Interesting local discussion I found:

http://bradley.chattablogs.com/archives/2009/09/libertarians-on.html

I always found it a bit interesting that some of our local libertarian friends supported stricter land use regulations.

This morning, the Planning Commission met with Randall Arendt for discussion about conservation zoning. Hard to summarize a two hour discussion, but the interesting idea that came out was to consider doing a "model" conservation zoning plan on some local property so folks could see what it really looked like. The other advantage of this and a main reason for considering it was to use such a demonstration to actually advise the Planning Commission on what regulations are reasonable and doable. This would mean shaping regulations around a real life situation rather than creating regs in a vacuum and then trying to form reality around them. I found this very intriguing and exciting and hope that it works.

As you see, I have added a new poll, so please let me know what you think. Also, if you are interested in commenting on my blogs, here is a quick "primer": At the bottom of my posting there is a link called comments. Click on that and it will take you to a page with a place to write your own comments. After you do that, just below there you have to click on one of four "buttons". The first two use existing accounts which, if you have them you probably know how to use them. The last two buttons have a place to leave your name and website if you have one. Then there is a button for "anonymous" I really hope that anyone who comments will be willing to attach your own name to your comment, but you can use the anonymous option if you so desire. I hope to hear from folks on these important issues.

I thought I would comment briefly on the "speed camera" proposal before the Town Council. For those of you who missed it, Police Chief Veal presented data to the Town Council at our recent meeting indicating that we have a large amount of speeding in our town. While much of this is in the 1-10mph over the limit area, there is still a significant amount of speeding which is more than 10mph over the limit. I have heard much complaining about speeding, especially in neighborhoods and certainly this is a serious issue that must be addressed. He has proposed the idea of using cameras to photograph speeding cars with citations then mailed out based on license tags.

I freely confess to mixed feelings on this issue. I certainly do not accept speeding. I have seen the consequences in my ER work and it is not pretty. Certainly we have a very safe town and don't seem to have a large number of major accidents, but prevention is the best cure. I will say that I do not accept the notion presented by some that, if so many people are speeding then the speed limits are too low. Speed limits should be set based on safety not based on what the prevailing speed is on our roads. In addition, even though some roads, such as Taft Highway are admittedly wide and probably designed for higher speeds, nearly our entire town is residential. Taft Highway runs mostly through residential areas. I frequently see young kids walking along Taft going to and from the pool and other recreational activities so I do not agree that we should have a higher speed on this road. Shackleford Ridge is another problem area and, between the narrowness and windiness of the road and the proximity of schools, I don't think the speed limit should be raised there either.

I also want to say that I have great respect for our police force and especially for Chief Veal. Whatever I decide to do on this issue, I know that Chief Veal's only motivation is the safety of our citizens and his officers and that is why I support him and think so highly of him. There are dangers associated with traffic stops to police officers and drivers, especially on some of our roads where the shoulders are narrow or non-existent. I realize we could free up officers to patrol neighborhoods and focus on protecting our local businesses.

So, if the argument against cameras is to allow more speeding by increasing the speed limits or decreasing enforcement, I reject that argument.

However, I confess to reservations. I admit that the idea of speed cameras is somewhat big brother-ish and downright creepy to me. I have concerns about reliability. I have questions about the citation issuance process and want to understand more about that. I realize that, having fixed cameras could lead to improved speeds only in the vicinity of those poles. I have heard complaints that these cameras cause more accidents and have asked Noah Long to provide me the sources confirming these concerns (and would encourage any others with concerns and especially with specific facts to forward them to me). The goal of speed enforcement is to improve safety and, I agree that we should look at some accident data.

So, in short I am keeping an open mind on this and hope to hear more from citizens about how they feel and any specific concerns they have. I hope the council will take a bit of time to deliberate this issue very carefully and listen to all sides.

In case you don't read beyond this first sentence, I want to announce that The Orchard Band, my acoustic trio with Robert and Alice Thatcher will be performing tomorrow, Monday, Sept. 7, 2009 at the Lion's Club Picnic at Althaus Park behind the Country Club. We will start around 12:30 or maybe just after and play, probably until we run out of songs! I hope everyone can come out, eat some BBQ, buy a raffle ticket for a new car and listen to some classic acoustic folk/rock'n'roll! Y'all Come!

Back to Signal Mountain politics, there's obviously been a lot lately. I think I have covered the dreaded SROZ issue to death, but have just learned that the Planning Commission is trying to get some time with Randall Arendt this month when he comes to town for some work with the RPA. While the budget is tight this year, the cost will apparently be fairly low and worth it. I will want to know exactly what the Planning Commission wants to accomplish for our money. He apparently only has a couple of hours to spare, so I don't think a jawboning session is appropriate. Perhaps a review of the work they've done already on the subdivision regs and how they will interface with whatever zoning regulations they plan to recommend to the Council would be appropriate. Perhaps some counseling on how to work productively with landowners would be useful. Frankly, once they are all done with their work (if I am still on the council at that time) I would like to propose we ask him for a formal review and critique. There has been some talk from the PC that Mr. Arendt's zoning techniques might not be appropriate for Signal Mountain. Obviously, since I ran supporting these priniciples (even before I had ever heard of Mr. Arendt) and since we brought him in as a major consultant and have used his principles to guide the process up until now, I would find a move away from them to be very disappointing. I continue to support conservation zoning as, not only an option but the primary method of zoning in Signal Mountain.

On a personal note, in case you hear anything of a feud between myself and the chair of the Planning Commission, Melissa Cantrell, let me clarify the issue. I appointed Ms. Cantrell to the Planning Commission. While she didn't seem to really understand the principles I was proposing, I had thought she was bright and would learn. The recent actions of the PC (led by her) have disappointed me in that direction (not about her brightness, but about her willingness to learn). However, the source of my personal disappointment with her comes from an email she sent out earlier this year to some of her friends (including Councilmembers) regarding the proposed sale of the town ballfields for commercial development which I opposed. In it she accused me of being "untruthful" (her actual words was that a statement I made was "a lot less damning and, from what I can tell, a lot more truthful than" what I had previously stated on the subject). I frankly found this to be a personal attack on my character and challenged her to produce an example of any lying on my part. She was unable to do so and only made a vague statement about how "people talk around here". I still expect an apology and have yet to receive one.

