So Dave Hill has finally admitted that the community he cares about is the community of builders and lot flippers and the few homeowners who want to sell out.

I certainly would like to know to whom Dave "admitted" this. Can you elaborate?

BTW, just what do you want to change about the code? It's not very productive - or helpful - just to ask people rise up and "support the neighborhoods." What specifically do you want added, deleted, or changed?

Your post sounds like we should throw out everything that's been done in the last 18 months. I don't really believe you think that.

So again, what specific action do you want to see taken?

here's an 11,250 square foot building in the low density zone SW-1 zone. But wait- right across the street on the north side of Scottish Pike it's hmmm... well let's see you could have 100,000 square feet on a 200 x 150'lot.

Hmmm, I'm sure it won't matter to your conclusion, but your math in the second example is off. A 200ft. by 150ft. lot is 30,000 sq. ft.

Maximum lot coverage in an SW-2 is 70%, so that would be 21,000 sq. ft. There is a 4 story limit on buildings so that would be 84,000 sq. ft, not 100,000.

And 84,000 sq. ft. is high, because a 4th story must be setback a minimum of 10' on all sides.

I'm sure you think this is still too large, but at least the #s are correct (I'm pretty sure.). And let's make sure folks see where the #s are coming from.

As for the first example, the maximum lot size in an SW-1 is 15,000 sq.ft. Maximum lot coverage is 30%, which is 4500 sq. ft. for the maximum footprint. Maximum building height is 2.5 stories (35' max), so that would indeed be 11,250 sq.ft. You got that one right.

But in an R-1 low density residential zone, the max. building height is - 2.5 stories. And the maximum lot coverage is - 30%. Of course there may be a limit on the #s of dwelling units per acre, but the building sizes could be exactly the same. Or am I missing something here?

BTW, much of the Scottish Pike area is now zoned I-3, which allows for 80% lot coverage and 45' tall buildings - and a variety of uses, up to and including industrial. So tell me again how how are we not "supporting the neighborhoods" by changing virtually all uses, 45' max building height, 80% lot coverage to residential use only, 35' max building height, and 30% lot coverage?

Nah, let's just keep things the way they are.

BTW, just because the process didn't produce exactly the results you wanted doesn't mean the process was bad. Or that Dave Hil is the devil.

I hope #9 is properly indignant about all the money that was wasted on this so called public process.

I am more indignant that this is Government funded red lining and gentrification. I was wondering how the City would get the "poor" people out of there. Form based codes, I hadn't thought of that.

All you have to do is block out the sky and change the neighborhood so drastically that even the people who really want to stay will finally give up. Remember I told you they would do everything possible to wear you out. Mamaw, was it all just a game? The public meetings, how much input did the community really contribute?

But you will not see a four story building go up across the street from one of the lovely homes in Island Home will you? Nor will you see a four story building block out the sky across the street from Dave Hill's house in Farragut will you? What makes them different?

The sad part is that you and your neighbors will use your tax dollars to pay for this. That is the part I am most indignant about.

Mamaw, call John Emision at Citizens for Home Rule. You need to lawyer up. The number is 865-769-3993.

(link...)

Were you not at the meeting where John Craig said my neighborhood was no good and should be bulldozed?

I was at a meeting where John Craig expressed his opinion that higher density etc. was needed. He did NOT say what you attributing to him. And he didn't get what he wanted in the SW-1 district anyway - a max building height of 2.5 stories was not what he had in mind.

I am tired of you calling me a liar or misinformed every time I turn around.

I have called no one a liar, and resent you saying so. And I didn't say you were misinformed; on the contrary, I said you were very well-informed. It was #9 I was calling uninformed.

Dave Hill did say he was wanting to take into account the needs of the land assemblers.

I've talked to some of folks you said witnessed this conversation. It seems Dave said something about balancing the needs of all property owners, including developers (which was kind of one of the points of the entire exercise). That's very different from saying "the community he cares about is the community of builders and lot flippers and the few homeowners who want to sell out".

This is just one example of how you twist what folks say - and that's happened a lot lately. You've done it to me more than once. I don't know if you do this on purpose, or if you hear what you want to hear, or you hear what you're afraid you'll hear. But it does not serve you well.

