For those of you who missed the "debate" tonight at Alexian Village, I thought I would provide a brief summary. I should start by saying that I am neutral in this race and plan to remain so. Frankly, I don't know yet how I will vote. I did think the event was well-presented and efficiently run. I would have preferred a format which allowed questions from the audience, but the people at Alexian decided to come up with their own questions and not allow audience input. That was their decision and I respect that. Some of the questions were more oriented to hot-button national issues than local county commission issues, but there were several good local questions, too. Each candidate gave an opening statement primarily involving their biography and background. I refer readers to their websites for more info on that (links to their websites are on the side of the page). So, here are the questions and a summary of responses:
1. The first question was about the IB program at SMMHS and whether the candidates supported or opposed it. This question also mentioned the issue of how to fund it.
Cantrell stated that he supported the IB program and mentioned that he would encourage Volkswagen to help support it financially.
Fields stated he had only recently learned about IB and what it was really about and had decided that it was a "great program" and that he supported IB and its funding.
2. The second question asked how to maintain county revenues when the county offered tax breaks to businesses to come to Hamilton County.
Fields pointed out that only the county general taxes were affected and that the school portion of the taxes were still collected as a "payment in kind" from Volkswagen and other businesses. He suggested increasing tourism as a way of increasing county revenues.
Cantrell felt we should concentrate on a more diverse economy, especially emphasizing small businesses. He thought we should try for more federal money to incentivize "green" businesses and high tech business. He emphasized that, as a pilot he felt he understood the technical aspects of high-tech businesses such as turbines, etc and that this would be a plus for him as commissioner.
3. The candidates were asked how they felt about city/county consolidation.
Cantrell stated that his approach would be "show me the money", ie he would support consolidation where it was cost effective on a case-by-case basis.
Fields stated that he would support consolidation if the logistics could be worked out, mentioning differing procedures between county and city courts as an example. He also stated that he would look at cost savings.
4. The next few questions were, directed toward national "hot button" issues. The candidates were asked if they were for or against the national "Tea Party" movement.
Fields stated that he was very much in support of the movement.
Cantrell stated he was "neutral". He stated that he agreed that the Federal government was too big and expensive, but stated that services have to be paid for and that too often people only want to cut the services that they don't use. He stated that we have to walk the walk, not just "talk the talk".
5. The candidates were asked about illegal immigration and how Hamilton County should approach it.
Cantrell stated that immigration was a Federal obligation and that the Federal government should enforce the law.
Fields discussed getting education for the Sheriff's Department and to work with the Federal government. He stated he supported immigration laws.
Cantrell rebutted by stating that he thought the Sheriff's Dept. was already well-educated on the issue.
6. The next question was to ask which side of the 2nd amendment each candidate was on.
Fields stated he supported gun ownership and registration. He stated he doesn't own any guns himself.
Cantrell stated he did have a carry permit and that he opposed the "guns in bars" bill.
7. They were then asked where they stood on the separation of church and state and the teaching of religion in schools.
Cantrell stated he supported the separation of church and state. He stated he supported the teaching of comparative religion in school, but that support for religion in schools would depend on which side of the majority you were on.
Fields stated he supported the 1st amendment. He supported teaching Bible in schools as literature and history. He stated that teachers and students should be allowed to express their own opinions, but not impose them on others.
8. Another education question was asked. The question was essentially that 60-65% of the Hamilton County budget goes to education and since "many people in Signal Mountain opposed the new SMMHS", how did the candidates feel about that (I realize that is vague, but I didn't write the question down verbatim).
Fields stated that the County Commission passes the budget and the Board of Education decides how to spend education money. He suggested several ways to potentially enhance revenues for the schools:
a. work with state representatives to improve the state funding formula for education.
b. increase businesses in Hamilton County to increase revenue
c. modernize school facilities as a way to save money
Cantrell stated that since the high school was already built, opposition to it was "water under the bridge" and that we should make our schools as good as we can make them.
The candidates then were given the opportunity to ask each other a question. Cantrell stated that since he worked in Atlanta, he had no connections with local businesses. He asked Fields how he would handle any businesses that he had professional dealings with who came before the county. Fields responded that he dealt with this issue all the time as an attorney and that if it were a business that he represented, he would recuse himself.
Fields then asked Cantrell if he had received any contributions from any unions. Cantrell stated that, as an independent he "didn't have any help from anyone" (good laugh line for audience) and that specifically he had no contributions from PAC's or unions.
That was pretty much it. I sincerely hope that I have accurately reflected the intent of the questions and the responses and positions of the candidates. I urge anyone who was at the forum to comment and offer their impressions, especially if they differed from mine. I especially urge the candidates to respond if I have in any way misrepresented their positions or if they wish to expand or clarify any statements.
Finally, here is a video from TimesFreePress of Mr. Fields discussing term limits:
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/jul/22/video-fields-term-limits/?localvideo-news
This blog is dedicated to issues facing the Signal Mountain, Tennessee community.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Signal Mountain History
Just wanted to let y'all know about an excellent group of people, The Signal Mountain Genealogical Society. The planned a "history tour" or Signal Mountain for today, not knowing if there would be any interest. In reality, they had to expand it to two(!) tours as over 80 people signed up including my family. We had a delightful morning touring various Signal Mountain spots. We started At Bachman Community Center with a brief overview and powerpoint by Mrs. Jolley talking about the early history of Signal Mountain and the surrounding area (ie, starting at 15,000 BC!). We then boarded an air-conditioned bus for the tour. First stop was the Conner Toll House. This oldest building on Walden's Ridge (part of the Cumberland Plateau) is now owned by the Chattanooga Regional History Museum and has been upgraded and has some displays and various artifacts in it.
Here are MaryEliza and Nathaniel in the upstairs bedroom at Conner Toll House.
Conner Toll House
Next we went out Taft Highway to Lone Oak and then returned for a drive down Fairmont Road and a discussion of the earliest days of the area when Fairmount Academy was the first school in the area. After talking about the Mountain Opry and Summertown, we went to Signal Mountain Old Towne, Alexian Village (formerly Alexian Inn), Signal Point and then followed the route of the old trolley. After about 2 1/2 hours we returned to our starting point. Our tour guide was James L. Douthat, well known around here for his many books on the local area. The Society is thinking of doing more tours in the future and if they do, I would strongly urge everyone to go and take their kids so they can learn the history of their home town.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Finally, a County Commission forum
I am pleased to announce that there will be a candidate forum with the two County Commission District 2 candidates. This will be held Thursday, July 22 at 7pm at Alexian Village in the "Town Hall" at Alexian (it is around back, you take the entrance off Ohio Ave and follow it to about half-way down on the left by the flag pole... parking is limited, so I urge folks to consider carpooling!) Ironically, this is one of the dates I had originally proposed to the candidates for the forum I tried to put together. I guess their calendars opened up a bit...
This forum is being led by Mr. Dudley Meadows at Alexian. Regrettably, the format he is following will not allow for any input from the audience or any public questions, however he promises to be sure he challenges them appropriately. He did promise a question on public education. I urge everyone to go and listen to these two candidates so you can make an educated decision on this important election.
I will get around to "Chapter 2" (from my last blog" soon...
This forum is being led by Mr. Dudley Meadows at Alexian. Regrettably, the format he is following will not allow for any input from the audience or any public questions, however he promises to be sure he challenges them appropriately. He did promise a question on public education. I urge everyone to go and listen to these two candidates so you can make an educated decision on this important election.
I will get around to "Chapter 2" (from my last blog" soon...
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Minute by minute...
OK, I hope you'll excuse the cute Doobie Brothers reference to introduce a boring but illustrative topic. Generally, the most perfunctory part of any meeting is the reading of the minutes. This is generally a quick "Has everyone read them... any changes..." and you're done. Signal Mountain Town Council, however has turned the "reading of the minutes" into an intermittent ordeal. I realize this my be very "inside baseball", but I think it is an example of the kinds of behind the scenes manipulation of the issues that concerns me.
The most recent example is from last night. As background, you might know from reading the Signal Mountain Mirror that we have frequently spent a fair amount of time with minutes in the past as former English teacher Susan Robertson made assorted grammatical corrections including misplace commas and misspelling and typos. I have found this generally acceptable and even laudable as our minutes should be accurate. Some time ago, Ms. Robertson became concerned about the time involved and we decided to circulate the minutes in advance so that such trivial changes could be made in advance of the meeting. However, over time it became clear to me that more significant changes were being made, changing the facts of events which have occurred and adding "after the fact" justifications for issues she was involved in. Because of this, I asked the town recorder to circulate any "adjusted" minutes with even the most minor changes identified. This has generally been successful, but has occasionally suffered from technical glitches such as this past month. When I received a copy of "adjusted minutes" I noticed that a question I had asked at the last meeting had been changed! This bothered me since I am usually pretty specific in what I want to know and I knew I had specifically planned that particular question.