Sorry to get into personal issues, but interactions between public officials about public issues I feel should be brought to light. I have always endeavored to be open and honest about my opinions and positions. If you want to know what I think, just ask me. You'll pardon me for being too dramatic, but if I can tell someone they have cancer, or that their father/mother/spouse or child has just died in the emergency room, it should be clear that I don't have any problem telling someone that I disagree with their political positions or business plans. To be accused of lying behind people's backs is antithetical to my character and honor and I take great umbrage at this sort of personal attack. The whole recall incident (of which Ms. Cantrell was a part) was unfortunate not because of disagreements over policy, but because of personal attacks and accusations about individuals. I told that group so at the beginning, that while I had great sympathy and agreement with their basic concerns about density and proper land use planning, that their tactic of pursuing a recall was personal, vindictive and would distract from the basic issue at hand, zoning. I still feel I was right about this.

My issue with the whole question of selling town property wasn't the proposal itself. Anyone can propose whatever they want and we'll decide what to do. It was the hypocrisy and manner in which it was presented. Former PC chairman Dan Saieed was attacked viciously over meetings he held with landowners to get an idea of their preferences for development. Because of the private business nature of those meetings, he held them in private. However, he announced them in advance and made sure that our town attorney was present. He then presented the preferences to the PC and the public, but in a way that protected individual business plans. It should be noted that those proposals were not adopted. When Mr. Saieed's term on the PC was up, he considered asking for reappointment, but wanted to know if he had the support of the Council. When I asked them, they attacked him in a manner that I found surprising since they had spoken very highly of him in public. Bill Lusk had obtained the email files of all the previous Councilmembers and Planning Commission from our email server (these are public documents, after all) and suggested that I read them to find all the heinous things they said he had done, including these meetings. After some soul-searching, I decided to do a brief review of some of these communications (I had a hard time justifying the amount of time required, but considering the implication of unethical behavior, I thought it was important) and was frankly unable to found anything I found to be unacceptable. As a matter of fact, I was surprised to find references to early recommendations by Mr. Saieed to bring in Randall Arendt for advice and also to how impressed Mr. Saieed was with Annette Allen's presentations to the PC and that he was strongly recommending getting her involved with the PC for help with the Land Use Review). When I communicated this back to the Council and asked for examples of what they found so objectionable, I never received even the courtesy of a reply. Regrettably, I had to inform Mr. Saieed that, while he had my support he did not have the support of the Council and he withdrew his request. He now serves the town very honorably as an active member of the Lion's Club and his long years of service to our town are, in my opinion, unblemished by any unethical or inappropriate behavior.

After this incident, however when it was proposed that we meet individually and privately with commercial developers about plans to buy town property for private commercial development I was frankly flabbergasted. This was accepted with great enthusiasm by the very people who had attacked Mr. Saieed for doing something similar. However, we met without advance public notice and without benefit of legal council or anyone else in attendance for a witness about what was said or privately agreed to. I found this highly objectionable. That's the honest truth and if there is anything "untruthful" in that, I wait to have it pointed out to me. I have no reason to think that anyone on the council did anything other than what I did, listen to the proposal and then tell them that any further discussions would have to be in public and with the full participation of the community and I would be guided by that input. Any implications to the contrary are not from me. It did seem to me that the fact that the developers moved ahead and made a formal proposal to the town indicated they had received some encouragement. However, the acceptability of this process by this Council after the attacks on Mr. Saieed continues to astound me. These sorts of incidents are a major source of my disappointment with the current council. And that's the truth.

Many of you may already know that several important issues came before the Signal Mountain Town Council last night. The one I have been discussing most is the SROZ issue. The repeal passed, as I assumed it would. The vote was 4-1 with my being the dissenting vote. My statement on this issue is posted on Chattanoogan.com http://chattanoogan.com/articles/article_154823.asp.

I believe I have explained myself, but briefly I opposed replacing the SROZ ordinances without having viable conservation zoning in place. Annette Allen seems to think we have to go back to the old ordinance before we can move ahead. I disagree and frankly don't follow the reasoning. However, there does seem to be a commitment from the Planning Commission to proceed with more progressive zoning, so I will take a cautiously optimistic approach. I told them I would enthusiastically support conservation zoning if it is practical and adequately incentivized so it will be used. We currently have an open space ordinance, but it is not used. We must do better. There seemed to be a general agreement that a density of 2 homes per acre was acceptable for zoning. I would expect some incentive for developers to use conservation or open space zoning.
This is consistent with my thinking all along, so I think there is much room for agreement. I do think the issue of affordability must receive more focus, though. My vision for Signal Mountain is not as an enclave of the wealthy and well-born, but a community with room for people of all socio-economic situations.

On the subject of the Middle School property, I am disappointed at Commissioner Casavant's opposition to the sale. Obviously, he thinks the county could get more for it if they wait. Noone knows if that will be the case or not, but I think we have an excellent proposal for a very difficult piece of property which I feel will be a benefit to the community. While I have great respect for Commissioner Casavant and have agreed with him on many issues in the past, I have made it clear that I will lobby the County Commission to approve the sale. I made a motion to send a message of support for the sale from the Council to the County Commission and have sent my own personal message to them.

Finally, the issue of guns in parks. The Council voted 5-0 to continue the ban that has been in place for years. I have never heard anyone complain about this ban before and I certainly don't know of a wave of crime in our parks because the public goes into them unarmed. I would love to go to great lengths about the Second Amendment, but leave it to say that, while the amendment has always protected ownership of weapons, it also clearly allows regulation of those weapons, especially by the states. This has been the consistent history of this issue.

Have a great rest of the summer!

In the continuing saga of the SROZ, the latest entry is today's editorial by Bill Lusk. Frankly, I am starting to wear down. I have made my points and they continue to be ignored. I have argued for density-based zoning, based on Randall Arendt's advice and I continue to hear about lot-size based zoning. There are many unsupported comments in today's editorial. The comment is made that the SROZ is in conflict with the Land Use Plan developed in 2008. Well, of course!That is why we are changing the zoning, however a return to lot-based zoning is also in conflict since the land use plan states:

"...large lot development with structures distributed on an equal amount of acreage with large lawns and wide roads contributes to the loss of this [small town] character and do not protect wildlife habitat and water quality. To help preserve the scenic beauty and sensitive natural features of this area, Open Space subdivisions or Planned Unit Developments with substantial amounts of open space are the preferred methods of development in these areas. In order to preserve desired natural features, the focus in this area should be providing more flexibility within regulations regarding net density, while maintaining a gross low density. This will allow better preservation of open space and environmental features."

