Graham wins in Halls with the support of a 7th district commissioner and Jernigan loses in South Knox without the support of a 9th district commissioner. Obviously having the support of the "home" commissioner is specifically important in many of these matters that come before commission.

Draw your own conclusions about the importance of an appointment for the 4th.

Yeah, but we all know that the desires of the "home" commissioner go much farther than just zoning issues.

And, that isn't completely accurate. I live in the 4th and am not within the city limits.

Richard Cate was roaming around in the back of the room so I made sure to thank him on behalf of the citizens of Halls for his district's contribution to our 1/2 mile of greenway, several yards of turn lanes, 3 traffic signals and a (probably dead) partridge in a pear tree.

Point is -- it's not what the 4th District gets but what they give while unrepresented. -- s.

Betty- there's a huge chunk of Fourth that isn't in the city- all of the Riverbend penninsula, Fourth goes all the way down Northshore to Hart Rd.

There are a few issues that come up- there's a sign variance in Rocky Hill not far from where I live I need to check into before the Wed meeting.

-----------------------------------------
Fighting for Reform and Representation, Fourth District
Steve Drevik, Commission Seat 4-B
(link...)

I contacted Larry Smith by e-mail to voice my oppositiion. His response:
Thank you for your imput on the matter. I have gotten a lot of calls on
this one. Most of them however have been for the new Lowes and the other
stores it will bring. The votes are about 70% for 20% against, and 10%
concerned about changing the stream flow.

I just copied Larry Smith's response to me when I e-mailed him and told him that as a Halls resident I opposed the Graham development. He responded that 70% of the people he had heard from were for the development, 20% against, and 10% were concerned about the stream flow.

Yet in Sandra Clark's report on the meeting she indicates that Larry Smith said he had not heard from any Halls residents who opposed the development.

Does anyone know if there is a tape or online replay of last night's meeting?

Thank you for the clarification about Larry Smith's remarks. He's kind of splitting hairs, seems to me.

Is there a source that shows the resultant actual cost benefit analysis for particular projects that have received TIFs in the Knox County area?

It has been said several times before, but building these new entities within Knox County just seems like 'funny money' just being moved around.

Whether they buy something at Lowes down the street or 5 miles away does not seem to have any different
tax benefit. Same with jobs. Last I saw Knox county unemployment rate is 2.8%. Thats full employment. The types of jobs Graham etc are creating are low wage jobs. Are they really creating new jobs or just moving low-paying jobs around in the county?

Once you have a few stores providing what you need in a metropolitan area, that seems to be the extent of
new sales. Adding more stores past that initial level of area coverage doesn't change anything but sales point.

I would like to see net impact of TIF by project. In other words if they go to Lowes and buy nails, but somewhere else in area now sells fewer nails by the same amount, then there is no net benefit. In fact its a loss because of TIF.

Larry Smith also said that James McMillan (Smith's opponent in the last election) was for the Graham project. McMillan happened to be present. He stood and opposed it.

At another point, Smith called on Roy Arthur (who works for Knox County). Arthur mumbled about tree canopies being good, and Smith "summed up" Arthur's remarks as an endorsement of the TIF by Roy Arthur of the Beaver Creek Watershed Association.

I doubt the BCWA would endorse the TIF any more than McMillan did.

Smith has a problem with the truth -- either seeing it or speaking it -- possibly both. -- s.

Our highly paid knower of all, capable of nothing, Commissar of the Chamber, Mike Edwards, was up there stooging for HolRob and the other developers who don't go the TIF route, as I dare say they know that the property value of land adjacent to a big box development doesn't really go up with the opening of the center, particularly when it's zoned residential and the commercial uses are banned by the current land use restriction. Also, it makes future development/acquisition of the other parcels of land incredibly expensive as the county just goes out there, reappraises the property, the taxes go up, and viola "TIF financing". The greatest obstacle to these big box development shops like Graham, HolRob, Horne, etc. are (1) high interest rates and (2) expensive property. Once the property gets expensive, the big tenants don't want to pay the corresponding high rent, so they go somewhere else where the land/revenue returns are better.

Edwards used to work for HolRob and the developers hidden within the turkey creek world out west. He's essentially a shill for the developers in town, but, he's made a lot of money by getting food all over his tie while eating with a bunch of the high dollar crowd in Knoxville. He's not as smart in person as he appears on these public appearances, he get his talking points from other developers and their prospective tenants.

jbr- just as a point of clarification, the TIF is supposedly repaid by increased property taxes, not sales taxes. From the County government's perspective, a glut of commercial real estate is OK, since you have to pay property tax on a commercial building whether it is occupied/selling anything or not (unless the owner goes bankrupt, of course).

But I think SHarris makes the more salient point- that the net income from big box stores moves immediately out of state and is not "recycled" in the local economy (the documentary "The High Cost of Low Prices" makes this point extremely well). That's the biggest problem with encouraging development of big box stores- you eventually cut the throat of your local economy in certain sectors (hardware, office supplies, toys, fabric/hobby, groceries).

We should not be subsidizing big boxes and do nothing for the local business development. I'd like to build a new office for my company, but I kinda doubt Commission is going to hand me the $15,000 I'd be creating in new property taxes. Maybe I should go apply for a TIF just to make a point that we've set a bad precedent.

-----------------------------------------
Fighting for Reform and Representation, Fourth District
Steve Drevik, Commission Seat 4-B
(link...)

Besides the Target that Beanster mentions who vacated a big box on Broadway to go to the former Farmer's Market property, we also have the vacated Circuit City that left an empty big box at the Knoxville Center Mall to go next door to Target; the Old Navy that left their store in the mall to go to a freestanding store next to Target; and there will soon be a big ole empty Walmart in Halls that is leaving to go a little ways down the street to a brand new store in a flood zone next to a residential neighborhood.

These are just the immediate ones that come to mind - I'm sure there are others all around the county. If you know of an empty big box, feel free to add to the list!

Not that listing them here will do much good - I've got a feeling we're going to have a lot more empty stores once the developers realize they can get free money from the gubmint to build new ones. TIF's for all!

I'm sure there are others all around the county.

You mean country. Them's the rules of the game. If it starts to look or feel more than a few years old, it's time to build a replacement in the newest sprawl zone nearby. Who cares what happens to the old big box? Maybe "they" can tear it down and restore the historic home that used to be there, or build a farm or something. [/snark]

It's about the hidden costs of sprawl. And the big boxes are hugely more offensive in this regard than the lil' fast food outlets and the like.