Last summer the city asked the residents about duplexes on 1/6 acre lots and they seemed OK with that.

Not sure if this is a response to my question about whether this was a neighborhood consensus that had been properly vetted by a public process. If it is, it's insufficient.

I don't want to get into an ugly fight with you. If we are going to talk about this, I'm going to insist on sticking to the facts and specifics of the proposed code. I'm not going to engage in a vague discussion about Dave Hill's motives or John Craig's schemes etc. Nor am I going to let you twist what I say.

That's just icky, and frankly, just a little bit scary.

Were you not at the meeting where John Craig said my neighborhood was no good and should be bulldozed? He said the same thing at a Knox Heritage meeting where Kim Trent was taking notes. So PLEASE ask her or Finnbar Saunders.

I asked Kim Trent about this. She said she had never heard John Craig say anything like this, including in the meeting you mention.

What most of my neighbors want is to be left alone.

I've been thinking a lot about this today. I can understand it - and even appreciate it.

Unfortunately, it's the one thing that is not going to happen. Current residents of the south waterfront are just not going to be left alone. Change is coming, like it or not. The south waterfront has been "discovered" and developers are pretty much queued up to build on it.

The only question is whether they build under the existing conditions - where they can pretty much do anything they damn well please, and the likely result is very tall buildings, gated communities, totally blocked views, and no public access to the water - or if they have to build in a better quality way that we have some control over.

I opt for the latter. And even tho the codes are not perfect, they go a long way toward ensuring that the development that's coming is of high quality and takes the needs of the public into account.

It's more politically expediant to buy people out or drive them away.

our neighbohood's ...been pimped by the City

Ok I'm out of this conversation. I will be extremely happy to discuss, argue, etc. about the south waterfront with anybody who can have said discussion without insulting people and impugning their motives.

I'm truly sorry that you can't seem to do that. As I've said before, it doesn't serve you well.

Weren't the people affected by the South Knox Waterfront project promised in the beginning that the "character" of their existing neighborhoods would not be harmed? In the beginning wasn't a promise made only to be broken later that there would be NO eminent domain used? Did Dave Hill not later say that there would be eminent domain?

Did any of the maps or models show four story buildings across from the existing single family homes? Aren't the new form based codes a great surprise to the existing residents that have single family homes?

Ok, now I'm really confused. I received what Mamaw mailed me about max building heights in SW-2 districts - and it says exactly what I've been saying all along. She even circled it:

40' or 3 stories without stories above setback
50' or 4 stories with stories above setback

which translates into 4 stories max, if the top story has a setback.

I'm not sure how she got 5 stories out of this unless she misread 50' as 5 stories.

It appears I am not the only person who remembers promises about existing neighborhoods retaining their "character".

South Knox activist Martha Olson has a good letter in the Metro Pulse today:

Not Buying It

I was surprised by your assertion on page 23 of the December 28 Metro Pulse that the River Towne Condos on Scottish Pike were “almost instantly sold out.” Is Truthiness the new journalistic standard at Metro Pulse?

Perhaps title passed in some form or fashion, but any of your readers can turn to pages 62 and 65 and see large photo ads for the development. “Only a select few units are available.” This when 19 of the units are still in the name of Tennessee River Condominiums. Twelve are owned by non-residents, some of the names I recognize from being involved with the development.

Sure there’s a market for waterfront condominiums. And the sales at River Towne are respectable. But a marketing study done for the city found that demand would be more than met by developments in the industrial sites. What I don’t like to see is developers attempting to buy up existing homes with the intent to bulldoze them and reap an imaginary bonanza.

The details of the zoning regulations and allowable density will be coming before City Council this month. The decisions Council makes will influence whether our neighborhoods retain their character.

During the public meetings held last winter the overwhelming public sentiment was to maintain the existing neighborhoods and have limited infill. The city seemed adamant about taking steps to preserve the existing homes. I hate to see developers pressuring the city to reverse this stance because of irrational exuberance promoted by your newspaper.