Mr. Lusk seems to confuse subdivision regulations with zoning regulations. While the current work on subdivision regs are important, they are the means to the end which is new zoning. The regulations will hopefully make conservation zoning more practical and help to lower costs and preserve land, but combining these with large lot sizes will continue to waste land and be counter-productive. Only through density-based zoning can we have true conservation zoning.

I have recommended we add a density cap to the SROZ as an intermediate step to address the very issue that Mr. Lusk and the rest of the council fears (increased density), preferably with an incentive for open-space preservation. This proposal has been ignored. Ironically, previous land use plans have generally recommended a density for the area of 2 homes per acre, in the ballpark of what I've recommended (I would prefer less for conventional and more for open-space subdivisions as an incentive). Nothing has yet been proposed for this area that is greater than this density.

Mr. Lusk has indicated an unfairness to having a different zoning category from the rest of the town in the Shackleford Ridge area. However, this area has always had different zoning from the rest of the town since it was annexed. Residential Estate zoning doesn't exist anywhere else that I know of. It was created to allow the residents there to keep farm animals such as horses and pigs on lots greater than 3 acres. By this reasoning, Residential Estate should (and probably would) be available throughout the town if the SROZ is repealed, allowing farm animals anywhere that a minimum of 3 acres is available. Alternatively, we could solve this by lowering the minimum acreage to 1/3 acre for sewered lots throughout the town to ensure fairness. Mind you, I'm not proposing either of these alternatives.

Mr. Lusk is wrong about the commercial zoning issue. I disagree that "commercial development is no more likely to occur in the Shackleford Ridge area than in any other residential area in the town." This area has been identified in the past as a site for a future "commercial node". The majority of this council has been very clear in its desire for more commercial rezoning and one has even enthused that the Timberlinks-Shackleford Ridge intersection would be a great place for a convenience store to serve the high school students. Let me emphasize: There are no commercial options available under the SROZ. At present, in order to create a commercial zone, we would have to either add commercial zoning to the SROZ or repeal the SROZ. Sound familiar? I honestly don't know how likely commercial development is, but part of my reason for raising it is that we have not considered all the implications of this repeal.

Finally, I want to address statistics. As a physician, I know how statistics can be misunderstood, misused and misrepresented. There is an old saw about "lies, *%&$# lies and statistics". Mr. Lusk himself, in his statement when he opposed increased funding for the high school misrepresented and misused (or misunderstood) statisics. He stated that Signal Mountain paid for 77% of the High School and only had 45% of the students. That is wrong. The High School cost approximately $40 million dollars and we donated $7.7 million. That is about 19% of the cost. Based on his reasoning, we got quite a bargain out of the high school. With this experience, I thought I should look closely at the statistics in his op-ed. He quoted data from the Ochs Center study. I reviewed this study and had a very pleasant discussion with some of their staff. I do appreciate Mr. Lusk introducing me to this outstanding resource.

First, it should be clear that the data on median house value was based on census tract data that only reflected part of the town (see http://ochscenter.org/map_pdfs/signalmountain_2008.pdf for the map and data). This area does not include my neighborhood (The Orchard), St. Ives, Creekshire or the Shackleford Ridge Road area. Since these are higher end neighborhoods, the data is clearly skewed. It is based on MLS data which is unavailable to the general public, so I couldn't delve into the value data in greater detail, but the total number of homes sold would be clearly pertinent since the lower the denominator, the less reliable the statistics. The report does note that Signal Mountain has the highest housing values in the county, which is good for homeowners, but does not make the argument for affordability. Also, my argument was about new housing. I agree that there are older homes available in areas of Signal Mountain, some of which are of lesser cost, however nearly all new homes I know of are marketed at greater than 1/2 million dollars. This report also includes the statistic that we have averaged about 12 building permits per year (before the moratorium) and an increase in "one family household units" of 1.7% from 2001-2007 which hardly supports a fear of "unbridled growth".

It seems clear to me that the majoriy on this council is bound and determined to do what they will do regardless of what the Planning Commission decides. I'm not sure why we are wasting their time again. They have voted on this issue twice and the Council keeps asking the same thing over and over again hoping for a different outcome. Whether or not they get it I expect the council's actions will be the same. It also seems clear that the outcome is pre-ordained and all the work of the last 2 1/2 years has been a smokescreen. I only hope that, whatever the Council does on the SROZ in the short run, it will still ultimately do the right thing and pass progressive zoning regulations for the town which will lead to preservation of our open spaces and discourage sprawl. Based on what I've read today, I am not hopeful.

We had our budget meeting this week and I wanted to give a brief synopsis. The big news is we will not be proposing a property tax increase. We will need to pass along an increase in water costs because of an increase from Tennessee-American. We will also be looking at some fee increases. Things will obviously be tight, but I don't believe anyone will notice any major decrease in services. The town is in good shape financially, but we can't live on our savings so hopefully the economy will turn around. The Hall Income Tax is still a big question mark and if that is significantly less than predicted, we may have to tighten our belts even tighter. I want to thank Honna Rogers for her excellent stewardship of our town resources. I'll get some more details later.

We will be receiving some money from the economic stimulus and using it to pave James Blvd, among some other roads. We plan to pave 2 more miles of road in addition to what we receive from the Federal government.

I do want to note that I received an apology from Susan Robertson for her comments during the last town meeting during the SROZ discussion and I expressed my own apology for any discourtesy I showed. I want to express my appreciation to Susan for that. It was quite honorable of her and showed character. It certainly lifted my mood and made for a more pleasant budget hearing.

On a personal level, I want to congratulate all the high school (and college) graduates in this graduation season and wish them a happy and prosperous future whatever their plans! Good luck, Class of 2009!