Now, to some more background. As you probably know, the owners of Signal Crossing recently requested a zoning change for the property behind Signal Crossing. This has been identified on the Land Use Plan as one of the few areas in Signal Mountain for potential commercial development. The application was accompanied by a preliminary plan for the development of this parcel which would have left approximately half of the area as wooded undeveloped land. The was understandable concern by the surrounding property owners about this, but the current and potential owners had been very active in seeking out input and demonstrating their flexibility in their planning to accommodate these homeowners. I had hoped and expected that, going forward we would be able to work on more changes to accommodate the homeowners and mitigate any impacts. Knowing the interest of the current council in expanding commerical development (eg, the earlier enthusiasm for possibly selling town hall property for commercial development), I had assumed this would be passed. This was the reason I supported the $25,000 (negotiated down from $50,000) we spent for the commercial design study by the KCRW design group (http://signalmountaintn.gov/assets/misc/guidelines2.pdf). I had tried to make it clear that the pending approval of this project was the reason I supported this expenditure. Frankly, I should have waited, but the council was very anxious to move forward with this. The previous DRC under chairman Greg Goodgame had also requested assistance in developing new guidelines which was another reason for this study. I mention this to refute the various statements and implications by Ms. Robertson that Mr. Goodgame and the DRC had been negligent and non-productive. It is very difficult to ask volunteer citizen boards to develop comprehensive and complex community ordinances and they frequently ask for help. The Planning Commission has worked for over 2 1/2 years in reviewing new subdivision guidelines and are still not finished. They also asked for consultants, but the Council has refused various offers of help on this. As you can see, this whole process is convoluted and difficult to follow, so I hope you're keeping up.
Back to the KCRW study and my question which was changed in the minutes. When KCRW held their public hearing, they presented a plan for discussion which was very similar to the plan presented to the Planning Commission as part of the zoning change required to implement the presented plan. I was frankly surprised by this at the public meeting and several others who were familiar with the earlier proposal commented on the similarity. The primary difference was the addition of a "public square" which would require the town purchasing part of this property, an expense I frankly don't think we can afford. When KCRW presented their report, I asked if they had considered the previous rejection of this plan in their presentation. I realize that technical it was a request for a zoning change, but clearly the zoning change was to implement the plan presented. The answer was that they knew of this, but didn't consider this fact, only taking into account the land use plan. Clearly the implication seemed to be that the Planning Commission had not considered the land use plan (which is not a mandatory plan, only advisory). However, when Ms. Robertson changed the minutes, my question had become one about zoning, not about the similarity of the plans. This made my question frankly seem absurd and pointless. Fortunately, I have learned to closely scrutinize the minutes for such changes and objected to the change and the original correct reflection of reality was restored. I will note that, at the meeting Ms. Robertson apologized for changing my comments, stated that she was trying to clarify the situation and indicated that she assumed I had not understood just what was going on. While I accepted her apology, I felt it was rather condescending and told her that minutes should reflect what actually happened and not what she thought should have happened and how she wished things would have happened. I will not go on with further examples, but they do exist.
Finally, what is the practical issue of all this? Well, I think I will leave that for next time... Chapter 2!
The most recent example is from last night. As background, you might know from reading the Signal Mountain Mirror that we have frequently spent a fair amount of time with minutes in the past as former English teacher Susan Robertson made assorted grammatical corrections including misplace commas and misspelling and typos. I have found this generally acceptable and even laudable as our minutes should be accurate. Some time ago, Ms. Robertson became concerned about the time involved and we decided to circulate the minutes in advance so that such trivial changes could be made in advance of the meeting. However, over time it became clear to me that more significant changes were being made, changing the facts of events which have occurred and adding "after the fact" justifications for issues she was involved in. Because of this, I asked the town recorder to circulate any "adjusted" minutes with even the most minor changes identified. This has generally been successful, but has occasionally suffered from technical glitches such as this past month. When I received a copy of "adjusted minutes" I noticed that a question I had asked at the last meeting had been changed! This bothered me since I am usually pretty specific in what I want to know and I knew I had specifically planned that particular question.
Now, to some more background. As you probably know, the owners of Signal Crossing recently requested a zoning change for the property behind Signal Crossing. This has been identified on the Land Use Plan as one of the few areas in Signal Mountain for potential commercial development. The application was accompanied by a preliminary plan for the development of this parcel which would have left approximately half of the area as wooded undeveloped land. The was understandable concern by the surrounding property owners about this, but the current and potential owners had been very active in seeking out input and demonstrating their flexibility in their planning to accommodate these homeowners. I had hoped and expected that, going forward we would be able to work on more changes to accommodate the homeowners and mitigate any impacts. Knowing the interest of the current council in expanding commerical development (eg, the earlier enthusiasm for possibly selling town hall property for commercial development), I had assumed this would be passed. This was the reason I supported the $25,000 (negotiated down from $50,000) we spent for the commercial design study by the KCRW design group (http://signalmountaintn.gov/assets/misc/guidelines2.pdf). I had tried to make it clear that the pending approval of this project was the reason I supported this expenditure. Frankly, I should have waited, but the council was very anxious to move forward with this. The previous DRC under chairman Greg Goodgame had also requested assistance in developing new guidelines which was another reason for this study. I mention this to refute the various statements and implications by Ms. Robertson that Mr. Goodgame and the DRC had been negligent and non-productive. It is very difficult to ask volunteer citizen boards to develop comprehensive and complex community ordinances and they frequently ask for help. The Planning Commission has worked for over 2 1/2 years in reviewing new subdivision guidelines and are still not finished. They also asked for consultants, but the Council has refused various offers of help on this. As you can see, this whole process is convoluted and difficult to follow, so I hope you're keeping up.
Back to the KCRW study and my question which was changed in the minutes. When KCRW held their public hearing, they presented a plan for discussion which was very similar to the plan presented to the Planning Commission as part of the zoning change required to implement the presented plan. I was frankly surprised by this at the public meeting and several others who were familiar with the earlier proposal commented on the similarity. The primary difference was the addition of a "public square" which would require the town purchasing part of this property, an expense I frankly don't think we can afford. When KCRW presented their report, I asked if they had considered the previous rejection of this plan in their presentation. I realize that technical it was a request for a zoning change, but clearly the zoning change was to implement the plan presented. The answer was that they knew of this, but didn't consider this fact, only taking into account the land use plan. Clearly the implication seemed to be that the Planning Commission had not considered the land use plan (which is not a mandatory plan, only advisory). However, when Ms. Robertson changed the minutes, my question had become one about zoning, not about the similarity of the plans. This made my question frankly seem absurd and pointless. Fortunately, I have learned to closely scrutinize the minutes for such changes and objected to the change and the original correct reflection of reality was restored. I will note that, at the meeting Ms. Robertson apologized for changing my comments, stated that she was trying to clarify the situation and indicated that she assumed I had not understood just what was going on. While I accepted her apology, I felt it was rather condescending and told her that minutes should reflect what actually happened and not what she thought should have happened and how she wished things would have happened. I will not go on with further examples, but they do exist.
Finally, what is the practical issue of all this? Well, I think I will leave that for next time... Chapter 2!
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Signal Mountain Town Council and the sign ordinance
Before I launch into local politics, I wanted to thank everyone who came out for the coffee house last Saturday. We had a great turnout. My group played for the first hour, then Zach Laliberte brought his unique perspective to the receptive audience. If you weren't there, you missed a great show, but can still pick-up his CD at http://www.zachlaliberte.com/. After these two performances, we had open mike with performances by the two Sawyer brothers, Joe Laliberte, original tunes by Robert Thatcher and myself with some bass back-up by Alan Moss among others. Next coffee house will be July 31, again at Sweet Gipsy opening with John Harper and his band, Brownhaven, followed by Tarbell Patton. Jennifer at Sweet Gipsy is working on some dinner specials to compliment the evening, so stay tuned!
My group, the Orchard Band will be appearing at noon at the Lion's Club July 4th picnic at Althaus Park (on Monday July 5) and again on Friday, July 9 at 6:30 on the lawn at St. Timothy's Episcopal Church (or inside if weather threatens).
This past Monday we had our monthly council "agenda" meeting. Four council members were present as Annette Allen is spending the bulk of the summer at her place in New York where her husband works. Most of the meeting was pretty routine. We passed the budget on second reading. We were required to hold a public hearing for the budget which we had on Monday. No one from the public attended. I commented that in the future we should hold our budget public hearings at a regular Monday night meeting. While the budget was apparently non-controversial (I have had no comments from any citizens and there was no tax increase), I think it doesn't look particularly good to hold a public hearing on a Monday morning when most people are at work.