Martha Olson
Knoxville

Mamaw and Nine really need to think about property responsibility before you think about property rights. If a homeowner loses his or her property to the city, it would be from neglect and gross ignorance. The Better Building Board has been in effect for several years, and frankly it can been too lenient at times...

And as far as a four-story building nearby, I have a few in my neighborhood in North Knoxville, and I wish the same Form-Based codes were in effect when they were built. The whole point of form-based code is that it can fit in the character of the neighborhood, regardless of use. Four stories is not a high-rise...

I've been following the South Waterfront process very closely. I've attended the public meetings. You are entitled to your opinions, however you're not entitled blind pessimism. I don't share your conspiracy theories...

I'm concerned about property values rising so quickly that there is more value in the land than the buildings. What I had hoped for was a gradual process where homes (which the owners wanted to sell) that were in good shape would be marketed to homeowners and ones in rough condition might be teardowns or could be fixed up through city assistance programs.

How is this not government funded redlining and gentrification? The purpose is to remove the homes so multi-purpose buildings can be built on the same parcel. How is this not a violation of due process?

Let me draw this out for you. A person owns a home free and clear that has a worth today of $125,000. As new multi-purpose four story buildings are built all around the home the tax appraisal of the home increases but the actual value remains the same or decreases. The homeowner, let’s call him Joe Schmuck, has a dilemma. Sell, and not have enough money to purchase or build a comparable home that is in the same area; or stay and watch his taxes go up but the value of his property remain the same. Whatever improvements have been put into the home are not part of the value of the home because the land is now the only determinant value of the property.

Whoever purchases the home will tear it down so the demolition costs will be factored into the purchase price reducing what Joe Schmuck will receive from the sale of the home. So what does Joe do now? Sell his home and move his family far away where $125,000 can purchase something other than a used doublewide? Or stay put and pay higher property taxes while his family’s quality of life is diminished?

This would not be necessary if this project had a reasonable break-even as far as the community and the taxpayers are concerned.

I am agnostic on New Urbanism and form based codes. I could care less. I care only about the rights of taxpayers and the property rights of existing homeowners.

The following expresses many useful ideas about the South Knox Waterfront project and the New Urbanism political movement in Knoxville:

Samuel R. Staley, Ph.D., President,
The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions

If this is the position of New Urbanists, those favoring market-oriented approaches to urban development WILL join New Urbanists and support a large part of the agenda.

In my view, much of the conflict between the New Urbanists and the market-oriented folks is misplaced. As someone deeply committed to market-oriented approaches to urban development, but also very sympathetic to New Urbanist design, I think it might be worth looking a little more deeply at the substantive position of the libertarian-conservative-free market-private property, etc. advocates. As someone who is been the forefront of this movement, I would like to offer a few observations.

From the perspective of New Urbanism, I think it is a fundamental misunderstanding of both the position and motives of the market-oriented folks (which includes libertarians, conservatives, private property rights advocates, and others that simply want to be left alone) to assume that their opposition to Smart Growth is opposition to New Urbanism. While it is not well articulated, most of these folks--and certainly those that have emerged as "leaders" in this movement--are politically agnostic on urban design. If everyone wanted to live in New Urbanist style developments, that would be fine with them as along as the decision was fully informed and the product of full choice. Even if that means they would be sacrificing their own chosen lifestyle. That, of course, is consistent with the market oriented approach to public policy, and the position of most in the movement (like New Urbanists) is principled, not opportunistic.

The objective for many of those in the market-oriented camp (including myself) is to provide an environment and climate where people can live in the kinds of neighborhoods they prefer. In short, to use the jargon of the movement, if people want to live in New Urbanist neighborhoods, public policy should facilitate that, not discourage it. But, public policy should be neutral on urban design as much as possible. I think most of the public policy recommendations are consistent with this. (Indeed, I believe a freer market in land us regulation would lead to substantially more New Urbanist developments.)