PS: tonight's meeting

If you want some independent confirmation of my account of the meeting, here is the Chattanoogan.com's account: http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_150934.asp

I regret that tonight's meeting of the Signal Mountain Town Council demonstrated a level of disrespect and lack of professional courtesy which I had hoped it was above. Here are my comments, as promised, which I delivered tonight on the SROZ:

"I wish to reiterate my position on future zoning on Signal Mountain. It is the same position on which I ran and was elected. During my campaign I proposed that Signal Mountain move forward with progressive zoning changes which would preserve open spaces and discourage sprawl. I recommended we study the impacts of growth and consult experts in modern planning practices and follow their advice. After my election, we sought such an expert and brought in Mr. Randall Arendt. He reinforced my position on density-based zoning. Among his many detailed and very helpful comments, he stated the following in reviewing our current zoning practices:

“Regarding the zoning, the most critical deficiencies in my view are that it does not appear to allow flexible lot sizes (essentially precluding conservation design)…

Signal Mountain, like many other municipalities, commits the fundamental error of regulating density through the indirect method of setting minimum lot sizes. This counter-productive approach unintentionally robs the community of the very resource lands that give it its special rural character. Instead, I have long advocated regulating density directly, by stating that no more than one house may be built per X amount of buildable land on any given property.

In a district where two du/acre is the norm, lots that would ordinarily run about 22,000 sq. ft in area could be resized to about 13,000 sf to achieve 40% open space.”

This is the principle on which I ran and on which I still stand. When asked if I wanted to repeal the SROZ and the zoning regulations it contains, I have consistently said no, I want to replace them with modern zoning, not return to the wasteful, expensive and sprawl-encouraging practices of the past. The Planning Commission has embarked on an ambitious process to rewrite Signal Mountain’s entire process of subdivision and zoning regulations. Twice in the past two years the Planning Commission has been asked to repeal the SROZ before completing its process and twice it has wisely chosen to stay on course. Now, once again it is being proposed to ask them to recommend that we repeal the overlay zone. I see no reason to change course now. Granted, this process is taking longer than I had hoped. Certainly the one silver lining of the sewer moratorium has been the time to do this, and my informal discussions with Dr. Urban lead me to doubt this is likely to be lifted soon, but I would suggest we urge the PC to redouble its efforts to complete its rewrite of the subdivision regs. I would also urge the PC to go ahead and establish a second subcommittee to begin the rewrite of the zoning regs.

We must remember that the so-called SROZ is merely an overlay zone allowing different zoning than the rest of the town. This is because it contains most of the large tracts of undeveloped land in the town and has the potential for sewer availability, allowing for smaller lots. It may or may not make sense to have separate zoning in this area than the rest of the town. Ideally we would have the same zoning throughout the town, but I remain open to arguments that separating out the area for different zoning is appropriate. The primary difference between the SROZ and the rest of the town is the allowance of minimum 1/3 acre lots vs the minimum ½ acre in the rest of the town for new development. What is the practical effect of this difference? The SROZ contains 744 acres. There are currently 12 homes (plus the Bible Church) on 61.7 acres in that area on and 2 subdivisions with 50 platted lots on approximately 50 acres in Dogwood Grove and Boulder Point subdivisions. 36 ½ acres have been set aside for Open Space by Jack Kruesi. So that is 62 homes or proposed homes on 148 acres. That leaves 598 acres give or take a few. Assuming 15% for roads and utilities, we have 508 acres. So let’s take the ludicrous assumption that those 508 acres could all be perfectly divided in 1/3 acres lots (and anyone looking at the steep slopes out there would know that is an impossibility, one tract has about 52 acres in the Connor Creek Gorge alone which would be highly problematic and I haven’t accounted for blue line streams at all nor the natural gas pipeline ROW which cuts through the area). That makes 1586 homes on 744 acres or a density of 2.1 homes per acre.

ed note: Before my comments, Julian Bell presented info on a development plan for his property which amounted to 1.9 homes per acre under the SROZ. This clearly shows that I am being excessively generous in my calculations.

Now, the average number of single-family homes built between 1997 and 2006 has been about 14 per year. So it would take just over 112 years to fully develop those extra homes at that rate.

So, I would again recommend that the Planning Commission not interrupt its work to move backwards. The process of changing a zoning ordinance always takes some time since public hearings and specific time allotments are required. This all includes the not insubstantial expense of newspaper ads, staff time, etc. After the PC made any decision, the Town Council would still have to prepare an ordinance and go through its own process. The practical effect of repealing the SROZ as long as the moratorium is in effect is zero. So, why go through all this twice? What a waste of time! I would certainly encourage the PC to invite Dr. Urban to a meeting to review the status of the moratorium. Even if the moratorium were lifted before the Planning Commission completed its business, the fact that they are in the middle of this process would probably justify not approving any new subdivisions until the process is completed. I would certainly encourage the PC to redouble its efforts, schedule extra meetings, meet longer and do whatever it takes to get this process completed. Finally, if the Planning Commission and Town Council are bound and determined to make a premature decision now, I would urge them to consider just adding a density cap to the current SROZ to at least make it a step forward rather than backwards."

I must add another concern that I didn't raise at the meeting. At present, the SROZ does not include any commercial zoning. If it is repealed, commercial zoning would become available. Councilmembers have shown their interest in expanding commercial zoning in the town and one has specifically commented on the attractiveness of putting a convenience store on Timberlinks or Shackleford Ridge Road near the High School to serve the students. I hope the Planning Commission will take this into consideration when making this decision.


After my presentation and other comments by the council, the floor was opened for discussion. At one point I asked the chair, Mayor Lusk if I could add a comment. His reply was "If you can keep it under three hours"! I will say that in my two years as Mayor, I treated each Councilmember with respect, agree or disagree and would never have made such a snide, sarcastic and disrespectful statement. Soon after this, during further discussion, Susan Robertson interrupted me, cutting off my comments by declaring "I call the question", ie, ending debate and asking for a vote. Again I emphasize that I never cut off discussion and always allowed each Councilmember to have their full say, no matter how late it went. Mrs. Robertson claimed she was following Robert's Rules of Order. Actually, the proper phrase is "I move the previous question" which cuts off debate. This motion must be seconded and passed by 2/3 vote. However, this motion cannot interrupt discussion and proper procedure would have been for her to wait until I was done and then ask to be recognized by the chair (neither of which she did), then making her motion. She was clearly out of order. While we are debating Robert's Rules, I think I should emphasize another "Rule" that would be pertinent:

"All remarks must be directed to the Chair. Remarks must be courteous in language and deportment - avoid all personalities, never allude to others by name or to motives!"

