do - in this case, conduct an open transparent process with meaningful public input - is a good way to ensure that next time they won't bother.

For those of you who really care about this effort, I'd suggest you go back and read all the material on the website - the proposals, the vision plan, the action plan, the market study, the financial plan, the draft form-based zoning code, the redevelopment plan etc.  Then ask questions based on what you learn.

Yes, that's time consuming.  But it's a lot more educational than listening to the POV of a handful of folks who in many cases are basing their comments on a limited understanding both of the process and the products.

"The Vision Plan does not include or recommend the involuntary public acquisition of private property for economic development purposes (transfer from one private owner to another private owner)."

Gemini, it doesn't say anything about transfer from one private owner to the local government and then to another private owner.

Dude, what do you think "involuntary public acquisition of private property" means?????

P.S.  Yes, the language on page 10 is supposed to be fixed.

Mamaw: Gemini asks if I have faith in the process? How can I answer that?

Umm, I don't know.  Directly would be nice.

Ah yes, good ole Naboth.  In this particular discussion, I'd kind of think that falls under Goodwin's law, but I'll bite.  Just who is the Ahab and who is the Elijah of this scenario - the Mayor and Steve Hall?  Dave Hill and #9?  Joe Hultquist and Michael Kaplan?  I'm picturing Alvin Nance in the role of Jezebel.

The intent of the City, acknowledged and agreed to by KCDC, is not to take land by eminent domain to sell to third party developers.  KCDC would NOT be allowed, for example, to take Mamaw's property to sell to a developer who wanted to build condos on it.

This does NOT exclude the possiblity of taking a particular "dilapidated" property - if all else fails - and selling it to a private individual.  However, the City can and does do that now.  The current process for dealing with problem properties through codes is cumbersome, lengthy, and ineffective.  The residents of Old Sevier, who have been dealing with some particular problem properties for years, know this only too well.   The process as outlined in the plan should serve the community better.

Please note that the definition of "dilapidated" is basically property that is in falling down condition through intentional neglect (that's a paraphrase, but it's pretty close).  Such properties will be identified on an ad hoc basis by the community or by the City as it works on infrastructure improvement.  The process employs a citizen advisory board which will include members of the community - this board will even have a say in deciding if a property meets the definition of "dilapidated."

This is the only way KCDC can take property by eminent domain in this redevelopment area, except for infrastructure improvements.  (See page 11): The only properties anticipated to be acquired under this plan are: (1) dilapidated properties for which the owners have elected not to submit proposals in accordance with this plan, (2) properties that are purchased voluntarily, or (3) properties required for public ownership and construction of public improvements.

Evidently that language is not clear enough, and I will pass along the suggestion that the language be clarified.  I also suggest that you email Dave Hill at dhill@cityofknoxville.org with the same suggestion.  Ditto on the Vision Plan thing.

BTW, both the KCDC's attorney and the City Council attorney have opined that Council can legally put such limits on KCDC's eminent doman powers in a particular district.

From today's Metro Pulse news about how pesky "holdouts" will be dealt with. Can't let them stand in the way of progress, you know. It's all love and kisses now. Just wait.

No Eminent Domain, Unless…
After the initial love-fest enjoyed by Connecticut-based South Knox Waterfront Master Planners, Hargreaves Associates, some of the glow may be starting to wear off. While most South Knoxvillians still seem to favor the comprehensive plan that calls for a radical upgrade of downtown’s south riverbank, controversy concerning its proposed implementation is beginning to brew. At the heart of the controversy is concern over possible eminent domain abuses and, while the City of Knoxville’s Chief Operating Officer Dave Hill has been quick to say that the City is not considering turning properties over to developers through the use of eminent domain, City Councilman Joe Hultquist states that the City must reserve the right to take private property through eminent domain in order to ensure that the infrastructure improvements called for in the Master Plan are not jeopardized by potential hold-outs among current property owners.

(link...)