Maybe Alcoa attracts Agenda 21ers. :)

I'm more and more convinced that we are witnessing the breakdown of civilization in our lifetime.

This morning The Daily Times printed an article about the "protesters" at the Alcoa PlanET forum. It is not available on-line.

"A group of protesters, who attended and allegedly disrupted some of the other forums that PlanET has held this week, were at the meeting and attempted to steer it away from its set format of small group discussions so they could continue asking questions of the moderator and staff".

Alcoa Mayor Don Mull said they [the protesters] could be removed if they didn't cooperate.

Rachel, I'm so glad for the involvement of people like you in organizations like this one.

However, one rationale for supporting sound planning and zoning proposals is conspicuously missing from PlanET's site (and possibly missing from this series of meetings?): The ability of sound planning and zoning to benefit public schools by precluding socioeconomic segregation in neighborhoods.

We have only to recall the furor and upset relating to that recent systemwide rezoning of high schools our school board undertook in 2007 to see that it's NOT smart to attack the problem at its "back end," after problems rooted in poor planning and its resulting segregation have been allowed to arise.

I hope PlanET will also speak to how sound planning and zoning decisions can help create healthy school communities in which students are better positioned to thrive.

This is why I wish I was rich (ok, it is one reason). Then I could put in a pig farm upwind from every moron who claims that zoning and planning are bad things.

But it appears to me that scheduling a community forum at ten o'clock on Friday morning at the senior citizens center will tend to shew the input, especially when the topic is "Shared Values and Aspirations for 2050."

I'll also hazard the estimate that approximately eighty percent of those living in Knox County have no idea where South Doyle Middle School is located. It's not particularly easy to find when you're traveling from north of the river even when you have the street address.

You've been reading The Magic Christian.

What is the source of these Agenda21-er's anger or fear?

Is it a belief that planning and zoning can diminish their personal property values and/or their opportunity to profit from developing their personal property?

FYI, I was in Nashville over the weekend and caught this news story in the Tennessean, which alludes to property owners' fears of this sort WRT a local ordinance under consideration in the Murfreesboro/Rutherford County area.

From the article, the proposal creating the uproar is this:

The new proposal would create, in essence, rings around Rutherford County’s municipalities. Developers and landowners closer to the cities could build a house on 15,000-square-foot lots, meaning they could get nearly three on an acre of land. The density would reduce to one house per acre in areas farther away from the cities.

Obviously, potentially affected property owners aren't persuaded by any "all boats rise" sort of argument from zoning officials, because their concerns lie in the here and now.

Planners will need to persuade them of the proposal's benefit over time--to them and to everyone else.

You've been reading The Magic Christian.

Sounds deliciously like Fay Weldon's Life and loves of a she-devil (for which Roseanne Barr starred in the subsequent movie).

Guessing I'd love it.

(Off-topic)

See there, Gonzone--I'm not the only one around here who makes a point of reading "their stuff." Eric does, too!

Hey, it's a dirty job, but...

Brian asks (in hidden comment above):

What benefit is it to lose money for the selfishness of other people?

I trust that others understood my comment about the Rutherford County proposal to be an acknowledgment that such proposals are a "tough sell" with stakeholders whom they adversely affect in the present, because the benefits of such proposals are not always recognizable--nor profitable--until some future point in time.

Thus, stakeholders rooted in the "here and now" must be persuaded to consider the future. Everybody's future.

Please don't tell them about the UN plot to streamline the permitting process for small business owners across multiple agencies.

What he said, remarkably well (as we've come to expect, Somebody).

So for everybody to be happy, some have to sacrifice? What have you sacrificed for me? For the future?

What has my formerly rural community of Powell sacrificed for landowners who've developed their properties in the absence of adequate infrastructure to support their developments?

Thinking just about schools as infrastructure, my community squeezed 300 students into rusty trailers on its back parking lot at our middle school, for 30 years.

My community continues to squeeze that many students into those sorts of school facilities at our elementary school, for even more years than that.

At our high school, student population has doubled since I graduated there in the mid-seventies, to the effect that, come winter, my son wears a ski parka indoors all day and lugs his 60-pound backpack for eight hours, too, for lack of available lockers.

Thinking about our high school as infrastructure leads me to think about our roads as infrastructure, too. You may know that my community has sacrificed the lives of nearly 20 of its high school students to have died on our narrow, winding, inadequate backroads.

Sometimes the sacrifices are particularly real.

State Senate is debating anti-Agenda21 bill as I type...

UPDATE: Passes Senate, 19 to 11.

House version already passed, I believe, so off to the Gov. it goes?

Again, people who are "watching" MPC don't know what they're looking at. You need to do a bit of background study; you're making yourself look bad.

The PLAN is advisory. That in no way means that ordinances related to it can't be proposed and passed. Plans and ordinances are two separate things. If you don't believe me, ask Commissioner Briggs.

BTW, once again, Commission or Council would have the final word on any ordinances, so if there's anybody to take to court over them, it would be the legislative body.

And the state legislature didn't "consider" ending Knox MPC. Frank Niceley proposed it, but it didn't even get taken up by committee.

