Commission just declined 10-8 to keep Owings settlement resolution off the agenda, so it will not even be discussed.

Mark Harmon moved to handle the Owings resolution seperately, and the ten votes to keep it off the agenda were M Harmon, I Harmon, Cate, Cawood, Lambert, Moore, Ballard, Huddleston, Greene, Pinkston.

Well, that was fun while it lasted!

At least there was some drama...

(link...)

on his live blog (thanks for the link, Randy) Scott Barker reports that he, Rebecca Ferrar and Ansley Haman have been served with subpoenas for the upcoming trial.
(link...)

oops, should have looked at Randy's link before posting this. Sorry.

I'm sitting behind the guy holding up signs, so I can't read them. He has at least three he is cycling through. Can anyone read them?

There are three amendments being proposed to the stormwater ordinance, one by Mark Harmon, one by Tony Norman, one by Lumpy Lambert. There also appears to be amendments from Knox Co Engineering.

Rikki:
Signs say- "Did Judge Bill Swann beat up his wife" and "Where are Swann's divorce papers hidden".

What is that all about?

Scott Barker says another sign reads "Justice is coming you thieves of democracy."

Tony Norman for mayor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lumpy's smacking down "certain activists who only speak for the environment..."

He's speaking for "the hardworking folks who drive this economy..." and says this ordinance could bring on hard times for Knox County.

Wuethrich's saying that Lumpy's wrong about ignoring EPA regulations (Lump said to leave them to the feds).

Wuethrich says they are "non-negotiable."

He's also saying that he is not in favor of changing the 500-year flood plain requirement to a 100-year flood plain requirement. He also said he's not in favor of weakening sink hole regs.

He also said his department isn't insisting on concrete pipe in public areas. Called it an economic decision rather than an engineering decision. (Score one for the developers here). Said all kinds of pipe work, if installed properly.

Is Josh Jordan not in attendance?

Scott Barker said he arrived around 2:39 and missed the lawsuit settlement vote but will be there for the stormwater debate.

Engineer Robert Campbell is against the sinkhole protection provisions, and says that they are too stringent. Says a "little bitty dip" in a field can be declared a sinkhole, making it hard to build there. He's sometimes hired by developers who like to build in sinkholes.

Wuethrich says the developers and Lumpy didn't let his department see his amendments in a timely fashion.

Lumpy pushes on for his pipe amendment, and wants to add it to Craig Leuthold's motion to approve the ordinance on first reading (there's another reading coming next month). Considerable discussion ensues.

Hmmmm, there's something I wasn't expecting.

Devidently the new ordinance would put in place a maximum $1,000 fine; Valiant says that's too much, so Lumpy moves to knock it back to $50.

Wuethrich says "A thousand dollars will get their attention."

* On edit -- Lumpy, the Development ummm, I was a bit harsh here, so I'll just call him a Development Call Girl.

Speaking of development * (edited) strumpets,
Richad Cate is lining up with Lumpy.

Funny moment of the day so far came when John Valiant was giving his plea for concrete pipe. Frank L. asked if he had any other things he'd like to discuss regarding "Lumpy's amendment". Valiant said he would like to draw everyone's attention to the second item on "our ammendment". There was some confusion when everyone realized they hadn't seen Valiant's ammendment. Valiant quickly explained that "his amendment" was Lumpy's amendment.

Whoops.

Oh. My. God.

Cate says that when the Growth Policy Act passed in 2001 with the requirement that the county pass stormwater ordinances "as strict as" those in the county, the city's ordinance wasn't all that tough. he says it is not right to interpret the agreement as being "as strict as" the city laws currently in place.

Since the county IGNORED this law until now, should they then be allowed to go back to the 2001 standard, which they eschewed?

Isnt that like killing your parents and then pleading for mercy because you're an orphan?

I got pretty close on my predictions on the vote for a "re-do"?

Anybody know if we got a "we ain't done nothing wrong" speech from Pinkston or Scooby?

(link...)

Does Sharon Cawood ever vote like a Democrat? She and Lumpy seem quite cozy on all their votes. And I saw in the Halls Shopper that she was at the Powell Republican Club recently. I am interested to see how she will vote on a zoning change coming up where the entire community is against a zone change but she and Lumpy are for the change, and it only benefits the developer. In the words of Gomer Pyle, "surprise, surprise"...

We're going to give $10,000 to the county's most impoverished farmers for hay. We were told that the money will be redirected from Cynthia Finch's Matching Mentors program (which may or may not exist).

(link...)

Lewis Cosby Time

Lewis begins his presentation, Gencay leaves.
Ricky Davis (the anti-Swann guy) puts his signs down.

Lewis is pretty calm as he tells his story.

That was one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen. Who is that guy?

knoxvilleunwrapped.blogspot.com

Gencay owned almost all the buildings on the east side of Market Square once upon a time, and he let them mould and molder.

This would include all the buildings the Wests took over plus the Tomato Head and a couple of others. I once did a story on him as downtown's worst landlord.

It was pretty funny -- the city fire marshal served him with a summons while in interviewed him at Peroulas.

He does get wound up, eh?

Ragsdale loves Jesus, Cynthia Finch, apple pie and non-profits.

Do you feel the love? This is so bogus.

I thought that rosy glow on Lumpy was the love he is feeling for Ragsdale. He is quite red on my TV, more than anyone else.

This from Scott Barkers blog:

temper, temper

"During discussion over spending in the Knox County Mayor's Office, Mayor Mike Ragsdale and Lewis Cosby argued over whether the mayor insulted the citizen watchdog. Cosby was standing at the podium, with Ragsdale seated to his right. Ragsdale apparently spoke to Finance Director John Troyer, who sat in the next chair. Cosby whirled around, his face suddenly a vivid red. "A showboat?" Cosby said. "What did you just say to me?" Later he asked Ragsdale why the mayor called him a showboat. Ragsdale responded that he didn't say anything."

Sounds like Ragsdale just told a whopper.

Stand up and praise the guy for all to hear, then sit down and insult him, sotto voce. that, in a nutshell, is the kind of thing that MRR does that gets him in trouble.

Betty, I was thinking the same thing about that suit and tie. It looks kinda like babyshit yellow. (Which you may get to see sometime in the near future!)

Funny comment I heard at the meeting...Frank Gencay, the 'Greek Po Boy Brown'...with respects to the departed Mr. Brown.

Interesting meeting. The settlement proposal was DOA. No surprise on the pipe, except only 10 voted for it. Based on some conversations I had with some concrete people, I thought the flexibility would pass pretty easy. It has to pass again, but, I don't think concrete can move the one vote. I've heard about concrete, but it seems to me there are always variables...it depends on the application, it depends if it's installed right, etc.

Cosby confronted Arms in front of a reporter outisde the assembly room after the meeting. It seems it may have been Arms doin' the name callin' when Cosby was at the podium. Arms was directly behind Ragsdale in the front row. Cosby was pointing his finger at Arms (pretty much in Arms face) right in front of Channel 10's reporter. Don't know if it will make the news or not. Cosby's no showboat, he's a mad taxpayer with experience and smarts. Despite the Mayor's passionate speech, this stuff is far from over.

Maybe that was a Century 21 blazer that Victor was wearing.

Not that it matters much, but WBIR seems to have solved the "showboat" riddle. Ragsdale was caught on camera. While Lewis Cosby is speaking it appears you can read Ragsdale's lips referring to former CPA and county auditor as a 'showboat'. When Cosby asks the Mayor what he said, I believe the Mayor replied 'I didn't say anything'.

Cosby was pointed and responded to questions. At times he was accusatory. He offered common sense solutions. He didn't strike me as trying to 'showboat' and play for the media. It's not Cosby who's driving this media attention.

Channel 10 played it twice at 11 -- Ragsdale definitely said "showboat" and Cosby responded "unbelievable."

You just couldn't make this stuff up.

BTW, I skipped Commission to attend the theatre opening. The lights went out just after I sneaked out at the mid-point of the western. Hey, it wasn't ME! -- s.

Jordan - passed, changed to no
Strickland - yes, changed to no
Bolus - yes
M. Harmon - no
Norman - no
Trammel - yes
I. Harmon - no
Cate - yes
F. Leuthold - no
C. Leuthold - no
Hammond - yes
Moore - yes
Smith - yes
Cawood - yes
Lambert - yes
Huddleston - no
Ballard - no
Greene - yes
Pinkston - yes

What I thought was interesting was Ivan Harmon voting no. Must be his city connections that caused that?

Harmon voting no wasn't too surprising. He worked for Parnell, and has a lot of respect for him. I'm sure his current city employment weighed heavily on the vote, as well.

Maybe I'm the only one, but I thought Huddleston's vote was surprising. Maybe I've lumped (no pun) him in with Lumpy and Scooby mistakenly. I don't know too much about him.

I didn't see the vote, but I'm guessing Jordan's vote followed Strickland's lead. I'm guessing Strickland wanted to get on record as a no, because of his City employment. Anybody have any idea?

knoxvilleunwrapped.blogspot.com

No, Jack Huddleston is not a Lumpy or Scooby clone. He is well thought of personally by many in the 8th District and is not beholden to developers. One thing about Jack, he will tell you like it is - he's not very smooth, but sometimes that's a good thing.

Yes, Jordan changed his pass to yes after Strickland changed his vote from yes to no. Strickland's change was probably to get on the record since he could tell it wouldn't change the outcome.

Jordan and Strickland changed once they knew there were 10 to pass. There votes weren't needed. I suspect they may have been waiting to see how things lined up and if 'needed' they could vote for it. There were 10, so they can say they voted against the admendment.

Something I don't get. If you're against concrete being mandated that equals being for developers. If you're for concrete all the time, you're for property owners. That may be too simplistic, but it seems to be what all this boils down to.

What I don't get is all I ever hear is that Bruce Weuthrich (spelling apology) and his folks are good at what they do. There are variables for applications and having concrete as a mandatory requirement isn't always best. We're leaving it to engineers to make that determination. Are we somehow sure county engineering will always drop the ball and give developers a pass to use something other than (cheaper than) concrete pipe?

The amendments are the problem, right? We have the change to allow something other than concrete pipe if approved by engineering. The change in possible fines (which to me is more telling than the pipe issue as far as being 'for' developers). And one other. I dont' recall that amendment.

I spoke to Victor Jernigan at the meeting. Don't try to analyze clothes from TV. He had on a nice summer sport coat, golden yellow with a muted blue plaid. I'm guessing John H. Daniel. I think I saw that fabric in one of the recent books. Appeared to be a custom made shirt also. I know those fabrics (from JHD or maybe Jim Bevins who sells custom stuff). You may not like Victor's developments, but some on this board have no business being fashion critics.

Bruce was walking a fine line and had to play politics to avoid himself and his boss being hammered by the developers who want the cheapest possible solution. When asked straight out what type of pipe Knox County would be using for it's own applications, he replied, "concrete."

Are we somehow sure county engineering will always drop the ball and give developers a pass to use something other than (cheaper than) concrete pipe?

Not sure they always will, but it's hard to get warm and fuzzy based on this county's complete lack of environmental stewardship. And developers in this region are the pits of the world for the same. In fact, they seem bent on making Knox county the country's biggest sprawl pit of the world with commission as their enabler.

Also, somebody made the correction that this was not about mandating concrete except in some applications, and I understand that Mark Harmon stated that the stronger measure was required by law by the growth plan. Will this be something else that has to go to the courts because commission can't shoot straight?

The solution to local/state/federal regulations that do or don't protect the public is simple.

Make them liable.

If Lumpy Lambert had to sign off on a statement of personal liability for any failure of a culvert he voted to allow, he might think twice.

The .gov passed something like this a while back, if I recall correctly, to make members of boards of directors of corporations personally liable to their shareholders and the public for their decisions.

Shareholders, taxpayers -- what's the diff?

If I recall correctly, this spawned a whole new industry around providing liability insurance. So Lumpy might not be on the hook for the cost of an entire street caving in, but at least would have been paying expensive liability insurance premiums that would, again, make him think twice lest his votes made his premiums went up or got his policy canceled.

It's a free market solution!

Another accountability matter is whether the county will live up to its pledge in the Urban Growth Agreement to create a stormwater ordinance as strict as that used in the city of Knoxville.

The city requires stormwater plans on properties greater than 10,000 square feet. The county ordinance that passed on first reading exempts up to one acre (43,560 square feet).

The city requires reinforced concrete pipe in six specific locations or applications. The original county ordinance as proposed required reinforced concrete in three locations/applications, as amended by Lumpy it is now zero requirement. Remember these are applications typically in rights-of-way, so these may initially be done by developers but eventually become a public responsibility. So we should insist on best practices on things that will become taxpayer-paid upkeep.

The Lumpy amendment also reduced the lower end of the range of fines. A proposed amendment by Tony Norman to strengthen fines and allow them to be cumulative was not considered. My proposed amendment to bring parity with the city rules in seven specific areas was not considered.

These are some highlights of the ordinance's weaknesses. I understand several city leaders are upset at the commission's actions. I do not know if any of this will lead to a lawsuit or to EPA action, but on the merits the proposed ordinance as amended now falls short of what good policy should be.

Mark Harmon

I've seen a lot of bad concrete before, but never bad HDPE. If plastic is good enough for sewer, it should be good enough for rain water.

Will Victor Jernigan's new complex being built out Washington Pike be subject to the lesser county standards for storm water or the more stringent city standards? The project is currently in the county, but will be annexed by the city. If he does build to the lower standards, who is at risk for storm drain failure, Jernigan, the county or the city?