Tue
Oct 2 2007
11:11 pm
It's official
By: Rachel

Well, I hope Commission enjoyed their time in the courtroom - because both WBIR and WATE led their 11 p.m. coverage with the news that the City intends to sue the County over the stormwater ordinance.

(link...)

Geez, Ragsdale is proposing yet another committee study this thing? Are you kidding me?

Topics:
Pickens's picture

When it rains, it pours.

Submitted by Pickens on Tue, 2007/10/02 - 11:18pm.

When it rains, it pours.

Thank you ladies and germs, and don't forget to tip your waitress.

Rachel's picture

This idea of yet another

Submitted by Rachel on Tue, 2007/10/02 - 11:36pm.

This idea of yet another committee/study really frosts me. So they meet for six months, work out an agreement, and then Lumpy & the homebuilders vote it down yet again?

To heck with that.

"The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones." - John Maynard Keynes

rikki's picture

six years

Submitted by rikki on Wed, 2007/10/03 - 1:30am.

Six months? There was a two-plus-year round-table process behind drafting this ordinance to begin with. When that version was brought before commission, the homebuilders subbed in an amended version the morning of the meeting, which is how the process got dragged into 2007. This things has already been committeed until it's long in the tooth, with the homebuilders regularly sabotaging the process at the last minute.

Someone needs to examine whether the new ordinance complies with federal NPDES Phase II, which the county is now delinquent in satisfying. If there are any deficiencies on that account, then citizens can piggyback on the city's lawsuit just like with the KNS sunshine suit.

Oh da Clone's picture

Concrete pipe is not an EPA

Submitted by Oh da Clone on Wed, 2007/10/03 - 6:17am.

Concrete pipe is not an EPA thing. I think the county's ordinance is aimed at having less pipe over all...and that is an EPA thing.

rikki's picture

pipe attack

Submitted by rikki on Wed, 2007/10/03 - 5:51pm.

For the love of God, can we ever stop talking about the damned pipes and start talking about water? Nobody said concrete pipe is "an EPA thing," and I have no idea how you can read the ordinance and declare it "aimed at having less pipe." Are you a Tonya Harding clone?

Oh da Clone's picture

Are you a Tonya Harding

Submitted by Oh da Clone on Wed, 2007/10/03 - 10:14pm.

Are you a Tonya Harding clone?

as a matter of fact, yes, I am. How did you know?

to answer your question...reading the 900 or so pages of design guidelines. The design guidelines are geared towards using natural flow surfaces instead of pipes when possible. Unfair - I was looking at the more than just the ordinance. Should I hit you in the kneecaps now? :)

rikki's picture

Ah yes, all those lovely

Submitted by rikki on Wed, 2007/10/03 - 10:48pm.

Ah yes, all those lovely voluntary design guidelines. I'm sure we can count on the same developers who tried to cut the endangered species language from the ordinance to adopt voluntary BMPs.

What relevance do voluntary guidelines have to the dispute between the city and county or to Clean Water Act compliance?

Oh da Clone's picture

Relevance? plenty since the

Submitted by Oh da Clone on Thu, 2007/10/04 - 12:08am.

Relevance?
plenty since the are not voluntary. i thought they were long and tedious...lovely was never what came to mind when i read them

Tee's picture

pipe issue

Submitted by Tee on Thu, 2007/10/04 - 7:54am.

For the love of God, can we ever stop talking about the damned pipes and start talking about water?

Isn't the pipe issue central to the city's problem(s) with the new ordinance? I haven't seen any specific charges, so that is what I assumed.

I agree with Rachel that suggesting ANOTHER committee review is outrageous. City and county taxpayers have already paid for an unbiased, third-party review and the results can be found here. (link...)

The county made the proposed changes, and everyone was fine with it until the TV cameras were turned on.
THEN the City suddenly had 20-some-odd issues with it.
THEN County Commission got a hold of it.
Now we don't have to wait for Barnum and Bailey to come to town.

Kiersten's picture

This is a surprise. I recall

Submitted by Kiersten on Wed, 2007/10/03 - 10:30am.

This is a surprise. I recall reading that inside information was that there would not be a lawsuit. I don't know if I trust the leaders to follow through. That mayor and council are in the pockets of developers too and have pay no attention to environment issues when it really counts.

From the heart of North Knoxville

D Mac's picture

Owings is costing taxpayers

Submitted by D Mac on Wed, 2007/10/03 - 11:00am.

During the commission meeting, Owings said that he felt confident with the amendments to the storm water plan and that it would be okay with the city and the EPA.

Can we start a tally on what he has cost the taxpayers since he was appointed? Perhaps someone opposing him on the ballot could do such a thing.

Rachel's picture

That mayor and council are

Submitted by Rachel on Wed, 2007/10/03 - 12:07pm.

That mayor and council are in the pockets of developers too

I beg to differ. Have you actually been to a Council meeting recently?

"The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones." - John Maynard Keynes

Treehouse's picture

All commission votes should be nullified

Submitted by Treehouse on Tue, 2007/10/02 - 11:29pm.

Since the county commission was invalidated, their decisions should be invalidated too. Throw out the stormwater and Midway decisions and let's bring the power back to the people. Lumpy and Scoobie and their BFF developers shouldn't be allowed to continue their rule. Do over!

Tee's picture

Specifics

Submitted by Tee on Thu, 2007/10/04 - 9:35am.

Isn't the pipe issue central to the city's problem(s) with the new ordinance? I haven't seen any specific charges, so that is what I assumed.

Never mind. I found the specifics I was looking for here. (link...)

Though, the question still remains as to why City Engineering didn't bring up these issues during the taxpayer funded third-party review process, and instead aim to turn it into a taxpayer funded court battle. That really doesn't sit well with me.

Rachel's picture

How do you know they didn't

Submitted by Rachel on Thu, 2007/10/04 - 11:09am.

How do you know they didn't bring them up?

Certainly some of them - i.e., the pipe thing - were changed by Commission at the last minute.

And frankly, I've had trouble since I first read the new ordinance with the amount of discretion given the director of engineering. I'd really like to see that tightened up.

I'm trying to get my water quality spouse to write up a post on this with his ideas/comments. So far, he's resisting, but I'll keep trying.

"The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones." - John Maynard Keynes

Tee's picture

How do you know they didn't

Submitted by Tee on Thu, 2007/10/04 - 1:42pm.

How do you know they didn't bring them up?

I figured they would have been included in the third-party report since the purpose of the review was to identify what portions of the new County ordinance didn't measure up by comparison to the City ordinance.

I can't think of a reason why all of those concerns, that now apparently merit a lawsuit, wouldn't have been included had they been mentioned during the review process.

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

    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