Clever. Word games. So in your view MPC can break the law because the final word is up to Commission? I don't think it works like that.

You should talk with Dr. Briggs. Or any Commissioners other than the first three seats. There are very hard feelings right now about Donaldson. This is being taken very seriously.

You call it word games. I call it how the system works.

By proposing ordinances, MPC is breaking no laws. In fact, it's doing its job.

But again, all MPC can do is PROPOSE. All ordinances (laws) have to be approved by the legislative body.

As for Dr. Briggs, he's a smart man. He understands the difference between plan and ordinance.

As does my commissioner, Mike Brown, who said repeatedly during the debates on the plan that the really important work would be done when implementing ordinances are proposed.

Who appoints the MPC Director? Is that both Mayors, or the state?

Why don't you do some research on that? Since you're "watching closely" and all you surely don't need us to tell you.

The hillside plan's effect on property values is an interesting issue. Here are some thoughts from a mind admittedly not wired to make money (hence my profession).

It's interesting that the subdivisions in Knox County (everywhere, really) that have the most expensive lots and houses are the ones with the most restrictions on them - lots of a certain size, only certain housing designs allowed, regulated paint schemes, bans on clothes lines, etc. In other words, more regulation equals higher value. Of course, it's a chicken-and-egg question, but the correlation is there.

Developers want to buy land as cheaply as possible. If the hillside plan, which places regulation on land, actually increases land values (as is suggested by looking at subdivisions), then the development costs are higher. That could be why many developers are opposed to it in any shape, form or fashion.

Oh, and Rachel, I believe I know the identity of the person posting on this thread as "Used to care." Judging from the miscomprehension of public process, the twisted logic and the, um, unique syntax, I would say you're dealing with our old friend who used to go by a word that denotes the highest single digit.

Yeah, "folks is folks."

Please don't fail to note the rest of that thought I had, though:

I think "Used to care" could do a little research himself or else acknowledge the new information he gets here...

'Course, trying to strike a congenial tone reduces static, too...

This is from friends near Roanoke. How dare Virginia (and the Feds) impose such restrictions?!

"Since we cleared over 10,000 sq. foot of land by taking out the trees and stumps...the county wanted assurance that we did not pollute the stream with run off from loose soil. They do not want the sediment going into the rivers...Clean Water Act. We seeded the area with grass and when it is thick enough we will get the deposit (bond) back. The size of the deposit/bond is determined by how many square feet of land you disturb. Ours was a hefty one."

My neighbor decided to install a gate on the driveway at one of his properties a couple of weeks ago. About the third hole dug with his tractor-mounted auger destroyed a Frontier telephone cable and suspended land line service for many of us for a couple of days. There were a few irate Internet subscribers too.

Of course this was done within ten feet of the edge of Meredith Road where it's reasonable to expect the presence of underground utilities.

Used to Care, listen to Metulj and Somebody.

And you should know that we're taking up a collection so that Cafkia can build that pig farm upwind from you.

My guess is the kvetching stems from a belief that using the hillside/ridgetop plan to develop ordinances violates the Briggs rigamarole's insistence that the hillside/ridgetop plan is advisory in nature - which, if that guess is correct, is a misapprehension, since the plan was always "advisory in nature."

MPC can propose ordinances, but county commission or city council have to approve them. That's the bottom line. You are showing that you don't know squat about how government works. That's excusable for someone who has never had dealings with government before, but it's not excusable for you. Land use regulations in Knox County prededed A21 and will exist long after A21 is a historical footnote. Find another boogyman.

Again, back to the thread main topic - the PlanET meeting is tonight at 6:30 at South Doyle Middle School. I am stuck home with a bad back (I did something to it Sunday night and have finally figured out that it's not going to get better as long as I keep pushing myself), but the spouse will be there.

Y'all go. Please.

BTW, I've not opened the posts from "used to care" and its sock puppets today, and it's amazing what that does for my peace of mind.

Hillside and Ridgetop was voted down the first time in Commission. The only reason a facilitator was sought was to reach a meaningful compromise. That didn't happen because slope, clearing, and notification were not addressed. The facilitator took MPC's side.

The Briggs' Amendment was a message that fell on deaf ears at MPC. What was expected was MPC would work with Commission on ordinances. Not to try and slip in what had already been voted down. The Brigg's Amendment kept Hillside and Ridgetop from being an overlay. You can cry about plans all you want. People saw through the tactics. And the tactics are a problem.

The attitude at MPC is the other problem. They refuse to work in a collaborative manner. They aren't advising. They are dictating and then using political pressure to try and move Commission. Commission tried to use a delicate touch last time with the Brigg's Amendment. MPC seems incapable of hearing that message.

Let's see how Commission communicates the message next time. This is wasting a lot of time of a lot of people.

I'll address just one of the false or misleading statements in this post and then I'm going back to not reading:

The Brigg's Amendment kept Hillside and Ridgetop from being an overlay.

An overlay is a zoning ordinance. The Plan could not have created an overlay under any circumstances since it wasn't ordinance.

Srsly, maybe you'd like to learn a bit more about stuff before talking about it?

It's Nine.

"I wish I knew how to quit you."