The market-oriented folks, for the most part, do not view Smart Growth through the prism of urban design. They see is through the prism of politics. Smart Growth is a political movement. As such, most are objecting to the coercive components of Smart Growth, not New Urbanist design per se. Many of those on the market-oriented side of the debate aren't objecting to New Urbanism as a design philosophy, but object to New Urbanist design being imposed on those that don't like it or want it. Similarly, since Smart Growth is seen as a political movement, they are very in tune with the ways the political system is used to entrench special interests, whether they are developers, architects or NIMBYs.

So, why so much rancor about New Urbanism in the market-oriented movement? Because many of the design recommendations of New Urbanism have been incorporated into policy prescriptions that are seen as highly prescriptive and coercive. Policy recommendations that institute a general rule such as a minimum density standard truncate the market as much as a rule that applies a maximum density standard. Policy recommendations that work from a regional land use plan where design standards are set for blocks and neighborhoods are also seen as coercive or so rule-bound to effectively become a mandate.

Prescriptive policy recommendations work against a view of the urban development that is organic and evolutionary, the intuitive framework from which the libertarians/free market people operate. Perhaps more importantly, there is also a tendency to gravitate toward using the more extreme policy recommendations as evidence of the center of the movement. I would argue that this has occurred on both sides.

I believe a much more productive approach would be to recognize the extreme positions of both sides for what they are--outliers. Focusing on the outliers makes finding common ground difficult, if not impossible.

My own view is that there is a lot more common ground between the market-oriented folks and the New Urbanists than many believe. In fact, I believe market-oriented and pro-private property rights groups could become very important allies and change agents on the local level.

In my community, for example, the market is clearly demanding more mixed use, higher density, more connectivity, and more pedestrian friendly design. Property owners want to sell their property to developers who want to provide this. The current zoning laws prevent the market from working. Our community loses as a result.

I hope these observations and thoughts are useful as New Urbanists think about the future of their movement.

Very thoughtful discussion from Knoxville City Councilman Rob Frost about the South Knox Waterfront. Many people would like to see Rob Frost run for the office of Knoxville Mayor. He speaks about the rights of the people that currently live and work on the South Knox Waterfront.

Check it out.

Here's the link to the South Knox - Seymour Times section with the tidbit on this meeting.

S, you can look at a copy of the S waterfront plans at the S Knox Library (ask at the counter) the South Neighborhood center on Maryville Pike, or the Smoky mountain Chevron across from Baptist.

Linda Rust would be knowledgeable about other zoning issues. She's in the phone book.

_____________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs

I spoke with Jeff Archer, Knox MPC (215-2500). This is not really part of the South Knox Waterfront. It sounded like the South Haven Neighborhood Community Assoc. might have contacted MPC about getting some rezoning to maintain the character of the neighborhood. They are looking at zoning tools to help keep single family homes similar to existing homes in new development in the area. There apparently is not a real problem currently, they are being proactive to prevent mobile/mfg homes and apartments (multi-family) housing. Not all necessarily Jeff's words, my interpretation to some extent.

From the outside, the homeowners on the South Knoxville Waterfront are getting what they asked for. It is about property rights, and as the past homeowners sold out for businesses to eat away the character of the community, the few homeowners left did not do enough decades ago to stop the infringement by business upon their community. Many property owners elsewhere would love their community to revert to residential use only. Here in Oak Ridge, that is just the concern by citizens. No silly codes or spot zoning imposed to accommodate business in the Woodland community.

I do hope the best for home and property owners on the South Knoxville Waterfront, and the best of luck with their new opportunity to come their way.

My question about this project is not readily available on the city website. Will this project allow a 2000 meter rowing course to be built on the Tennessee River?

Gee Thanks, Oak Ridger, It's so nice when you blame the victims. Many of my neighbors are too busy working their jobs and taking care of their children and elderly parents to get involved as much as they'd like. In the recent past we got organized to oppose a road closing but the neighborhood's wishes were ignored. Now it's hard for some people to get exited about community involvement if they feel it does no good.

Haven't you figured out that community preservation is a rich man's game? Yet you are all too eager to kick the poor man for not living up to your standards

as the past homeowners sold out for businesses to eat away the character of the community

I'd like to know where this has happened?