The one potentially controversial issue was a change in the sign ordinance. This was presented by Susan Robertson as a first reading. Since the agenda meetings were originally established to set the agenda for our regular Monday evening meetings and for discussion and routine business, on principal I did not think this was the proper time for this sort of issue. Susan assured us that these were minor changes and she may be right. However, I know that the sign ordinance has been a source of continuing aggravation from the local business community. I have wanted to have the DRC work with the Mountain Business Association and local businesses to revise it and make it more user friendly. While this proposal may have been a minor fix, I don't think it sends the right message of openness and cooperation to our local merchants. I recommended we table the ordinance until our regular meeting in two weeks. Ms. Robertson seemed to think this was too important to wait 2 weeks in spite of it supposedly being a minor fix. However, my motion to table was seconded by Mayor Lusk and I was gratified that the council agreed to table and therefore postpone this until it could be more adequately vetted by the business community with Ms. Robertson eventually going along. I think this was the right thing to do on principal.
Frankly, this may turn out to be a minor and non-controversial change, but since I don't run a business up here, I have never presumed to speak for the local merchants or tell them how to run their businesses, only to work hard to see that their voice is heard. I have always believed that regulations are appropriate to the degree that they protect the general public, but I feel they should be reasonable and clear. It should be easy for a business to come to this town. Our regulations should be clear enough that, if a business follows them their process should go like greased lightning. They should also be reasonable and consistent and not based on the personal whims and opinions of individual DRC and Town Council members.
My group, the Orchard Band will be appearing at noon at the Lion's Club July 4th picnic at Althaus Park (on Monday July 5) and again on Friday, July 9 at 6:30 on the lawn at St. Timothy's Episcopal Church (or inside if weather threatens).
This past Monday we had our monthly council "agenda" meeting. Four council members were present as Annette Allen is spending the bulk of the summer at her place in New York where her husband works. Most of the meeting was pretty routine. We passed the budget on second reading. We were required to hold a public hearing for the budget which we had on Monday. No one from the public attended. I commented that in the future we should hold our budget public hearings at a regular Monday night meeting. While the budget was apparently non-controversial (I have had no comments from any citizens and there was no tax increase), I think it doesn't look particularly good to hold a public hearing on a Monday morning when most people are at work.
The one potentially controversial issue was a change in the sign ordinance. This was presented by Susan Robertson as a first reading. Since the agenda meetings were originally established to set the agenda for our regular Monday evening meetings and for discussion and routine business, on principal I did not think this was the proper time for this sort of issue. Susan assured us that these were minor changes and she may be right. However, I know that the sign ordinance has been a source of continuing aggravation from the local business community. I have wanted to have the DRC work with the Mountain Business Association and local businesses to revise it and make it more user friendly. While this proposal may have been a minor fix, I don't think it sends the right message of openness and cooperation to our local merchants. I recommended we table the ordinance until our regular meeting in two weeks. Ms. Robertson seemed to think this was too important to wait 2 weeks in spite of it supposedly being a minor fix. However, my motion to table was seconded by Mayor Lusk and I was gratified that the council agreed to table and therefore postpone this until it could be more adequately vetted by the business community with Ms. Robertson eventually going along. I think this was the right thing to do on principal.
Frankly, this may turn out to be a minor and non-controversial change, but since I don't run a business up here, I have never presumed to speak for the local merchants or tell them how to run their businesses, only to work hard to see that their voice is heard. I have always believed that regulations are appropriate to the degree that they protect the general public, but I feel they should be reasonable and clear. It should be easy for a business to come to this town. Our regulations should be clear enough that, if a business follows them their process should go like greased lightning. They should also be reasonable and consistent and not based on the personal whims and opinions of individual DRC and Town Council members.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
MACC Coffeehouse returns this Saturday!
The MACC Coffeehouse returns this Saturday, June 26. While the roof is still being repaired, Sweet Gipsy coffee shop (http://www.sweetgipsy.com/) has graciously agreed to continue to host this event. This Saturday we will open at 7pm and go until 10-ish.
At 7, we will open with my trio, The Orchard Band featuring Alice and Robert Thatcher along with myself doing an eclectic set of folk-rock standards from the 60's and 70's and beyond!
At 8, former Signal Mountain resident Zach Laliberte will be performing his songs. You can find out more about Zach at his website http://www.zachlaliberte.com/. I have heard him and he is quite good and a pleasure to listen to.
At 9 we will open up the stage for the traditional open mike/jam featuring any musicians who want to come, bring their instrument and play either solo or with the group.
So come on out, sample some of Sweet Gipsy's coffee and treats and enjoy some local music. There is no cover charge.
At 7, we will open with my trio, The Orchard Band featuring Alice and Robert Thatcher along with myself doing an eclectic set of folk-rock standards from the 60's and 70's and beyond!
At 8, former Signal Mountain resident Zach Laliberte will be performing his songs. You can find out more about Zach at his website http://www.zachlaliberte.com/. I have heard him and he is quite good and a pleasure to listen to.
At 9 we will open up the stage for the traditional open mike/jam featuring any musicians who want to come, bring their instrument and play either solo or with the group.
So come on out, sample some of Sweet Gipsy's coffee and treats and enjoy some local music. There is no cover charge.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Recent town council meeting and Signal Mountain business issues
Our latest Town Council meeting was this past Monday, June 14. There were several major issues on the agenda. One was an appeal of a decision by the Design Review Commission (DRC). I have long had concerns that the DRC's guidelines were too vague and that the sign ordinance was too restrictive. We have done several things over my term to try to help and support the DRC while requesting that they do a comprehensive review of these guidelines, many of which date back to the early '90's and are contradictory and unnecessarily vague leading to capricious decisions based on personal opinions of members rather than adherence to town guidelines.
There is a new business trying to open on Signal Mountain at the location of the old CVS. It is a restaurant called "Guthrie's Chicken" which is a franchise owned by local Signal Mountain residents. They have run into several regulatory hurdles from the town and WWTA and I have tried to help them through these issues. Their portion of their meeting with the DRC lasted over 2 hours and led to several decisions that they needed to appeal, one involving a logo required by their corporate office and one involving an admittedly awkward location for their drive-through. To make a long story short, I was highly gratified that the council decided to overrule the DRC and approve the items as appealed. This was after some discussion back and forth between Guthrie's and town staff and included give and take on both sides. It involved a drive-through setup with no perfect solution and I appreciate the council deciding to err on the side of supporting local business. While the process was unnecessarily long and tedious, I was glad it led to a positive outcome.
I should emphasize that I do not have a problem with reasonable regulations (reasonable being an admittedly loaded word). However, I feel that such regulations should be clear and precise and easy to interpret so that a building can follow them. If a business then follows the guidelines, their process of starting a business up here should be smooth and easy. I realize that no regulations can be perfect and account for every condition. That is where the DRC can be helpful and I have seen them work with a business to advise them on their signs or design in a cooperative fashion. They should also advise the council when they think their guidelines (which are town ordinances) need revision. However, no commission or councilmember should insert their personal opinions for or against business decisions that they just don't like or agree with.
Finally, there was an announcement from Hershel Dick that he would not run for re-election and from Susan Robertson that she would run to stay on the council. So the town council election, to be held Tuesday, Nov. 2, will have three seats up for election. So far, Susan Robertson is the only candidate who has announced. I have heard from one or two folks thinking of running, but noone else has announced yet. Decisions need to be made soon. The deadline for submitting your application to run (you have to get a small number of voters to sign a petition) is August 19. If anyone has any questions about the process of running or what's involved in serving, I would be happy to talk with them.
There is a new business trying to open on Signal Mountain at the location of the old CVS. It is a restaurant called "Guthrie's Chicken" which is a franchise owned by local Signal Mountain residents. They have run into several regulatory hurdles from the town and WWTA and I have tried to help them through these issues. Their portion of their meeting with the DRC lasted over 2 hours and led to several decisions that they needed to appeal, one involving a logo required by their corporate office and one involving an admittedly awkward location for their drive-through. To make a long story short, I was highly gratified that the council decided to overrule the DRC and approve the items as appealed. This was after some discussion back and forth between Guthrie's and town staff and included give and take on both sides. It involved a drive-through setup with no perfect solution and I appreciate the council deciding to err on the side of supporting local business. While the process was unnecessarily long and tedious, I was glad it led to a positive outcome.
I should emphasize that I do not have a problem with reasonable regulations (reasonable being an admittedly loaded word). However, I feel that such regulations should be clear and precise and easy to interpret so that a building can follow them. If a business then follows the guidelines, their process of starting a business up here should be smooth and easy. I realize that no regulations can be perfect and account for every condition. That is where the DRC can be helpful and I have seen them work with a business to advise them on their signs or design in a cooperative fashion. They should also advise the council when they think their guidelines (which are town ordinances) need revision. However, no commission or councilmember should insert their personal opinions for or against business decisions that they just don't like or agree with.
Finally, there was an announcement from Hershel Dick that he would not run for re-election and from Susan Robertson that she would run to stay on the council. So the town council election, to be held Tuesday, Nov. 2, will have three seats up for election. So far, Susan Robertson is the only candidate who has announced. I have heard from one or two folks thinking of running, but noone else has announced yet. Decisions need to be made soon. The deadline for submitting your application to run (you have to get a small number of voters to sign a petition) is August 19. If anyone has any questions about the process of running or what's involved in serving, I would be happy to talk with them.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and some random political thoughts...
The League of Signal Mountain Voters met on Saturday, June 12. Dr. Clif Cleaveland led a discussion of the recent health care reform bill with 14 interested citizens. It was an informative presentation with questions and discussion which was polite and respectful showing Signal Mountain's citizens at their best.
Dr. Cleaveland gave some perspective and background, pointed out facts about health care delivery in the United States, based both on his research and extensive experience as a long-practicing physician. He pointed out the need for more coverage, more coordination of care, better cost-containment and the need for people to live healthier lives. We discussed issues of malpractice and defensive medicine, compared America's system with several other countries. He layed out the timeline for implementation of the various aspects of the Act over the next 4 years. He recommended a website for further research: http://www.kff.org/.
I hope to have our next meeting in July or August. I had originally hoped to have a candidate forum with the candidates for the District 2 County Commission race, but as you know I have been essentially stonewalled by the two candidates. I hope that some sort of forum will occur. I find that many people are still not even aware that there is a race (they thought Fields won the race by winning the primary and don't even know there is an independent candidate) and certainly seem unaware of the candidates' positions. While I encourage people to go to the candidates websites, I also strongly urge people to ask some hard questions of the candidates. They have encourage you call them and both have phone numbers and email addresses on their websites and in the Signal Mountain Guild phonebook. Both candidates have a site on Facebook.
Jim Fields' website is:
http://www.electjimfields.com/ . Mr. Fields also highlights his involvement in this organization:
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/
Mr. Fields makes no mention of education on his website that I can find, even though this has been an important issue on Signal Mountain and figured prominently in our forum with him and Dr. Casavant in May. He made a mention of the importance of paying attention to private schools and home-schooling, but didn't elaborate on how that relates to the County Commission position. He also looks to balance the budget with budget cuts, but is unable to provide specifics. He supports term limits, but doesn't specify how many terms he would serve. I would encourage voters to press him on these points.
David Cantrell's website is: http://www.davidcantrell.org/ . Mr. Cantrell is running as an independent, though I understand he voted in the Democratic Primary in 2006 and 2008. He moved here in 2005, so I don't know if he had any political involvement prior to that. He does have a statement on his website in support of public education, though I have a hard time squaring this with his active support of Joe Dumas in the School Board race 2 years ago (his wife was Joe's campaign treasurer). Since he wasn't here for the various votes that allowed the high school to be built here, I think it is important to ask for more specifics about just how he would support public education and whether he would have supported building the high school up here or whether he agreed with Joe Dumas' active and vocal opposition to the high school. Interestingly, Joe Dumas endorsed Jim Fields in the Republican Primary.
I do want to remind everyone to vote on August 5 or during early voting (July 16 - July 31). I also want to remind everyone that the Signal Mountain Town Council elections will be November 2. As you know, I am not running for re-election and at this point, Hershel Dick has not decided if he is running or not. Susan Robertson apparently is running for re-election. Anyone interested in running needs to file their petition by Thursday, August 19 at 12noon. So, if anyone has thought about serving their community, this would be a good year with at least one open seat on the council. Feel free to contact me for information or go to: http://elect.hamiltontn.gov/default.aspx. The last council election was uncontested which is never a good thing in a democracy.
Dr. Cleaveland gave some perspective and background, pointed out facts about health care delivery in the United States, based both on his research and extensive experience as a long-practicing physician. He pointed out the need for more coverage, more coordination of care, better cost-containment and the need for people to live healthier lives. We discussed issues of malpractice and defensive medicine, compared America's system with several other countries. He layed out the timeline for implementation of the various aspects of the Act over the next 4 years. He recommended a website for further research: http://www.kff.org/.
I hope to have our next meeting in July or August. I had originally hoped to have a candidate forum with the candidates for the District 2 County Commission race, but as you know I have been essentially stonewalled by the two candidates. I hope that some sort of forum will occur. I find that many people are still not even aware that there is a race (they thought Fields won the race by winning the primary and don't even know there is an independent candidate) and certainly seem unaware of the candidates' positions. While I encourage people to go to the candidates websites, I also strongly urge people to ask some hard questions of the candidates. They have encourage you call them and both have phone numbers and email addresses on their websites and in the Signal Mountain Guild phonebook. Both candidates have a site on Facebook.
Jim Fields' website is:
http://www.electjimfields.com/ . Mr. Fields also highlights his involvement in this organization:
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/
Mr. Fields makes no mention of education on his website that I can find, even though this has been an important issue on Signal Mountain and figured prominently in our forum with him and Dr. Casavant in May. He made a mention of the importance of paying attention to private schools and home-schooling, but didn't elaborate on how that relates to the County Commission position. He also looks to balance the budget with budget cuts, but is unable to provide specifics. He supports term limits, but doesn't specify how many terms he would serve. I would encourage voters to press him on these points.
David Cantrell's website is: http://www.davidcantrell.org/ . Mr. Cantrell is running as an independent, though I understand he voted in the Democratic Primary in 2006 and 2008. He moved here in 2005, so I don't know if he had any political involvement prior to that. He does have a statement on his website in support of public education, though I have a hard time squaring this with his active support of Joe Dumas in the School Board race 2 years ago (his wife was Joe's campaign treasurer). Since he wasn't here for the various votes that allowed the high school to be built here, I think it is important to ask for more specifics about just how he would support public education and whether he would have supported building the high school up here or whether he agreed with Joe Dumas' active and vocal opposition to the high school. Interestingly, Joe Dumas endorsed Jim Fields in the Republican Primary.
I do want to remind everyone to vote on August 5 or during early voting (July 16 - July 31). I also want to remind everyone that the Signal Mountain Town Council elections will be November 2. As you know, I am not running for re-election and at this point, Hershel Dick has not decided if he is running or not. Susan Robertson apparently is running for re-election. Anyone interested in running needs to file their petition by Thursday, August 19 at 12noon. So, if anyone has thought about serving their community, this would be a good year with at least one open seat on the council. Feel free to contact me for information or go to: http://elect.hamiltontn.gov/default.aspx. The last council election was uncontested which is never a good thing in a democracy.
Monday, June 07, 2010
MACC Roof and public input
On June 4 we had our monthly "agenda meeting". Most of this was routine. An engineer (James Cawthorne) presented details on planned improvements in water supply to our water customers down near the "space house" and Loretta Hopper reported on research on traffic calming devices like rumble strips. We also discussed an exciting proposal from a private company to do curbside recycling for a monthly fee but with "rebates" in the form of reward points based on amount recycled. We are researching this further, also.
Another issue which came up was one I thought of as minor though it created quite a stir from the rest of the council. However, it does bring up the broader issue of the role of our various town commissions and boards. We have many such boards and this council has expanded the numbers of boards over the last 3 1/2 years. It is my opinion that these boards are a valuable way to get citizens involved directly in town activities and provide valuable public input on specific issues as representatives of the town. While the town council obviously has final authority and responsibility to decide, I have always felt that input from citizen boards on issues pertinent to their area of interest should be strongly considered. Sometimes, it is valuable to try to hold large public hearings for citizen input, but doing this on too many issues can lead to paralysis.
The specific issue being considered was the project to replace the roof on the Mountain Arts Community Center. This roof was originally slate, but over time has been mostly replaced with shingles. The architect planning this project presented the idea of using a dark, brick red color which he felt would compliment the mountain stone facade. He presented this to town staff who liked the idea. Frankly, I was initially dubious, but after seeing a picture of the what the MACC would look like I was intrigued. I then was up in Nashville visiting the Hermitage and saw several old service building from the 20's and 30's with similar roofs and realized how attractive they were and that this would be an historic look and I became supportive. The staff then took it to the appropriate town committees. This was approved unanimously by the MACC Board. The MACC Foundation, formerly known as Friends of MACC, is not an official "town" board, but they reviewed the idea and approved it (I think there was one dissenting vote). Finally, the project went before the town Design Review Committee where it was also approved unanimously and, as I understand it with minimal controversy or discussion. My understanding was that the council liaison, Susan Robertson even raised no objections at that time. Nonetheless, with the shingles on order for this past Tuesday, Annette Allen went to the town manager over the Memorial Day holiday to ask for a public hearing process to approve this change and sent an email to the council. Bill Lusk emailed that the town should go ahead and replace the roof with his own personal choice of color for the roof based on the previous color instead of the one approved by the multiple committees. We delayed the process until the end of the week when our meeting was scheduled. This meeting was well-attended by members of the MACC Board, MACC Foundation and DRC and MACC Board chairman Bill Wallace made a presentation on the process of making this decision and asking why the council disagreed. The other members of the council stated that they thought it wouldn't be accepted by the public. When I pointed out that nearly 100% of the "public" on these three committees had supported it, I was told that they (the committees) were not representative of the "public" because they were "artsy" people and better educated than the general citizenry of Signal Mountain. I obviously objected strenuously and made a motion to accept the recommendation of the architect, staff, MACC Board, MACC Foundation and DRC. This motion was rejected 1-4. So, the MACC will have a grey roof (decided on by the council majority without any further public input). Since the price of shingles was supposed to go up 5-7% the next week, the various committees present asked the council to move forward rather than drag this out any longer with further public hearings.
Obviously, this view of "citizen input" disagrees with my view. In our last meeting, we were presented with a budget item to replace the floor in the gym. This was a high priority from the Recreation Committee and was recommended by our staff (including the Recreation Director and Town Manager). The Council decided to take this item out of the budget. I recommended we meet with the Rec Board to better understand the need, but was overrulled with Hershel Dick in particular being very adamant that we should not have the board talking to us about budget items and that only staff should have input. Bill Lusk stated at our next meeting that he had "shot a few hoops" in the gym that morning and decided the floor did not need replacement. Again, I would have preferred a more open process with input from the citizen committee which has responsibility and particular interest in this area. A final example involves the MACC Board once again when they recently had some questions about the salary and employment agreement of the MACC Director and Mr. Dick asked Honna Rogers to inform the MACC Board that the director "works for the town, not for them". I pointed out that, frankly I considered the citizens to be the town and that we, the Council and all the staff work for "them". This is my opinion.
I would urge citizens to give thought to our various committees and their responsibilities (and the amount of time that citizens volunteer for these committees) and let the council know if they are comfortable with these boards representing them.
Another issue which came up was one I thought of as minor though it created quite a stir from the rest of the council. However, it does bring up the broader issue of the role of our various town commissions and boards. We have many such boards and this council has expanded the numbers of boards over the last 3 1/2 years. It is my opinion that these boards are a valuable way to get citizens involved directly in town activities and provide valuable public input on specific issues as representatives of the town. While the town council obviously has final authority and responsibility to decide, I have always felt that input from citizen boards on issues pertinent to their area of interest should be strongly considered. Sometimes, it is valuable to try to hold large public hearings for citizen input, but doing this on too many issues can lead to paralysis.
The specific issue being considered was the project to replace the roof on the Mountain Arts Community Center. This roof was originally slate, but over time has been mostly replaced with shingles. The architect planning this project presented the idea of using a dark, brick red color which he felt would compliment the mountain stone facade. He presented this to town staff who liked the idea. Frankly, I was initially dubious, but after seeing a picture of the what the MACC would look like I was intrigued. I then was up in Nashville visiting the Hermitage and saw several old service building from the 20's and 30's with similar roofs and realized how attractive they were and that this would be an historic look and I became supportive. The staff then took it to the appropriate town committees. This was approved unanimously by the MACC Board. The MACC Foundation, formerly known as Friends of MACC, is not an official "town" board, but they reviewed the idea and approved it (I think there was one dissenting vote). Finally, the project went before the town Design Review Committee where it was also approved unanimously and, as I understand it with minimal controversy or discussion. My understanding was that the council liaison, Susan Robertson even raised no objections at that time. Nonetheless, with the shingles on order for this past Tuesday, Annette Allen went to the town manager over the Memorial Day holiday to ask for a public hearing process to approve this change and sent an email to the council. Bill Lusk emailed that the town should go ahead and replace the roof with his own personal choice of color for the roof based on the previous color instead of the one approved by the multiple committees. We delayed the process until the end of the week when our meeting was scheduled. This meeting was well-attended by members of the MACC Board, MACC Foundation and DRC and MACC Board chairman Bill Wallace made a presentation on the process of making this decision and asking why the council disagreed. The other members of the council stated that they thought it wouldn't be accepted by the public. When I pointed out that nearly 100% of the "public" on these three committees had supported it, I was told that they (the committees) were not representative of the "public" because they were "artsy" people and better educated than the general citizenry of Signal Mountain. I obviously objected strenuously and made a motion to accept the recommendation of the architect, staff, MACC Board, MACC Foundation and DRC. This motion was rejected 1-4. So, the MACC will have a grey roof (decided on by the council majority without any further public input). Since the price of shingles was supposed to go up 5-7% the next week, the various committees present asked the council to move forward rather than drag this out any longer with further public hearings.
Obviously, this view of "citizen input" disagrees with my view. In our last meeting, we were presented with a budget item to replace the floor in the gym. This was a high priority from the Recreation Committee and was recommended by our staff (including the Recreation Director and Town Manager). The Council decided to take this item out of the budget. I recommended we meet with the Rec Board to better understand the need, but was overrulled with Hershel Dick in particular being very adamant that we should not have the board talking to us about budget items and that only staff should have input. Bill Lusk stated at our next meeting that he had "shot a few hoops" in the gym that morning and decided the floor did not need replacement. Again, I would have preferred a more open process with input from the citizen committee which has responsibility and particular interest in this area. A final example involves the MACC Board once again when they recently had some questions about the salary and employment agreement of the MACC Director and Mr. Dick asked Honna Rogers to inform the MACC Board that the director "works for the town, not for them". I pointed out that, frankly I considered the citizens to be the town and that we, the Council and all the staff work for "them". This is my opinion.
I would urge citizens to give thought to our various committees and their responsibilities (and the amount of time that citizens volunteer for these committees) and let the council know if they are comfortable with these boards representing them.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
.jpg)
Thursday, May 20, 2010
County Commission election forum follow-up
It appears that my efforts to put together a candidate forum for the District 2 general election will not be successful. As you probably know, a political discussion group I formed, The League of Signal Mountain Voters had an informal forum before the Republican primary between the two Republican candidates, Casavant and Fields. We had always planned to do another one for the general election between the primary winner and the independent candidate, David Cantrell.
Immediately after the primary, on May 6 to be exact I talked directly with both candidates to inform them of our plans and followed with up with an email that same day suggesting details. At that time I suggested that the middle two weeks of July would be ideal, due to early voting dates, but that I was open to other dates and suggestions. I lined up the auditorium at SMMHS for this with the support of Principal McCullough.
After not hearing anything for several days, I ran into Mr. Fields who stated he was waiting to talk with Mr. Cantrell. While I thought it unusual that the candidates were working together on this, I felt that at least we were making progress. I subsequently learned that Mr. Cantrell suggested the dates of June 5-19 and Mr. Fields said he wouldn't be able to make those dates. I followed up with the two candidates on May 17 and asked if they could confirm a date before May 22. This was for my convenience since I have to set my July work schedule by then. Mr. Fields said that he was unable to make that deadline. I told him that scheduling would be more difficult for me after that, but that I was still open to working with them. Mr. Cantrell stated that he could't do the third week in July (seemingly implying that was the only time I had offered to do this) and that he was working with "others" to put on a forum.
I then learned that Mr. Cantrell had contacted town manager Honna Rogers about putting on a forum, without telling her that I was working on such a forum. Frankly I think this was disingenuous on his part. In retrospect I wish I had informed her that I was doing this (I guess I thought she would have read this in my blog). I did not think the town would or should conduct this for several reasons. First, to my knowledge the town has not previously conducted forums for races other than the town council. More importantly, it is well known that the Cantrells are close social friends of the rest of the council. Annette Allen and her husband, John Shearburn have already donated $1000 to Mr. Cantrell's campaign (as of the last reporting period: http://elect.hamiltontn.gov/candidate/current/042910/Cantrell,%20David%202010-04-24.pdf). I don't know if any of the others have donated to him since 4/24. Both Bill Lusk and Susan Robertson are listed as supportive on his campaign Facebook page and Bill Lusk's wife, Sandy has a link to Mr. Cantrell's site on her website: http://southernliberalliving.com/. I have not found similar links to Mr. Fields' sites. Because of this I was concerned that any forum sponsored by the Council would be unlikely to be acceptable to Mr. Fields. This is why I kept my efforts separate.
It certainly seems that both candidates have told me to move on and that they are unable to make a commitment. Frankly, the fact that these two were unable to find 2 free hours between May 6 and August 5 to get together to discuss issues with the voters makes me wonder how they will find time to serve on a County Commission which is essentially a second job and quite a busy one, but that is a question for the voters to ask him (although I am one of those, aren't I?). While I remain open if the candidates request my involvement, I will no longer actively pursue this effort.
The League of Signal Mountain voters will continue, however with a meeting on Saturday, June 12 at 10am on the porch at Sweet Gipsy. Dr. Clif Cleaveland will update us on the status of the health care reform legislation recently passed with an emphasis on implementation schedules and implications. Dr. Cleaveland is a well-respected physician and very knowledgeable about health care policy. This should be an excellent discussion. These meetings are always open to anyone interested in open-minded and civil discussion of important issues.
Immediately after the primary, on May 6 to be exact I talked directly with both candidates to inform them of our plans and followed with up with an email that same day suggesting details. At that time I suggested that the middle two weeks of July would be ideal, due to early voting dates, but that I was open to other dates and suggestions. I lined up the auditorium at SMMHS for this with the support of Principal McCullough.
After not hearing anything for several days, I ran into Mr. Fields who stated he was waiting to talk with Mr. Cantrell. While I thought it unusual that the candidates were working together on this, I felt that at least we were making progress. I subsequently learned that Mr. Cantrell suggested the dates of June 5-19 and Mr. Fields said he wouldn't be able to make those dates. I followed up with the two candidates on May 17 and asked if they could confirm a date before May 22. This was for my convenience since I have to set my July work schedule by then. Mr. Fields said that he was unable to make that deadline. I told him that scheduling would be more difficult for me after that, but that I was still open to working with them. Mr. Cantrell stated that he could't do the third week in July (seemingly implying that was the only time I had offered to do this) and that he was working with "others" to put on a forum.
I then learned that Mr. Cantrell had contacted town manager Honna Rogers about putting on a forum, without telling her that I was working on such a forum. Frankly I think this was disingenuous on his part. In retrospect I wish I had informed her that I was doing this (I guess I thought she would have read this in my blog). I did not think the town would or should conduct this for several reasons. First, to my knowledge the town has not previously conducted forums for races other than the town council. More importantly, it is well known that the Cantrells are close social friends of the rest of the council. Annette Allen and her husband, John Shearburn have already donated $1000 to Mr. Cantrell's campaign (as of the last reporting period: http://elect.hamiltontn.gov/candidate/current/042910/Cantrell,%20David%202010-04-24.pdf). I don't know if any of the others have donated to him since 4/24. Both Bill Lusk and Susan Robertson are listed as supportive on his campaign Facebook page and Bill Lusk's wife, Sandy has a link to Mr. Cantrell's site on her website: http://southernliberalliving.com/. I have not found similar links to Mr. Fields' sites. Because of this I was concerned that any forum sponsored by the Council would be unlikely to be acceptable to Mr. Fields. This is why I kept my efforts separate.
It certainly seems that both candidates have told me to move on and that they are unable to make a commitment. Frankly, the fact that these two were unable to find 2 free hours between May 6 and August 5 to get together to discuss issues with the voters makes me wonder how they will find time to serve on a County Commission which is essentially a second job and quite a busy one, but that is a question for the voters to ask him (although I am one of those, aren't I?). While I remain open if the candidates request my involvement, I will no longer actively pursue this effort.
The League of Signal Mountain voters will continue, however with a meeting on Saturday, June 12 at 10am on the porch at Sweet Gipsy. Dr. Clif Cleaveland will update us on the status of the health care reform legislation recently passed with an emphasis on implementation schedules and implications. Dr. Cleaveland is a well-respected physician and very knowledgeable about health care policy. This should be an excellent discussion. These meetings are always open to anyone interested in open-minded and civil discussion of important issues.
Monday, May 17, 2010
County Commission election forum
I am still waiting to hear from the two candidates for a commitment to a candidate forum this July. I had asked for a commitment by this past weekend or certainly by the end of this week (frankly, this is for my sake because of my work schedule). Mr. Fields said he couldn't commit by the end of this week. I have not received a reply from Mr. Cantrell other than his initial "I'll get back to you" reply. If anyone out there knows either of these gentlemen and supports the idea of a forum, I would ask you to encourage them to contact me. I have the sponsorship of Signal Mountain Middle/High School since we are using their auditorium. I also have a commitment from the Community News to give this forum coverage (I haven't contacted other outlets such as TV or Chattanoogan.com, yet. I was waiting for more specific dates). I am still hopeful this forum will occur. I feel strongly that the voters deserve more information to decide about these two gentlemen, especially as neither has served in public office before and therefore neither has a record. I encourage everyone to look at their campaign websites and ask them to be more specific about their specific stands on issues:
http://electjimfields.com/
http://davidcantrell.org/
I do want to thank Mr. Cantrell for responding to my curiousity about his independent candidacy (http://chattanoogan.com/articles/article_175379.asp ).Frankly, I thought his response was pretty good. One of the pleasures of running for town council was the fact that it was a non-partisan race and this liberated me from being attached to any irrelevant national "party" issues. As Richard Casavant used to tell me "potholes don't have parties"... ie, local issues rarely fall down into partisan positions, so I certainly understand where Mr. Cantrell is coming from even though it does make it a harder race to run.
One other issue... I am going to start moderating responses to this blog. I do not intend to prevent anyone from responding to the issues I have covered. All the responses I have received to my blog issues have been appropriate and highly appreciated by me. However, somehow I am getting some occasional Chinese and Russian spam and even porn, which I do not want getting through, so plan to delete that. If you ever send a response and don't see it on here within a day, please email me (paulmhmd@comcast.net) and I'll be sure it gets there, but hopefully I can screen out the inappropriate and irrelevant nonsense. Ain't the internet a wonderful thing???
Thanks for the interest.
Paul M. Hendricks
http://electjimfields.com/
http://davidcantrell.org/
I do want to thank Mr. Cantrell for responding to my curiousity about his independent candidacy (http://chattanoogan.com/articles/article_175379.asp ).Frankly, I thought his response was pretty good. One of the pleasures of running for town council was the fact that it was a non-partisan race and this liberated me from being attached to any irrelevant national "party" issues. As Richard Casavant used to tell me "potholes don't have parties"... ie, local issues rarely fall down into partisan positions, so I certainly understand where Mr. Cantrell is coming from even though it does make it a harder race to run.
One other issue... I am going to start moderating responses to this blog. I do not intend to prevent anyone from responding to the issues I have covered. All the responses I have received to my blog issues have been appropriate and highly appreciated by me. However, somehow I am getting some occasional Chinese and Russian spam and even porn, which I do not want getting through, so plan to delete that. If you ever send a response and don't see it on here within a day, please email me (paulmhmd@comcast.net) and I'll be sure it gets there, but hopefully I can screen out the inappropriate and irrelevant nonsense. Ain't the internet a wonderful thing???
Thanks for the interest.
Paul M. Hendricks
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
County Commission election forum
As I have previously stated, I am working on putting together a candidate forum between County Commission candidates David Cantrell (I) and Jim Fields (R). I wanted to make something clear about our earlier forum. When we initially discussed having the forum held earlier between Mr. Fields and Mr. Casavant, I reminded the group that there was an independent candidate in the general election, Mr. Cantrell and asked if we should invite him. The consensus of the group was to only invite the candidates in the upcoming Republican primary. Our intent was always to have another forum between the winner of the Republican Primary and Mr. Cantrell before the general election. I am currently negotiating with the candidates to establish a date in July to hold this forum. SMMHS principal Tom McCullough has agreed to sponsor the forum in the auditorium at the high school. With two months to prepare, I hope for this forum to be better organized and better publicized than the last one which was admittedly a last minute affair. I am hoping that one function of the new organization we are forming, the League of Signal Mountain Voters will be to hold more forums such as this for local elections such as Town Council races (both for Signal Mountain and Walden) and County Commission and School Board races and maybe even state legislative elections. I'll post details when available.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
County Commission primary
I am obviously saddened by the loss of Richard Casavant in the County Commission race. I have great respect for Richard and his service to our town and county. Without Richard we would not have a high school on Signal Mountain according to Claude Ramsey (along with Chip Baker and the many, many friends of the High School).
I do congratulate Jim Fields on his victory and compliment him for his gracious comments about Dr. Casavant after the election.
As you should know, Mr. Fields will be running against David Cantrell in the general election on August 5. I honestly don't know Mr. Cantrell well at all, I've probably never said more than hello to him. I have had my differences with his wife, Melissa Cantrell who is the chair of the Planning Commission, though I realize that shouldn't reflect on him. I do know that he and his wife were strong supporters of and campaign workers for Joe Dumas during Joe's last political campaign which clearly raises red flags in regards to his support for public education. Other than the initial announcement article in the Chattanoogan:( http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_171610.asp )I have heard nothing of what his positions are or his reasons for running. I am, of course always curious about reasons why someone runs as an "independent". I really don't know his politics except that his wife once implied to me that they were Democrats (in an email from Ms. Cantrell she said to me "I've even been told that you are a Democrat - not a bad thing in my household"). Clearly if he was to run as a Democrat the primary field would have been clear. So, that is a question I would like to ask.
I was quite appalled at the lack of opportunity for the candidates to present their views to the voters. As you know, I put together a last minute forum for the two Republican candidates which suffered from being last minute. I plan to work towards putting together a forum this summer for Mr. Fields and Mr. Cantrell to present their views to the public. Details are pending, but I will work at publicizing it as much as possible.
Finally, I was also appalled at the pitiful turnout for this election. Less than 8.5% of Hamilton County voters voted. That is shameful. Stuart James commented on this on his blog:
http://www.truthfactor.org/articles_details.php?The-Death-of-Our-Republic-538 . I hope that we can get better attention on the upcoming general election this summer (August 5) and fall.
I do congratulate Jim Fields on his victory and compliment him for his gracious comments about Dr. Casavant after the election.
As you should know, Mr. Fields will be running against David Cantrell in the general election on August 5. I honestly don't know Mr. Cantrell well at all, I've probably never said more than hello to him. I have had my differences with his wife, Melissa Cantrell who is the chair of the Planning Commission, though I realize that shouldn't reflect on him. I do know that he and his wife were strong supporters of and campaign workers for Joe Dumas during Joe's last political campaign which clearly raises red flags in regards to his support for public education. Other than the initial announcement article in the Chattanoogan:( http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_171610.asp )I have heard nothing of what his positions are or his reasons for running. I am, of course always curious about reasons why someone runs as an "independent". I really don't know his politics except that his wife once implied to me that they were Democrats (in an email from Ms. Cantrell she said to me "I've even been told that you are a Democrat - not a bad thing in my household"). Clearly if he was to run as a Democrat the primary field would have been clear. So, that is a question I would like to ask.
I was quite appalled at the lack of opportunity for the candidates to present their views to the voters. As you know, I put together a last minute forum for the two Republican candidates which suffered from being last minute. I plan to work towards putting together a forum this summer for Mr. Fields and Mr. Cantrell to present their views to the public. Details are pending, but I will work at publicizing it as much as possible.
Finally, I was also appalled at the pitiful turnout for this election. Less than 8.5% of Hamilton County voters voted. That is shameful. Stuart James commented on this on his blog:
http://www.truthfactor.org/articles_details.php?The-Death-of-Our-Republic-538 . I hope that we can get better attention on the upcoming general election this summer (August 5) and fall.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Candidate Forum News
Intrepid voters!
On Saturday morning, April 24, a group of hardy souls braved the rain and gathered on the porch at Sweet Gipsy Coffee Shop on Signal Mountain to hear from the two Republican candidates for County Commission District 2. Incumbent Richard Casavant and challenger Jim Fields spoke and answered questions for an hour on the topics confronting the County Commission and explicated their reasons for running.
Dr. Richard CasavantThe event started with opening statements. Dr. Casavant emphasized his experience and excitement about the future prospects for the county with the pending opening of the Volkswagon plant and several other new and expanding businesses. He mentioned his priorities were public education, sewer infrastructure to drive economic growth “where it needs to be rather than just where it perks”, and supporting opportunities for young families.
James FieldsMr. Fields emphasized his business experience as a lawyer running a small practice and his volunteer work with his church and other community organizations. He stated he was running as a conservative and emphasized his opposition to any new taxes.
The floor was then opened for questions and education was clearly on everyone’s mind. The first question was about the news of the day that money was yet to be found to support the German “school” or program promised to Volkswagon executives. The moderator asked if the rainy day fund would be tapped or if other sources would be found. Dr. Casavant stated his support for this promise and his conviction that the money would be found. He stated he opposed using the rainy day fund in order to protect the county’s AAA bond rating which keeps interest rates low. He stated that the ultimate problem with funding was at the state level and that the BEP formula was unfair. Mr. Fields also agreed that the funding for the German school should be protected. He stated that education was important and that, rather than raising funds he would look at the cost side for ways to balance budgets. He also stated that private school and home school students should be addressed, but wasn’t specific about just how.
The next question was on protecting the IB program at Signal Mountain Middle/High School. Dr. Casavant stated that he was working on getting the teachers for the IB program. Mr. Fields stated that he couldn’t guarantee any positions and had no specific answer, but would do his best to fund education.
Next, the candidates were asked about Mr. Fields pledge to cut costs and he was asked for specifics. He stated he would “look through the budget” for what is essential, but did not know the specifics although he pledged not to cut “the classroom”. Dr. Casavant commented that there was always room for more efficiency, but that it was more important to be effective and give the teachers the tools to teach. He said that the education budget was already very lean. He stated he was proud of what has been accomplished on Signal Mountain and wanted to be sure that no “sand was put in the gears”. He also reminded the audience that there were other schools in the district that had to be considered, specifically mentioning the new Middle School in Red Bank.
On a related topic, but with a different approach, the candidates were asked “what’s wrong with increasing taxes for schools”. The questioner commented on living in other areas with higher taxes and more resources for schools. Mr. Fields again commented that he opposed increasing taxes unless it was voted for in a public referendum. Dr. Casavant noted that the property tax rate since 1997 had decreased from 2.982 per hundred to 2.7652 per hundred. While this decrease was primarily to compensate for increased assessments, he noted that without the increases passed over the last 12 years the town’s fiscal status would be very poor. He also commented that most of those increases had gone to schools.
Next, Mr. Fields was asked what new ideas he would bring to the County Commission. He corrected the questioner that he would actually bring a new perspective and different experiences. He stated he would focus on the VW plant and encourage local hiring, though again was not specific about how he would accomplish this. He mentioned the idea of having commission meetings at night. Dr. Casavant reiterated his excitement about the future for Hamilton County. He noted that he had seen an increase in his students getting jobs locally and the fact that the VW plant is already hiring and will be making cars soon. He also commented on the changing nature of our community due to international investment in Hamilton County and how important it was for us to prepare for global competition. He expressed his desire to continue to be a part of this economic future.
On a lighter note, the candidates were asked what they would do to improve the nutritional quality of school lunches! They both stated that they supported nutritional meals, but that those specifics were more the responsibility of the school board.
A more pointed question was then asked. The audience member questioned the “rosie picture” of the local situation presented by Dr. Casavant. He mentioned Spring Hill and wondered if the VW plant would just become an albatross, asking if taxes would rise to fund VW. Dr. Casavant mentioned examples such as Greenville, SC and West Point, GA which, unlike Spring Hill continue to have successful auto plants. He noted the importance to diversify our economy to prevent the very problem that the questioner presented and keep the county from becoming too dependent just on VW. Mr. Fields agreed with Dr. Casavant about the need to diversify and again stated his opposition to taxes as inhibiting business.
A related question on what else might be in the works for Hamilton County was put to Dr. Casavant. He noted that we should always be careful about assisting businesses since we can’t predict future success. He stated that we need people willing to risk their own money as entrepreneurs. Dr. Casavant was also asked about a rumor the questioner had heard about “discretionary funds” that each commissioner has and he reassured the questioner that any left over funds stayed with the county and would not be kept by him personally if he left office.
During closing statements, the candidates asked for the votes of the group and thanked them for their interest. The candidates had both agreed to answer questions from each other and Dr. Casavant asked Mr. Fields a final question about whether he had supported the bond issue which allowed SMMHS to be built. Mr. Fields responded that he had voted against that bond issue. He later contacted the moderator to clarify that his vote was not against the high school, but against the funding mechanism.
The group sponsoring this forum is a political discussion group recently formed by a group of friends on Signal Mountain. They plan to meet regularly to inform themselves and the public about issues and the public are always welcome at their meetings. They are meeting under the name “League of Signal Mountain Voters” and future meetings will be publicly announced.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Big Weekend Coming Up
Two big events this weekend deserve notice.
First, Saturday morning, April 24 there will be an informal candidate forum with the two Republican candidates for County Commission District 2 from 10-11am at Sweet Gipsy Coffee Shop. Some friends and I have recently started a political discussion group, tentatively called the "League of Signal Mountain Voters". This initially was inspired by the CoffeePartyUSA which was started as a counterpart to the so-called "Tea Party" movement. While the Coffee Party has had a decidedly liberal or progressive approach, we decided to keep this group non-partisan at the local level so are not formally affiliated with them. Our primary emphasis is to discuss issues on a factual basis with openness to opposing and dissenting viewpoints and a polite and civil approach to discussion. So, with all that introduction, we had our first meeting at Sweet Gipsy coffee shop a week ago with about a dozen folks there talking about what we wanted to do with this concept. We decided to put a strong emphasis on encourage voter education, participation and turnout, especially with the county primary coming up on May 4. So, that being said, we will have current County Commissioner Richard Casavant and his Republican opponent, Jim Fields at our meeting on Saturday at 10am on the porch at Sweet Gipsy. This will be open to the public. I will moderate and will expect all to act in a civil and respectful manner. There will be opening comments and then questions from the audience.
On a lighter note, the next day, Sunday April 25 The Orchard Band, featuring Robert and Alice Thatcher and myself will be performing at Sweet Gipsy during their weekly Sunday brunch from 11am-2pm. We will also have guest performers! So come on down for lunch and some good acoustic music!
First, Saturday morning, April 24 there will be an informal candidate forum with the two Republican candidates for County Commission District 2 from 10-11am at Sweet Gipsy Coffee Shop. Some friends and I have recently started a political discussion group, tentatively called the "League of Signal Mountain Voters". This initially was inspired by the CoffeePartyUSA which was started as a counterpart to the so-called "Tea Party" movement. While the Coffee Party has had a decidedly liberal or progressive approach, we decided to keep this group non-partisan at the local level so are not formally affiliated with them. Our primary emphasis is to discuss issues on a factual basis with openness to opposing and dissenting viewpoints and a polite and civil approach to discussion. So, with all that introduction, we had our first meeting at Sweet Gipsy coffee shop a week ago with about a dozen folks there talking about what we wanted to do with this concept. We decided to put a strong emphasis on encourage voter education, participation and turnout, especially with the county primary coming up on May 4. So, that being said, we will have current County Commissioner Richard Casavant and his Republican opponent, Jim Fields at our meeting on Saturday at 10am on the porch at Sweet Gipsy. This will be open to the public. I will moderate and will expect all to act in a civil and respectful manner. There will be opening comments and then questions from the audience.
On a lighter note, the next day, Sunday April 25 The Orchard Band, featuring Robert and Alice Thatcher and myself will be performing at Sweet Gipsy during their weekly Sunday brunch from 11am-2pm. We will also have guest performers! So come on down for lunch and some good acoustic music!
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Commercial Design Public Meeting
This Thursday, March 25 from 6pm-8pm there will be a public meeting at the Town Hall. It will be conducted by Ann Coulter and her company whom the town has consulted to help in developing commercial design standards. I urge all citizens to come and express their opinions on this subject.
I have to confess that I was initially reluctant at the expense for this project. The original cost was approx. $50,000. After some negotiation and narrowing of focus, we were able to decrease that to approx $25,000. I said at the time that I felt the timing was appropriate because I expected new commercial development on the mountain. Frankly, because of the enthusiasm this council has expressed toward expanded commercial development, I expected the proposed grocery store project behind the current shopping center to be approved. If I had known it would be rejected, I would have preferred to wait on this consultation until our finances were more robust. Nonetheless, this meeting is being held and it is important that all citizens have a say in the future of the mountain.
The scope of this project has been somewhat misunderstood. Some have thought that Ms. Coulter would recommend where commercial development would occur on the mountain. However, those proposals were part of the land use plan and are included in that plan. Ms. Coulter will be helping the Design Review Commissiond revise our commercial design standards for appearance of our commercial buildings. This will obviously be of particular interest to owners and tenants of our current buildings and those interested in future developments. However, all citizens should have an interest and a say in these standards and also understand the potential pros and cons of such design standards in the area of expense, limits on renovationst, etc. So please turn out this Thursday and let us know what you think.
I have to confess that I was initially reluctant at the expense for this project. The original cost was approx. $50,000. After some negotiation and narrowing of focus, we were able to decrease that to approx $25,000. I said at the time that I felt the timing was appropriate because I expected new commercial development on the mountain. Frankly, because of the enthusiasm this council has expressed toward expanded commercial development, I expected the proposed grocery store project behind the current shopping center to be approved. If I had known it would be rejected, I would have preferred to wait on this consultation until our finances were more robust. Nonetheless, this meeting is being held and it is important that all citizens have a say in the future of the mountain.
The scope of this project has been somewhat misunderstood. Some have thought that Ms. Coulter would recommend where commercial development would occur on the mountain. However, those proposals were part of the land use plan and are included in that plan. Ms. Coulter will be helping the Design Review Commissiond revise our commercial design standards for appearance of our commercial buildings. This will obviously be of particular interest to owners and tenants of our current buildings and those interested in future developments. However, all citizens should have an interest and a say in these standards and also understand the potential pros and cons of such design standards in the area of expense, limits on renovationst, etc. So please turn out this Thursday and let us know what you think.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Shameless Musical Plug
Mark you calendars for this Sunday, March 7. My acoustic trio, The Orchard Band, featuring Robert and Alice Thatcher (and myself) will be performing at Sweet Gipsy coffee shop from 11am-2pm. So come by after church for lunch or a late breakfast and enjoy an eclectic variety of late '60's/early 70's acoustic music. For those of you who don't know where it is, it is on James Blvd, just north of Thrasher Elementary right at the entrance of the Orchard neighborhood! For directions, go to www.sweetgipsy.com! Y'all come!
Thursday, February 04, 2010
zoning request for grocery store
I just returned from the Planning Commission meeting. The PC recommended against rezoning the land behind the shopping center on a 4-2 vote. Cheryl Graham and Van Bunch were absent and Guy Beaty recused himself due to personal connections with the case.
I confess to having been quite surprised by this. The motion to deny was made by Annette Allen and seconded by Bill Lusk. This is particularly surprising considering that this council had been so aggressive in promoting commercial development. Just a year ago there was great enthusiasm by Ms. Allen and Robertson in particular for selling town property for commercial development. I also know that Bill Lusk has recently been buying some commercial property in the town (but not in the shopping center involved). He stated he wanted more time to talk with surrounding neighbors and walk the property even though the request was original presented in, I believe October if memory serves. I'm not sure what more he wanted to learn. He also said he talked with a large number of business owners and has been unable to find any of them who support this. I would be curious to know if any business owners reading this talked with him and what their reasons were for opposing it.
The projected tax benefits to the town from this development are projected to be on the order of $300,000 per year. I certainly agree with concerns about the surrounding property owners potentially affected by this, although only a few would actually be directly affected. Approximately half the property would be preserved as potential open space (I would certainly look for guarantees such as conservation easements for this). Since this area is currently zoned residential, that protection is not guaranteed at present and I'm sure that any potential residential development would try to maximize use of all the property. I'm also just as sure that the property owners will not be content to let the property stay undeveloped and the town cannot prohibit any development on this property.
After hearing the presentation tonight, I would certainly lean towards supporting this rezoning, but would like to look at ways to maximize protection of surrounding property owners, perhaps through wider buffers or berms or other options. I fear that the town is losing one of the only potential sources of new revenues considering the strong opposition to future residential growth and the difficulty of annexation (and the possibility that the state may make annexation even harder). Planning Commission member Wayne Williams made an eloquent statement on this point. Our budgets are getting tighter and the demands are getting greater.
As an example, the sidewalk proposed for James Blvd, while mostly funded with federal tax dollars, will also require about $50,000 in town contributions. Frankly, I begin to wonder if we can afford this. The MACC will require a substantial sum to repair the roof just to get it opened for business again and we need to make some major repairs to the gym roof. We need a new public works building desperately and, should the annexation go through, will probably need to build a new fire station on Shackleford Ridge Road (though we have some money set aside for that).
Folks, it is getting to be time to make some decisions. We all want more services and sidewalks and want to add more parks and preserve our open spaces (certainly things I support), but we are going to need to pay for it. Our revenues from the Hall Income Tax (on investments) have decreased with the problems on Wall Street and property taxes are really about all we have to go on. I fear we are trying to have our cake and eat it, too and I fear that our chickens will soon be coming home to roost (hey, is there a market for mixed metaphors??).
I confess to having been quite surprised by this. The motion to deny was made by Annette Allen and seconded by Bill Lusk. This is particularly surprising considering that this council had been so aggressive in promoting commercial development. Just a year ago there was great enthusiasm by Ms. Allen and Robertson in particular for selling town property for commercial development. I also know that Bill Lusk has recently been buying some commercial property in the town (but not in the shopping center involved). He stated he wanted more time to talk with surrounding neighbors and walk the property even though the request was original presented in, I believe October if memory serves. I'm not sure what more he wanted to learn. He also said he talked with a large number of business owners and has been unable to find any of them who support this. I would be curious to know if any business owners reading this talked with him and what their reasons were for opposing it.
The projected tax benefits to the town from this development are projected to be on the order of $300,000 per year. I certainly agree with concerns about the surrounding property owners potentially affected by this, although only a few would actually be directly affected. Approximately half the property would be preserved as potential open space (I would certainly look for guarantees such as conservation easements for this). Since this area is currently zoned residential, that protection is not guaranteed at present and I'm sure that any potential residential development would try to maximize use of all the property. I'm also just as sure that the property owners will not be content to let the property stay undeveloped and the town cannot prohibit any development on this property.
After hearing the presentation tonight, I would certainly lean towards supporting this rezoning, but would like to look at ways to maximize protection of surrounding property owners, perhaps through wider buffers or berms or other options. I fear that the town is losing one of the only potential sources of new revenues considering the strong opposition to future residential growth and the difficulty of annexation (and the possibility that the state may make annexation even harder). Planning Commission member Wayne Williams made an eloquent statement on this point. Our budgets are getting tighter and the demands are getting greater.
As an example, the sidewalk proposed for James Blvd, while mostly funded with federal tax dollars, will also require about $50,000 in town contributions. Frankly, I begin to wonder if we can afford this. The MACC will require a substantial sum to repair the roof just to get it opened for business again and we need to make some major repairs to the gym roof. We need a new public works building desperately and, should the annexation go through, will probably need to build a new fire station on Shackleford Ridge Road (though we have some money set aside for that).
Folks, it is getting to be time to make some decisions. We all want more services and sidewalks and want to add more parks and preserve our open spaces (certainly things I support), but we are going to need to pay for it. Our revenues from the Hall Income Tax (on investments) have decreased with the problems on Wall Street and property taxes are really about all we have to go on. I fear we are trying to have our cake and eat it, too and I fear that our chickens will soon be coming home to roost (hey, is there a market for mixed metaphors??).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)