In all honesty I must confess that I deviated briefly from this when I commented on Mrs. Robertson's confusing the difference between minimum lot size based zoning and density based zoning. I frankly was amazed that, after all the hours we have spent studying this issue and learning about this she still doesn't seem to understand this principle.

One of the reasons I had concerns about raising the SROZ issue prematurely was just what happened, that the courtesy and decorum that I have worked so hard to develop over the last two years would be dashed and we might risk returning to the acrimony of 3 years ago. I sincerely hope that this demonstration by the Council is not indicative of the tone of future discussion on this or other issues.

Tomorrow we start the budget process at 10am at the Town Hall. Wish me luck.

On Friday, May 1 we had our monthly agenda meeting. While these meetings were originally established to review the agenda for the upcoming Monday night meeting, they have evolved into work sessions where citizens and others with business before the town can make presentations and where the town manager can present and discuss various issues. Frankly, without these meetings our Monday night meetings would last until Tuesday (at least). These meetings (like all our meetings) are open to the public. However, because they are sparsely attended (even by the press), much of this business receives insufficient attention. Part of my goal in this blog is to provide this business to a broader audience.

On type of business sometimes taken care of in these meetings are second readings of ordinances. This is usually only done with those that are either time-sensitive or seem minor and non-controversial. At a recent public meeting, the council passed some amendments to our tree board ordinance clarifying rules for "honor trees". We had planned to complete these ordinances at the agenda meeting, however we received some emails raising concern from some folks who weren't fully aware of the tree board and its intent. For this reason, I asked the Council to hold off on a second reading until the next Monday night meeting and they agreed.

We had a presentation from the WWTA on the upcoming private service line program (PSLP). The full details are in the Chattanoogan.com (http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_150341.asp), but basically the WWTA will be replacing damaged sewer lines which extend from private homes to connect with the main sewer lines. This is a program which will be done all over Hamilton County, but start on Signal Mountain. This is to hopefully improve the "I&I" problem of excess water entering the sewer system during rainfall. The WWTA has done much work on their main lines which unfortunately does not seem to have had a major impact on this problem. The good news, however is that the E. Coli in our streams seems to be improving based on sampling done by the Stormwater Dept. While most of this problem is felt to be due to failing septic tanks, it appears that there may be some contribution from the sewer system which is improving.

We then discussed some minor changes in the "chicken ordinance" which clarified some things about setback variances that had bothered me, too. Thanks to Annette Allen for bringing this up and helping to fix this problem (which will be discussed at the Monday night meeting). We have been asking the DRC to do some major revisions to our sign and other commercial ordinances and Honna Rogers suggested she help to develop some updated guidelines for them to consider. This was appreciated by the Council. This is important as the Council anticipates some future commercial proposals coming its way.

Honna presented some budget ideas for us to consider including reviewing the staffing at the Recycling Center (we plan to continue working with Orange Grove to improve customer service) and a proposal for taking garbage service out of property taxes and having a dedicated "garbage fee" as most towns do. There is much to like about that idea, but there are also issues to consider in the transition so we asked her to present much more information and details before we would begin to look at it. There will clearly be a broad discussion about this if we decide to move forward.

Honna continues to propose ideas for making our services more efficient and automating some processes which are currently done manually. These are all great ideas and are moving our town forward. We are in the process of reviewing her first year of service to our town and preparing a longer term contract for her. There will be more on this as we each give our input to this process.

In discussing the agenda for the upcoming Monday Council meeting, the issue of the SROZ raised its ugly head again. Annette proposed we once again ask the Planning Commission to recommend that we repeal the SROZ (the first step in that process). This will be the third time the Planning Commission has been asked to do this. Both previous times they decided to hold off until they had finished their process of revising our subdivision regulations, which is to be followed by a comprehensive revision of our zoning regs. My position is the same as it has been since I ran for Council. I want to replace our current zoning regs, which are based on old-fashioned and sprawl-enhancing lot-size-based development concepts, with modern ideas utilizing density-based zoning based on the advice we got from Randall Arendt. This will be a complicated process. My position is that we should do this all at once, replace the SROZ with a whole new process. I don't think we need to move backwards before moving forward. The moratorium is still in place and doesn't seem likely to go away soon, so no development can occur anyway. I should note that the only development done under the new rules (with minimum 1/3- acre lots) has a density much less than 2 homes per acre. I will be preparing a comprehensive reply for Monday's meeting and will post it here after that. Zoning changes are always painful and fraught with controversy. The last time we went through this it nearly tore this town apart. I think we need to do it again, but don't want to do it twice. That is my position.

Finally, I read in the paper this morning that Mayor Lusk stated that "We would be extraordinarily interested" in consolidating our water service with Chattanooga (emphasis mine). As mayor I was always careful to differentiate between my personal views and when I was speaking for the Council. As a matter of fact, the council frequently felt that the two could not be separated and that any public statement of mine was automatically speaking for the Council as a whole and should be approved by the entire Council. This process is no longer followed. While there have been some very general discussions about consolidation of various services, we have certainly made no decisions on that issue and taken no vote. I myself have mixed feelings and would require much information before even making a decision (though I would not want to sell our water company as long as the local utility is owned by a private company). I think that there is more sense in sewer consolidation. It seems clear that Mayor Lusk was expressing his personal opinions (and if he is having private conversations on this with other members of the Council, that is unfortunate and hopefully not the case). I also realize that what is in the paper does not always express exactly what you wanted it to. I hope he will be more careful with his public pronouncements in the future.

Correction

Oops, that link to the CDC should be CDC.GOV! Thanks, Bob.

It was suggest to me (by Sandy Lusk) to put on my doctor hat and comment on the current flu situation. First of all, the term "flu" is used to describe a lot of viruses. Influenza or "true flu" is an upper respiratory illness characterized by nasal congestion, cough, high fever and aching all over. So called "stomach flu" is not influenza and has nothing to do with this. The current illness is being called swine flu, but you do not get it from pork and it is not food-borne.

The current flu of concern is an Influenza A virus (technical term is H1N1). The biggest issue is that it is a new variation of the flu virus and most, if not all folks will have no resistance. Unfortunately, if you got your flu vaccine last fall, it will not protect you from this strain and, since it takes several months to prepare a vaccine, don't expect one any time soon.