____________________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs

I see many businesses in that community. So much so that I barely recognize the elementary school if it weren’t for the students. Business is the controlling factor there. They have bulldozed homes to build businesses. Those businesses would want better city service, but found selling out to the government is cheaper. That exact attitude is what you are facing and have faced for decades.

The homeowners there will get a fair shake if certain processes are followed, the same as Island Home is doing to protect their community. They are just lucky to see what landlords and businesses do to a community before government steps in and gives the area what it has been asking for, residential property rights.

What is it that makes you so disgusted about the idea? You are not going to lose your property, and you get to live in a city residential area. I understand being placed into a Manhattan property style while living your life in a community that looks like it has been through many changes, but that is what the community allowed to happen. It is difficult to explain, but precedence is a major factor against your issues.

It is a losing battle by your self, but the remaining homeowners still have a chance to be part of the project. It is now time to do what seems like everyone there wants; invest time, materials, and money into your own properties while the others sell off to those who will do it.

Okay, it takes time to learn the processes, now is a good time to find out who is willing to help you. But the most important thing I believe for South Knoxville Waterfront properties is for you people to put down any ill feelings about anyone and come together to preserve what you want, property rights. The city is doing it, why can't you?

I can help you with Oak Ridge bureaucracy, but I don't think you will want any of that dirt. All of our dirt comes with a federally TARGETED high school. That means last year we failed the NCLB program. Our city has a long way to go to match where you live, but we do have communities that are growing to keep businesses out. We have learned it only takes one wealthy person to buy some residential property at said zoned cost, and then develop it as commercial property only by changing the ordinance with spot zoning.

I hate to say you can fight for historical value, it has downfalls, but like I said the community has let it go to business for so long now, it will take all of the residents there to make a difference. Sometimes that means labor is given for free to bring a house up to these new codes. I would like to see these codes.

Anything about the Tennessee River to allow a 2000-meter rowing course?

Sometimes that means labor is given for free to bring a house up to these new codes

Are you volunteering to help folks who need their homes repaired? That is so sweet! Because as it stands a person of limited means faces the possibility of losing a home where they've lived all their life to eminent domain if KCDC and the city deem it "dilapidated".

Can you get a group of other concerned people to help? What are your skills? Can you persuade anyone to donate materials? Would you like the name of a contact person?

Unfortunately I'm not in a position to help right now. I need to "invest time, materials, and money into (my) own properties". I have some things to catch up with my business that I let slide last year when I was attending all those meetings.

I did put a new roof on for a neighbor a couple of years ago when this first came out and I was afraid her tarp would make our block look bad. Didn't help apparently, we got declared blighted anyway.

____________________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs

ORX, a couple of things.

Being new here, you may have missed out on some of the previous discussion of the project. Here's some background:

(link...)

Regarding your question "Will this project allow a 2000 meter rowing course to be built on the Tennessee River?", there was a lot of involvement from the Knoxville Rowing Club in the "vision plan." Rowing activities are a central theme of the river activity development. I don't recall specific mention of a "2000 meter rowing course", but see this:

(link...)

On page 17 (pg. 29 of the PDF document) the map of proposed recreational facilities shows a "Rowing Course." There are also proposals for boat houses, shuttles, canoe and kayak access, and other rowing related facilities mentioned in the plan.

You could probably ask Mary English of the Knoxville Rowing Association, who was on the oversight committee, and she would be able to give you more details.

Regarding your statement:

I see many businesses in that community. So much so that I barely recognize the elementary school if it weren’t for the students. Business is the controlling factor there. They have bulldozed homes to build businesses. Those businesses would want better city service, but found selling out to the government is cheaper. That exact attitude is what you are facing and have faced for decades.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. I grew up on Sevier Ave., went to South Knoxville Elementary from 1960-1966. There have always been business there. Businesses grew up around the community to serve the community. We had drug stores, grocery stores, hardware stores, "service stations" (with mechanics and everything). Sadly, they are no more, and there is less "community" because of it. In fact, some of those very businesses were bulldozed to make way for the James White Parkway project. That, in my opinion did as much damage to South Knoxville as anything yet, except maybe for the consolidation of the City and County school systems.

