Issues in the upcoming elections

     I had mentioned in an earlier post a "Chapter Two". I would like to take some time over the next month or so before the elections (and sooner with early voting!) to discuss some of the issues confronting the next council as I see them. I would love some feedback from readers as to what you see as the important issues in this campaign and what you think of my own take on the "issues".
     When I was elected 4 years ago, growth and development was the leading issue. The recall confused and misled the public on many of the facts surrounding this issue. I entered with a commitment to revise our zoning laws to encourage conservation development as a way to manage density and growth in a way that would preserve open space and allow more flexible development, more diversity of housing and neighborhood styles, decrease sprawl and generally preserve our small town atmosphere while still protecting the rights of the property owners. Sadly this has not occurred. We started strong with advise from Randall Arendt, a national expert on conservation development and then created a land-use plan based on his input and the involvement of a broad representation of our citizens. The next step was to revise our subdivision regulations and then our zoning laws. At this point, the Planning Commission has spent 3 years working on revising the subdivision regulations and still aren't done. I think this is unacceptable and would recommend a change in leadership on that commission.
     I have seen this council now reject the advise and offers of support and examples from Mr. Arendt and other consultants with similar approaches. My desire for a broadly inclusive process has been thwarted. While I have never thought that a Planning Commission should be dominated by development interests, this council, and specifically Annette Allen has proposed that noone with any experience in the development business should be represented on the Planning Commission. Having experienced the value of such former members as Don Moon and Wells Blake and current members such as architect Wayne Williams, I think this is a mistake. I encouraged the council to be inclusive and to seek the support of the development community to build "buy in" for conservation development which is still a new concept for many of them. I was told by Susan Robertson that this was unnecessary because "we have the power, we can make them do whatever we want". I was stunned by this statement. This is antithetical to everything I believe about governance. I strongly oppose this arrogant approach.
     When I ran, I proposed a process of review and revision to the SROZ ordinances. The Land Use Plan proposed a different approach to development in the undeveloped areas of town, primarily in the SROZ, from the already developed areas. It proposed using conservation development proposals allowing for controlling density directly but allowing flexible lot sizes to discourage sprawl and preserve open space. This council rejected the recommendations of its own land use plan, rejecting the whole idea of conservation development and returning to large lot zoning which encourages sprawl, discourages open space preservation and drives up the cost of housing. Bill Lusk clearly did not understand or possibly didn't even read the Land Use Plan when he complained that a one-acre lot owner on Palisades should be allowed the same development options as a 100+ -acre land owner with streams and forests and fields to preserve. This is directly in opposition from the proposals in the Land Use Plan. Why didn't he complain when we were developing the plan? Why didn't he oppose it then? Why didn't anyone else on the council who all supported him on this? I frankly don't understand.
     There are some facts which must be presented in addressing the issue of growth on Signal Mountain. As Daniel Moynihan said, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. First, is the town growing? Well, not if you believe the US Census. Our population in 2000 was 7429 and, while the 2010 figures aren't out yet, our projected population in 2009 was 7253. And during that time we annexed the Shackleford Ridge Road area! In the last 10 years we have averaged less than 11 building permits per year (and even including the 10 years before the sewer moratorium it comes to about 14 per year). Not exactly the "unbridled growth" which was predicted and feared. I have made the analogy before between a town and a person. When a child is young, you want them to grow up big and strong. However, we all reach a point where any future growth becomes obesity or cancer! This is what we want to avoid. However, there is a third condition. It is called anorexia. This is where a person has such an irrational fear of growth that they can literally starve themselves to death. We all have to maintain our health through good nutrition to renew our bodies. If our town doesn't continue this process of renewal and responsible growth, then our expenses, which will continue to grow, will require greater revenue from a declining base which of course leads to increased taxes. In the recent town council debate at Alexian, Susan Robertson is reported as saying that she "hopes" taxes won't increase over the next four years. However, she is advocating for renovating the town hall and building a brand new public works building. We will probably need to build a new fire hall on Shackleford Ridge Road soon, especially if the annexations of Fox Run and Windtree go through. This will require increased revenues. The commercial base for this town is very limited and this council has already denied one proposal for a major commercial expansion of the current shopping center. I don't see much potential for any future such possibilities. We can't have our cake and eat it too, as they say.
     I would propose that the next council revisit the composition of the Planning Commission. Two councilmembers, the mayor and another member (currently Annette Allen) are also members of the Planning Commission. The Commission needs to finish its work on the Subdivision Regulations which has lasted now for nearly 3 years. Members came to me to ask for help on this daunting job. This is when we went back to Randall Arendt for possible input, however this offer from him was rejected by this council over my strong objections and the desires of several current Planning Commission members (unfortunately the current chairperson, Melissa Cantrell also rejected Mr. Arendt's offer). The regulations currently being worked on still need to be completed, then reviewed by the staff at the Regional Planning Agency then finally approved by the Planning Commission again. I anticipate several more months in the process at this point. Then, the Planning Commission will need to review the Zoning Ordinance, which was the original goal four years ago!! This was expected to be the really heavy lifting. If it took four years to do the preliminary work, how long might that take? Zoning is an ordinance, so will require public hearings (I don't believe there has even been an official public hearing on the subdivision regulations yet which, while not required has been promised by the Planning Commission). Once the Planning Commission completes its work, any changes in the Zoning Ordinance will then have to be passed by the Town Council (which does not have any official say in the subdivision regulations... a situation that I have always found rather odd). How much longer will that take? Will the new council, which may very well include a brand new majority, be up to speed on this?
     I have tried to encourage the candidates who have asked me for input to review Randall Arendt's original recommendations, which are still on the town's website on Page 89 in the appendix to the Land Use Plan: http://signalmountaintn.gov/assets/landuse/landuse.pdf . I hope they will be asked about this and that Ms. Robertson will be asked why the council has apparently rejected not only Mr. Arendt's advice, but the whole direction of the Land Use Plan itself.
    I think the next thing to be discussed is the Design Review Commission and I will address this in my next "issues" blog (Chapter Three??).