For the vast majority of people, flu is annoying but not serious. Most people will get a fever, chills and cold symptoms for 7-10 days, then be over it. The big concern is primarily for those with other medical problems, especially the very old and very young. Flu can lead to pneumonia and more serious complications in these populations, so these patients should be especially cautious.

If you get the flu (or symptoms that make you think it might be flu), it would probably be wise to see your physician. While the vast majority of people will get better without treatment and there is no real "cure", medications are available which shorten the course and mitigate the symptoms. Also, it is important to confirm that it really is flu before treating since the medications won't work for other viruses. Finally, it is important to start the medications in first 24-72 hours and the longer you wait the less effective. Flu classically starts very rapidly, patients can go from totally healthy to feeling very sick within minutes to an hour or so. It does not gradually come on over several days.

Finally, prevention is the best cure. Wash your hands, cover your mouth and nose when you sneeze or cough, stay home from work or school if you have a fever and, as in all emergencies DON'T PANIC. While this has potential to effect a lot of people, the vast majority will be fine. There have been no reports of the virus in Tennessee (yet), though it will probably be here. Check the CDC website (www.cdc.org) for further, more detailed information. As always, if you have specific questions related to your own particularly health, contact your physician.

I hope this is helpful. The Council has an agenda meeting this Friday, so should be back to Signal Mountain politics soon. Look for a new town website soon, too!

Well, we're back after a wonderful trip to London. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to chaperone 20 Notre Dame HS theatre students last week. We arrived on Easter Sunday. The Catholic students went to mass at Westminster Cathedral and the rest of us went to services at Westminster Abbey, the almost 1000 year old church where the Kings and Queens of England are crowned. Needless to say it was an amazing experience.

The next week was a whirlwind of tours, amazing theatre and a little shopping. I was gratified at the high quality of the youth I was with. They were all truly great kids and we had no significant problems whatsoever. Their instructor, John Lennon is truly an inspiration. His love and respect for his students is palpable and reciprocated by those students.

While I was gone, life obviously went on. I missed my first council meeting. There was a recent unfortunate incident at SMHS. I want to applaud our SM Police Department and especially our SRO, Greg Hill for their prompt and appropriate response to this incident. Considering that our police arrived just as several allegedly intoxicated students were driving away, it is likely that greater tragedy was avoided. Last year we had talked with the candidates for sheriff and with the County Commission about assigning another SRO specifically for the High School. We received the strong message that it was not going to happen. While this area is not technically in Officer Hill's area of responsibility, the fact that the Middle and High Schools are in the same building means he is frequently doing extra duty. Greg is not the kind to turn down a chance to help kids. As to why the Council decided to renew this request at this time, I can't say since I wasn't there. I think an extra officer dedicated to the High School would be ideal, but it seems clear that it is not in the budget. However, I want to emphasize that our police and SRO responded very well to this particular incident and, while I wasn't there I feel I can go out on a limb and speak for the Council in saying that I have never heard a negative word from them about our police department.

The major upcoming news will be the budget. We have a budget hearing on May 12 which I would encourage citizens to attend. This year promises to be very tight. I honestly don't yet know exactly how it will turn out. The big unknown is the Hall Income Tax. We won't have this figure until July. Expect things to be very tight next year.

The annexation case continues to wind its way through the courts. Initial proceedings have been favorable to the town. It is still primarily a lawyer battle at this point.

Most of you probably know that the School Board has accepted Tom Poteet's proposal for the old SMMS site. The town will now have to consider any potential rezoning request. We have worked hard to prepare the town for this change and, while I don't want to pre-judge anything, I am optimistic for a positive outcome for our town.

Well, that's the update for now. I look forward to hearing any responses, opinions, questions, etc. I would strongly prefer that any replies not be anonymous, but will try to reply to all.

Just a quick update to let everyone know that I won't be at the next Council meeting this Monday, April 13. I have been fortunate enough to be asked to be a chaperone for a high school theatre trip that Nathaniel is taking with Notre Dame to London, so will be gone for a week. I hope everyone has a Happy Easter and a great week.

Well, it's been over 2 weeks since my last blog. It is harder to keep up than I thought! At least my blog has gotten some attention. The chattanoogan.com saw fit to publish the entire blog up to that point (http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_144030.asp). I didn't know exactly why they decided to do that (most of it had nothing to do with the article they wrote), but it is said that all publicity is good!

Seriously, a quick update on town business, then maybe a few personal notes. We had our monthly work/agenda session this past Monday. Several issues were reviewed. I have been attempting to overturn the ban on rock climbing in Signal Mountain. There have been several concerns raised by town staff including issues of safety and risk to rescue personal, raised by the fire and police chief, and issues of liability raised by the town attorney and our insurance carrier. Obviously, these are large obstacles and I have great respect for all of our town staff. Because of these objections, our town manager feels she must support continuing the ban, which I understand. Susan Robertson proposed we end discussion and vote to keep the ban. I was able to mitigate this a bit and offered an amendment to continue the ban until the concerns raised by staff could be addressed. I was gratified that the Council accepted this unanimously. This is obviously a high hurdle. I have informed the climbing community, who have been very active in this issue and some may continue to pursue this. I think it will require input from some more expert than I in this area. I do hope that eventually the ban can be repealed, at least partially, but think it may take some time and work.

The issue of commercial development continues in the form of some possible expansion on private property. I would like to reiterate that I do not oppose commercial development in Signal Mountain or even possibly new commercial zoning. However, I cannot imagine supporting any further proposals to sell town property for commercial development, especially in the town hall area. We went through an extensive Land Use process recently and identified the areas for commercial zoning. We have worked with TVA to look at ways to attract business to the town, mostly retail. I have been very active in trying to figure out ways to make it easier to do business in Signal Mountain and have had many discussions with local business owners. Bill Lusk asked me to take over his position as liaison to the DRC and I was happy to do so. I met with them that evening (last Monday) to introduce the idea of reviewing our sign ordinance to bring it up to date.

Other good news from that night, there is a new bakery/coffee shop opening on James Blvd at the entrance to the Orchard (just down from Thrasher). They plan to open April 18. Since this is walking distance from my house, I am quite excited. Let's help make them a success!

I should state that, philosophically I am very supportive of market forces and I think that if there is a market for commercial enterprises on Signal Mountain, they will come. At the same time I think there is a limit to that market. I think that most of the businesses up here will serve the local residents (I really don't see Signal Mountain as a "shopping destination" any time soon). We may be close to saturated right now based on our population and the economy or there may be room for more. I don't know, but I think the government's job is to make it as easy as possible to do business on Signal Mountain while doing what we can to preserve our quality of life and our local environment. I think that with most quality businesses that is very doable.

OK, I've already gone on too long. I did want to do some personal comments. My son, Nathaniel was accepted to Governor's School for the Arts this summer in Filmmaking! He also was invited to the National Honor Society at Notre Dame HS. My daughter, Mary Eliza had her first piano recital this past weekend and got a "Superior" rating from the judge! I just gotta brag on my kids and give their mother all the credit. Snoda has been so tolerant of all my politicking and I appreciate the support that she and the kids have given me.

I'll try to blog more frequently and less "longly" in the future.

I said that I would post a review of my campaign positions and how I have addressed them. Here it is. This is from my original "issues and positions" site on my webpage with "updates" in bold. I hope to hear from citizens about whether they agree or not.

ISSUES & POSITIONS

In the area of future development, I believe we should:

Be sure appropriate infrastructure is in place before any development moves forward. This includes considering traffic, schools, town services and environmental impacts. While aesthetics are harder to quantify, they are also clearly a priority for the citizens of the mountain.

We have completed a traffic study which showed minimal impact on traffic by development in this area. Sewers are in place for the area although the moratorium prevents their use. The current schools have extra capacity as I understand it, but clearly this is the responsibility of the school board. Town Services, etc must be considered on an ongoing basis.

Traffic studies must be completed and considered before any new development should go forward.

See above

Require new development on Shackleford Ridge to have paths which allow and encourage pedestrian and bicycle access to the new schools. Look for similar opportunities in other areas of town.

This is still my desire although my input has been diminished since I was removed from the Planning Commission.

Consider strongly the idea of Development Impact Fees and investigate legal changes needed to apply them. If legally possible, these should be based on the square footage of the homes built.

This was researched and is not legally doable in Tennessee.

Investigate possibilities for extending sewer service into existing areas of town.

We continue to work with the WWTA and hope to develop a town wide plan. This has taken a backseat with the moratorium and all the WWTA’s political problems.
Seek out consultation from experts in town planning to advise best use practices which are consistent with the town vision statement.

We brought in Randall Arendt and I am very supportive of his advice and vision. I hope it will be used to significantly influence future subdivision and zoning plans.
Water run-off into the sewer system is an issue that will need to be addressed in the near future.
We continue to support WWTA with its service lateral program which will significantly help this problem. They have completed the lining project which also helps.

It is important to remember that there are other issues before the town. In the area of safety, I would encourage:
· efforts to decrease speeding in neighborhoods.
Subdivision regulations with narrower streets and more curves will help in this direction.

· looking for opportunities to create bike paths and sidewalks
Our new Transportation Committee will hopefully contribute to this effort. I continue to support requiring sidewalks in all subdivisions and hope this will be part of the subdivision regs.

· continuing to support our police, fire and EMS departments to have state of the art equipment and techniques to keep us all safe.
I believe our budget priorities show this support and that we have improved quality and morale.

I strongly support recreational opportunities on the mountain. My children have played most sports up here at one time or another. We must maintain our recreational facilities and look for opportunities to expand these. I would like to see the town look into acquiring or having use of the gym and football field at SMMS when the new middle school opens.

I continue to hope that whatever proposal the School Board accepts will allow for this, however I realize this is hard for us to control. I would support any reasonable efforts in this direction.

In addition, we must support our cultural and artistic activities. The MACC is a tremendous resource for this mountain which should be supported. I also want to continue strong support for the Signal Mountain Playhouse. The Signal Mountain library is a unique resource. It should continue in its current location and I agree with its supporters that contributions to the library should be used for the library and not to offset the Town's contribution.

I am liaison for the MACC Board and have worked to improve communications between the MACC and the Playhouse. I still strongly support the transfer of the MACC to town ownership and hope this will happen during my term.

I would love to see more social opportunities for our youth. Scouting and church youth groups obviously serve an important role in this area. The new middle and high school will also be a great asset in this regard. Opportunities to expand and add to these options should be sought.

One step has been the beginning of the “Coffee House” music performances at the MACC on the last Saturday of each month. I hope to see these expand to allow young musicians and other performers a venue and a place for kids to go on Saturday nights.

Obviously, our greatest resource is our citizens. We should continue to value the tremendous volunteer ethic of our town.

I am working to learn more about the management of the town. I have scheduled meetings with many town officials. I certainly think we should be fiscally sound and responsible. I would:
· work hard to avoid lawsuits and their costs. As a physician, I know that even frivolous lawsuits can be expensive and time-consuming.
While these are not always avoidable, I am confidant that our annexation efforts were legal and done right and that we will prevail in the lawsuit.

· work with the Town Manager to continue to be as efficient as possible, realizing that our town’s employees are an important resource who should be respected.
Again, our budget priorities have strengthened benefits and morale of our town employees.

· support efforts to improve trash collection and decrease injuries and work-comp costs without diminishing services to our elderly and less able citizens.
Our move to automate garbage service is saving almost $100,000 per year. We have retained backdoor service for elderly and disabled.

· look for ways to increase recycling in our town. This will reduce our utilization of the landfill and ultimately our town costs. We are blessed with an excellent recycling facility and I would like to see a public campaign to encourage more citizens to use it.
We continue to focus on this effort.

· be proactive in addressing town problems rather than being constantly in crisis management mode. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!
Our recent strategic planning session is an example of this effort.

In the overall area of Town/Citizen relations, I think that we need to investigate better ways to communicate with our fellow citizens. I would seek to create an atmosphere of neighborliness and strive for amicable resolution of disputes without resorting to micro-management with ordinances or litigation in the courts.

I pledge to be always polite and respectful to my fellow citizens, even when I disagree with them.

I do want to be clear that I oppose the current recall effort. While I sympathize with the frustration of the supporters, I mourn the atmosphere of distrust.

I think we can find better ways to handle these situations. Such ways might include:
· Better public notification of public meetings and important issues facing the town.
I think this has improved. I created a Communications sub-committee soon after election. They worked on many efforts to improve communications. I applaud Susan Robertson and her tireless efforts to keep up a weekly “Council Notes” article.

· More public hearings early in the process when important issues confront the town and more transparency in town affairs.
We have tried hard to open up our meetings to more public input and have lots of public meetings on important issues. We have moved “public comment” to the early part of the meeting to encourage more participation.

· Better use of internet. I would consider letting interested citizens sign up for email notification of Town Council and various board meetings with agendas attached.
This hasn’t gone as well as I had hoped. We have tried to have sign up sheets for email notification, but it doesn’t seem to work well. We are currently working on a new website that hopefully will help in this direction.

It is important to remember that Town Council members are representatives of the citizens of Signal Mountain. They represent best when communications are two-way. If I am elected, I promise to listen to my constituents and will look forward to hearing from them. I will strive to make myself available to my neighbors and work hard to seek out their views on important issues confronting the town.

I certainly hope that I have been successful in this regard, but will allow the citizens to decide.

Sincerely,

Paul M. Hendricks, MD
Signal Mountain Town Council

Those of you who read the paper this morning know that a development group has approached the town about buying town property for commercial development. These developers apparently contacted the town and asked to meet with the Town Council. They were informed that they could not meet with us as a group unless it was a public meeting, but that they could meet with us individually. Individual meetings are legal and do not fall under the open meetings law since no "deliberation" can occur. This is an important point. Two years ago, former Planning Commission Chairman Dan Saieed was severely criticized about meeting with local landowners for information about their plans. This meeting too was legal and the criticism of Dan was totally inappropriate. Nonetheless, private meetings always raise concerns about what was discussed, so I thought I would try to clarify my position on this proposal.

When I met with these gentleman, they laid out the plan that has subsequently been made to the town and is therefore now public. I told them that I would keep an open mind, but that the town property did not belong to me, but to the citizens of Signal Mountain. I told them that any decisions I made would be with full public discussion and input. I told them I could only support this if I saw overwhelming public support from the citizens of Signal Mountain. They were very understanding of this position. I assume they wanted to gauge Council opinions or feelings on this proposal before deciding whether to move forward. They must have felt some encouragement as they have made a formal proposal.

I should say that I am fairly dubious about this proposal and its likelihood of being supported by the town. The original proposal made is not acceptable in its current form. The logistical issues of moving ballfields, tennis courts and, ultimately the Playhouse are rather formidable. I should state that, while I am willing to keep an open mind about the initial proposal in the area of the ballfields and soccer field (assuming I were to hear overwhelming public support), I would be adamantly opposed to selling off the tennis courts and the Playhouse area for commercial development.

The positive aspect of this has been to refocus myself on some thoughts I had soon after being elected. I think we have an excellent resource in the Town Hall complex. I would love to see a master plan to incorporate this area into a "Town Center" that wouldn't necessarily have to involve commercial development. If we sell the land, we lose control. However, we could do a better job of connecting the Town Hall with the Playhouse, Library and Recycle center through more paths, etc. I remember riding through this area with my son on our bikes a few years ago and there is some real potential there. I would love to see the Playhouse amphitheater used during the spring and late summer and fall for concerts and other types of events. It also seems like it would be a great place for weddings, Scout ceremonies, etc. I would rather take this approach to a "Town Center" than having two more big box stores and a parking lot.

I hope we can move forward in a positive manner with this discussion about the future of Signal Mountain. I am very anxious to hear the opinions of our town's residents on this (and all other) issues.

Town Council update

I vowed to help the citizens keep up with our workings. I have recently reviewed my issues page on my original campaign website and will be posting a commentary of how I have kept up with my campaign issues. For now, I am reacquainting myself with my blog. I had planned to keep it up during my tenure, but after being elected mayor I made a decision to hold off. Obviously the council was elected during a time of turmoil and after a member being recalled and another resigning, we had two new members who had not run and with whom I was barely familiar. I was committed to providing leadership and trying to present a positive image of working together.

The Council was very anxious that my public statements all be approved by them as they felt I represented the entire council. This went so far as to requesting (insisting) that I not sit on the "upper" dias on the Planning Commission as they felt this gave me inordinate control of the process, so Annette and I moved to sit on the floor. Other public addresses I gave were extensively edited and modified by certain members. Again, I was anxious to maintain a harmonious working relationship and felt that these were minor issues compared to accomplishing the business of the town. Obviously, in the vein of "no good deed goes unpunished", I was not successful in that a major initiative of mine, obtaining more money for the high school was defeated and I was ultimately removed from office.

At this point, I no longer represent the council. I represent the town and my constituents, as I was elected to do. I'm not sure how much influence I might have on the Council (though I am pleased that on the issue of the fowl ordinance, three members (Dick, Lusk and Robertson) have moved from opposed to supportive - a minor victory at least), so I will return to my original goal of keeping the citizens informed as best I can. As with all blogs, I welcome your input and hope to create a public forum for discussion of the issues affecting our town.

As you all know, I am no longer mayor. I do remain on the Council for 2 more years and promise to continue to represent all the citizens of Signal Mountain as best I can. The best way for me to do this is for each of you to be knowledgeable about the issues we are dealing with and getting input from you on these issues. I plan to use this blog as one tool for this purpose. Please feel free to give and take. Obviously, any comments you make on this blog is public. If you wish to contact me privately, please email or call. Thanks!
Paul

Paul Hendricks for Signal Mtn. Town Council

Paul Hendricks for Signal Mtn. Town Council You may know by now that Lizetta Paturalski has decided to resign from the Town Council. I regret this and will miss her experience and wisdom as we navigate through these difficult times, but I must respect her desire to devote more time to her family. Of course, this means we have another vacancy to fill. Her resignation is effective December 31, so we will have until January 30 to fill this vacancy without going to a special election. As I have previously stated, I feel this is our responsibility and that a special election would be unnecessarily expensive. I urge any citizens who have a desire to serve to send a letter to Diana Campbell at the Town Hall. We will be deciding on the exact procedure and timeline tomorrow, Friday, December 15. Mrs. Paturalski had 2 years left on her term so any appointee would serve until the next election. Of the 4 candidates for the previous open seat, Bill Lusk, of course was appointed and Joe Dumas has asked to be considered. Greg Goodgame has decided not to re-apply and Courtney Hoss is considering whether or not to re-apply. This is a great opportunity for someone who wants to give back to their community.