As for the commercial/industrial businesses down there, they have always been there, too. The history of Knoxville going back to the 1700s revolves around it being a riverside port city, which is sort of why it's here in the first place. The new plan gets rid of most or all of it to make way for residential and retail development. The process has already started at the glove factory. So I think your assessment is sort of exactly backwards here.

As for lecturing Goose Creek about getting involved, I will give you a pass on that one because you probably weren't aware that she was on the project planning oversight committee representing the interests and concerns of her neighborhood and was heavily involved in "The Process". Rachel is another frequent participant here who was on the committee and also heavily involved representing the community. Bill Lyons, Senior Director Department of Policy Development for the City of Knoxville, is also a frequent participant in the discussions. Dave Hill, Senior Director South Waterfront Development for the City of Knoxville, has chimed in a few times. There are probably others I'm forgetting.

So there's been quite a lot of involvement here by some key players, making it's a good place to discuss the various issues as they arise. We're glad to have you aboard, and look forward to your participation in the discussion as the project moves forward. Let us know what you find out from the Knoxville Rowing Association about the course, I'd be interested to know more about it, too.

Thank you R.Neal. I will follow up with your advice. It was on target. Oak Ridge currently has a 2000-meter rowing course that the distance makes it a national contender. I believe Knoxville will have to match the length to have national tournaments held on the waterfront. That can be easily done from what I see. I would like to know this because our past city council has put in around $1 million to see that these events are held here. If Knoxville plans to do a national tournament style course, our efforts here in Oak Ridge to preserve rowing will be greatly affected. I am unable to find actual numbers of these regattas from our elected officials as to what is the return, but the estimates have always looked good.

I understand business helping a community, but business also takes away from a community. A strong community would check business. There are many places in Knoxville where you see the community controlling what business is to enter and what it would replace within its borders. I see homeownership the greatest asset for any city, which is why many homeowners are forming workgroups to keep homeownership an asset. And that is why I believe Knoxville is making this project primarily for residences.

Trying to hypothetically place South Knoxville Waterfront as a different community than it is today is a waste of time. You have done well in correcting me R.Neal, but there are homeowners there now. If they pull their efforts together and form a collective voice, progress to improve the homes there would be a major goal of Knoxville, and I would say be a little historic with actual homes still existing. We are talking about a handful of homes that are owner occupied. What I see is business has given up on the community. For what reason, I do not know, money I think. But is that primarily the reason to move existing homeowners for new homeowners? If Knoxville really wants this project Creek, I’m sorry to say there is nothing that is going to stop it. I just hope you understand that your community is targeted for a major makeover and you should take the opportunity to improve with it. I will read the codes to see if I would be able to make standards with a home there.

I'm currently lending a hand to some residents in Oak Ridge, Creek. I am also working on some homes on E. Red Bud and VuCrest, which is why I have some comments about South Knoxville Waterfront. I see many homeowners outside the affected area of the project making improvements; I just wonder why the affected area is not doing the same at the same pace?

I would like to lend a hand Creek, but my anonymity using this login name must be kept. Let me have yours, and I will discuss volunteering for your community. My email is oakridgerx@yahoo.com. Oh, if you want me to volunteer on rental property, completely out of the question, homeowners only.

I enjoy the great people on this thread, very informative. I will study the plans more as this thread demands the respect. I truly believe this project is the greatest improvement Knoxville has ever had. I know I will be there many times over enjoying the South Knoxville Waterfront.

Sorry to sound like I’m riding the fence. The project is one side, but the few homes still standing I believe is a major stake for Knoxville heritage. I will look into the Knoxville heritage this project plans to preserve. It will have major repercussions for city-waterfront development nationwide.

I am wondering if you are confused about the project boundaries. When I read a statement like "few homes still standing" I wonder if you are thinking only of Phillips ave? There are hundreds of homes within the redevelopment zone. I have seen many of them be noticeably improved in the past couple of years. I think perhaps you are looking at the glass half empty while we see it half full.

I'd like to read more about what is going on in your area. Why don't you start a thread devoted to Oak Ridge and your neighborhood.

____________________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs