Letters About Tennessee State and East Tennessee Local Affairs

Pro2Serve Bennies from the City of Oak Ridge, IDB, CROET, Etc.

[Published in The Oak Ridger, June 14, 2006]

On 31 May 2006, The Oak Ridger reported that Pro2Serve was to invest $15 million to construct a headquarters/natural security facility at the new Oak Ridge Science and Technology Park at ORNL. Pro2Serve head Barry Goss stated that the company was “committed to continuing our community involvement [unspecified]”. ORNL director of technology transfer Alex Fischer said that “we” “wanted to be “the engine that allows many other communities [unspecified] to thrive”. US Representative Zach Wamp claimed that the park would “present a plan for modernizing infrastructure [unspecified]”, as The Oak Ridger put it, and added that ORNL director Jeff Wadsworth and his staff were a “team as good as there is in America”. Wadsworth said he believed that the park would “provide partnership opportunities for various groups that are interested in convenient access to the lab’s scientists and facilities” and that ORNL’s being a “unique laboratory with strong partnerships” allowed it to take more risks (unspecified). Mayor David Bradshaw jumped on the bandwagon, saying that the technology park fit well into the “strategic plan” of the City of Oak Ridge because it would “bring key citizens who will coach our children, volunteer for our nonprofits, lend their talents to the arts”.

The Oak Ridger reported these vague and bombastic statements as delivered, with no examination of their bases or implications. For example, why were there no details as to why this park would provide more convenient access to ORNL than ORNL has been able to provide to date, seeing that the land is apparently in the middle of the ORNL main site and so the same access provisions should apply as before? And who about those “key citizens” who presumably are going to play an instrument, wield a paintbrush, or tap-dance at the Playhouse?

On 5 June 2006, The Oak Ridger reported that the Oak Ridge Industrial Development Board (IDB) would that day consider economic incentives for Pro2Serve to move to the new park. This possibility had not been mentioned in the talk-it-upfest reported in the 31 May article, so apparently this was a very sudden development. The potential incentives were said to be $1 million in grants and an 8-year property tax abatement package, with 75% of the grant money to come from the state and 25% from the City of Oak Ridge as an 8-year no-interest loan. Goss said that Pro2Serve needed to move because it had outgrown its current location and was to double its current 200 employees in the next few years. On 7 June 2006, The Oak Ridger reported that the IDB had in fact approved the package.

What I didn’t see in The Oak Ridger was a discussion of the other part of the money and acquisition trail. First, wasn’t the land was transferred by DOE to CROET? What are the CROET lease terms for the developer of the park or for Pro2Serve? Second, the Knoxville News-Sentinel (31 May 2006) reported that (in their words) Wamp said that at first he was concerned about “a federal location” competing for business with private-sector developments, but he came to feel that locating the park at ORNL was “good for the environment because it meant that a greenfield area did not have to be developed outside the area”. (Logic is, of course, not Wamp’s strong suit.) Why did The Oak Ridger not report this?

Third, with three articles on the subject, why did The Oak Ridger not find space to remind everybody of the history of Pro2Serve’s freebies from the city? The Oak Ridger should know about it because they reported on it (12 May, 26 July 2004). I refer, of course, to Pro2Serve’s 2004 receipt of $100,000 from the City of Oak Ridge to help defray their $200,000 expenses in moving from the building that became the UT Outreach Center to the old Flextronics office building. It was said then that it was worth it because Pro2Serve was to add 50 new jobs over 2 years and spend $2 million upgrading the Flextronics building. (Did they?) This grant was fast-tracked because Pro2Serve “had” to get the money right away or they might go somewhere else. (Note that only a few months later, Pro2Serve nevertheless found $10,000 to donate to the Oak Ridge School education fund, thus in effect recycling city funds from economic development to building the new high school.) Since Pro2Serve already has been helped by the city relatively recently, would it not make sense now to ask them to fund their latest expansion themselves, with the city and stated funds being used for some un-helped company?

I think it would make a difference to Oak Ridge citizens’ understanding of the issues of funding development if they had been reminded about the previous grant from the city to Pro2Serve. And surely it is important for us taxpayers to be fully informed about how federal, state, and city assets and funds are being used for the apparent benefit of private companies.

On Oak Ridge-DOE-CROET-Tax Abatement

[Published(?) by the Knoxville News Sentinel, June 11, 2006]

On 31 May 2006, the News-Sentinel reported that a new Oak Ridge Science and Technology Park would be built on the ORNL site, in the main central area of ORNL. As reported in an undigested fashion by the News-Sentinel, local DOE head Gerald Boyd asserted that the park plan shows that ORNL and the East Tennessee business community are moving “aggressively” forward with technology transfer and that there is a “future vision” for ORNL’s central “campus”. ORNL technology transfer head Alex Fischer said that the new businesses would be on the property tax rolls for Roane County and the City of Oak Ridge. So of course the mayor of Oak Ridge, David Bradshaw, declared himself to be for it. US Representative Zach Wamp said that at first he was concerned about “a federal location” competing for business with private-sector developments, but he came to feel that locating the park at ORNL was “good for the environment because it meant that a greenfield area did not have to be developed outside the area”. (Logic is, of course, not Wamp’s strong suit.)

The News-Sentinel noted that the land was transferred by the US Department of Energy to the Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee (CROET), of whose board of directors Bradshaw is chairman. But the News-Sentinel did not tell us anything about the lease provisions under which CROET will be making the land available to the developer of the park or to the businesses that will occupy the park. Furthermore, the News-Sentinel did not make clear ORNL’s role in all this: prime mover in the development, provider of information and support, or just innocent bystander?

Featured in the News-Sentinel article was the announcement that the company Pro2Serve was to invest $15 million to construct a headquarters/natural security facility at the new Oak Ridge Science and Technology Park. Pro2Serve head Barry Goss stated that the company was the largest engineering design firm in East Tennessee (amazing, considering that the company is 10 years old and DOE is its biggest customer). He said that his company planned to add about 200 employees to its base of nearly 300. But just a few days later (2 June 2006), the News-Sentinel reported that Pro2Serve was seeking city and county tax abatements over 8 years, a $250,000 city grant, and a $750,000 state grant. CROET weighed in on the side of the grant, because Pro2Serve was promising to spend $15 million on its facility in the new park and would be paying taxes on the facility — eventually. Wamp also blessed it because of the eventual tax contribution.

The News-Sentinel told us (6 June 2006) that the Oak Ridge Industrial Development Board (IDB) had approved the tax abatement and recommended that the Oak Ridge City Council approve the city grant and support the state grant. Goss said that the abatement and grants “really [were] necessary for us to go ahead and keep these corporate headquarters here” (in Oak Ridge). The News-Sentinel now said that DOE was “leasing” the land to CROET for the time being, but CROET expected to have the land transferred to its ownership; the land would then “be available for sale”. But again, no quantitative details were given.

In addition to leaving out what would appear to be some important financial and structural details regarding all these transactions, there is also the question of the News-Sentinel’s failing to mention Oak Ridge’s previous concessions to Pro2Serve. As The Oak Ridger reported on 12 May 2004 and 26 July 2004 (and as I believe the News-Sentinel also reported back then), Pro2Serve asked for and got $100,000 from the City of Oak Ridge to help defray their $200,000 expenses in moving from one Oak Ridge building to another. It was said then that Pro2Serve would add 50 new jobs over 2 years and spend $2 million upgrading the second building. (Did they?) This grant was fast-tracked because Pro2Serve “had” to know right away or they might go somewhere else. Sound familiar? (Note that only a few months later, Pro2Serve nevertheless found $10,000 to donate to the Oak Ridge School education fund, thus in effect recycling city funds from economic development to building the new high school.)

I think it would make a difference to the citizens of East Tennessee and especially of Oak Ridge to be reminded about the previous grant from the city to Pro2Serve. And surely it is important for us taxpayers to be fully informed about how federal, state, and city assets and funds are being used for the benefit of private companies, especially apparently well-connected ones.

Giveaways to Pro2Serve To Move to the Oak Ridge Science and Technology Park

[Published in The Oak Ridger, July 31, 2006]

I appreciate The Oak Ridger’s printing my recent letter about the proposed city and state giveaway to Pro2Serve to help them to move out to the Oak Ridge Science and Technology Park (ORSTP). In a related development, I note that an article in the 19 June 2006 edition of The Oak Ridger stated that Jeff Deardorff, said to be with CROET for nine years, is now the COO for Heritage Center LLC, “CROET’s subcorporation responsible for management and redevelopment of the Heritage Center” and he is also the vice president of another CROET subcorporation. I keep wondering about the status of CROET: is it a public entity? If so, why are there are these subcorporations? If CROET is not a public entity, then why is DOE giving them free land to transfer to developers? Further, The Oak Ridger states that Mr. Deardorff is the CROET manager and overseer of the Greater Knoxville Foreign Trade Zone, but does not explain what that is.

I think The Oak Ridger has made an effort over the years to characterize CROET’s nature and status from a business and legal point of view, but as these are still fuzzy to regular readers of The Oak Ridger articles about CROET, I have to wonder if even The Oak Ridger has mastered the intricacies of CROET’s various roles and activities.

Finally, we are told in the article that the purpose of ORSTP is “to better facilitate the transfer of publicly funded technology out of the lab and into the commercial marketplace”. One of the points I made in my recent whistleblower book was that all this talk-up of tech transfer seemed to have as its aim to persuade people that the transfer of technology developed at public expense to private entities for commercialization was a really, really good thing for Oak Ridge. But the private entities seem more and more to be those selected by the people controlling the technology, i.e., DOE and its contractors. This phenomenon should be very worrisome to all taxpayers/citizens because it means that a favored few may profit at the expense of the many. For example, if the purpose of the ORSTP is to facilitate tech transfer to private entities, it follows that those private entities who can afford to establish an office or facility in ORSTP will have a significantly better chance of getting the desirable technologies licensed to them. Surely tech transfer ought to be an open arena in which any qualified company in the US has a chance to license the technology, not just those that are cozy with local DOE or ORNL or Oak Ridge officials.

I don’t think it is asking too much of The Oak Ridger to inquire more closely into the financial arrangements that go into the various DOE-associated business activities in the Oak Ridge area. Indeed, it may be your duty to do so since you have resources and access that we ordinary citizens do not. Please go for it.

Skateboard Facility Vs New Hotel

[Published in The Oak Ridger, September 25, 2006]

I was puzzled by the stories about the new hotel on Illinois Avenue and the proposed skateboard facility near the school administration building. We are told that the city powers that be declare themselves to be concerned about the traffic the skateboard facility would generate, but they are not concerned about the traffic the hotel would generate. They are concerned that the skateboard facility would not benefit the neighborhood, although it would provide a place for all Oak Ridge kids to go and get some exercise, especially those in the neighborhood, who could walk to the facility (more exercise). But they are not concerned about what the hotel would do to the neighborhood abutting the hotel site.

Wait, I’m doing the math….what profit would the developers of the hotel make and what would the skateboard facility developer make…..what revenues would the city realize from the hotel and what from the skateboard facility…. Okay, I’ve got it now. As usual in our fair city, the quality of life always has to give way to the quantity of money to be made.

Crestpointe Development

[Published in The Oak Ridger after February 27, 2007]

The initial rollout announcement of the Crestpoint/Target development ignited a backlash of opposition, resulting in the current petition drive to put the proposed city funding of Crestpointe to a referendum vote. So naturally the powers that be have kicked their Crestpointe/Target campaign into high gear, using the same methods as they have so successfully in the past for other big city-funded projects.

First, we are again hearing all the same old slogans: “Grow or Die”, “Act Now – Offer Expires Soon”, and “Gotta Pay To Play”. If there’s one thing we Oak Ridgers ought to have learned by now, it’s that another bus is always coming, so many more of us are now resistant to these than in the past.

Second, city officials and the developers are giving special briefings to all sorts of groups. One could understand why they would do this for the Anderson County Commission, but why the School Board, since this is not per se an education issue? Well, they have noticed that the community is very supportive of the schools, so if they can posit this as an issue critical to school funding – i.e., getting those tax revenues from the development – then they can get the school people and the parents on board. But this will not be as easy a sell as, say, the expensive new high school they persuaded the citizens to fund several years ago. Education is a religion in Oak Ridge, but shopping is still just shopping.

Third, they have persuaded The Oak Ridger to interview a longtime Oak Ridge couple who are all for Crestpointe (an interview written up by no less than the editor of The Oak Ridger). This tactic featured prominently in the school campaign: the more people that were interviewed, the bigger the community support seemed to be. Sort of like a Potemkin village. But this time around the issue is less one of sentiment than it was for the high school, so featuring a likable older couple may not change anyone’s mind.

Fourth, we see the injection of small bits of information that are not otherwise emphasized in the news reports, with the implication that they are practically givens. For example, in the interview with the longtime Oak Ridger pair, one says that the developers have been studying Oak Ridge “since 2004” and that Crestpointe was not a hastily prepared proposal; her mate is “excited about a 13% return on investment” from Crestpointe. The implication is that the developers know what they are doing and would not invest in anything that wouldn’t be profitable. But other Oak Ridgers are not so starry-eyed about these developer talking points: they know that even if the developers make out like bandits, Oak Ridge may not.

But there is one technique that seems to be new. The Oak Ridger has editorialized in the past in favor of various city fundfests, but the publisher of The Oak Ridger outdid himself in his 2/2/7/07 editorial. He quotes someone whom he identifies as being good at numbers and working in a bank — but not as working, e.g., in risk analysis or business finance and not as living in Oak Ridge or working in an Oak Ridge bank. This person blesses the city’s funding of Crestpointe, saying airily that government funds all sorts of things and “we wouldn’t think twice about funding…a school”. He warns direly that “time is running out for Oak Ridge”, “Oak Ridge’s number could be up”, and “property owners who sign a petition are signing a guaranteed tax increase”. But he gives us no figures to bear this out except for a sales tax decrease projection. The clincher is Mr. Numbers Guy’s condescending statement that Oak Ridgers opposing the use of city funding for Crestpointe are “unfamiliar with traffic”, or “don’t want too much retail”, or “don’t get out of town much”. The publisher of The Oak Ridger clearly does not realize how alienating such arrogance can be, and how The Oak Ridger could be caught in the fallout for having featured these statements so approvingly.

Wasn’t it Santayana who said that those who would not learn from history would be condemned to repeat it? The people who are signing the referendum petition realize that.

Pro2Serve and Crestpointe As Pushed by the City of Oak Ridge, IDB, and CROET

[Published in The Oak Ridger, February 13, 2007]

As a 17-year Oak Ridge resident, I read with interest the recent various articles on the new Target store proposed for the site on top of Pine Ridge. The city is pushing hard on this, to the extent of kicking in $10 million “repayable” dollars, even though Oak Ridge has a “relatively high level of indebtedness”. As others have noted, this may turn out to be the old “golf course” syndrome yet again: we are promised pie in the sky by the city officials and the developers, but then we have to accept the results, i.e., low or even negative revenues. The city claims there will be no tax increase “according to projections”, but whose projections are we talking about? (A Knoxville News-Sentinel article uses the term “the developers’ forecasts” in relating statements by our assistant city manager, who also said that it was “impossible” for the project to fail.) Oak Ridge’s subsidy of the Target proposal is described variously as a “contribution” and an “investment”, but it appears that it is more in the nature of a donation to the lottery – a few people will benefit big-time, but most people will just lose their money. Or maybe it’s more like a shell game: we are told that Anderson County might contribute by dedicating the site’s new county tax revenues to help pay off the city’s debt. This sort of funny-money funding scheme will surely raise questions in various quarters, say at Moody’s. The city fathers and the county commission are pushing this hard. They say that they are deluged with E-mail messages from citizens supporting helping the new development, but the letters to the editor of The Oak Ridger, overwhelmingly against such support, are undoubtedly more representative of actual community sentiment. In fact, the alleged E-mail rain smacks of an orchestrated campaign.

It is also of interest that Oak Ridge and its state legislators used capital of another kind to advance the development of business, specifically the business called Pro2Serve: the city applied for and got a $750,000 state grant to help pay for storm-water drainage and other improvements at a new science-technology park and approved a $250,000 no-interest loan (to whom?) to secure the grant money. As The Oak Ridger observed (29 January 2007), the grant will “help Pro2Serve move” out to the park from its Oak Ridge headquarters. One wonders whether this money might be more usefully applied to, say, improving the city’s wobbly electrical supply than to helping a company that has already enjoyed multiple CARE packages from the city, including the “eight-year loan, 100% property tax abatement worth up to $250,000 a year” mentioned by The Oak Ridger. The City of Oak Ridge and CROET have also applied for $1.2 million federal grant for this park. The park is supposed to create 200 new jobs for Anderson County, but the financial implications don’t seem to have been analyzed by The Oak Ridger. For example, how certain is it that all those jobs out on Bethel Valley Road will create significant tax revenues for Oak Ridge – will the workers live in Oak Ridge, or shop in Oak Ridge, or at least eat lunch a lot in Oak Ridge? Further, why is this being fostered by DOE? DOE is leasing the land to a subsidiary of CROET, which is subleasing it to Pro2Serve – why is this being fostered by DOE?

Those inquiring minds among us Oak Ridgers want to know about all these issues.

Woodland Rezoning – And New Lyrics for “I Cain’t Say No”

[Published by The Oak Ridger, October 1, 2007]

I went to the City Council meeting on 24 September to hear the vote on the Woodland neighborhood rezoning for Mr. Patel’s proposed hotel. I hadn’t intended to speak during the public comment segment and had not prepared any comments, but when the first member of the public to speak said she was on the Planning Committee that recommended the rezoning (and, oh yes, a citizen),I took my 3 minutes.

I pointed out to the Council that in this as in other such cases, they were not sitting back and letting the chips fall where they may – i.e., not letting developers attempt to make their cases based on following the established rules and guidelines with minimal variances – but were encouraging and enabling the developers – i.e., they were goosing the developers’ projects along by making significant changes up front. As a registered professional engineer, I pointed out that conceptual views can be deceiving and that the true lines of sight from neighboring houses and the sidewalk might show the building looming a lot larger than shown in an artist’s drawing. I also said that the “inevitable” commercial development of Illinois Avenue along the edge of Woodland seemed to me to be more apparent than real and was, again, being talked up by Council and enabled and promoted by their decisions.

I was puzzled, you see, as to why Mr. Patel went to the trouble and expense of developing a plan for this project in the first place: if we agree that he is an astute and competent businessman, then surely it was a big gamble to come up with a plan if the needed rezoning and variances were not very likely to be granted. Had someone somehow signaled to him that the necessary rezoning was in the bag and that any needed variances would come through? If so, who? And as a person with a lot of experience in design projects, I knew that the final views and especially specifications are not always the same as the “conceptual” views and specifications. Yet the latter are the basis of decision making by the Council in this case as in so many others.

In other public comments, TNBank and other hotels were drawn into the discussion as counterweights to these concerns. But after all, those establishments mostly followed existing zoning rules when they were approved and they are on significantly larger lots relative to the sizes of the businesses and the positions of residences nearby. Besides, TNBank is not a day-and-night operation except for a few brief visits by ATM customers and as one commenter pointed out, TNBank made some significant make-nice concessions to the neighborhood when it was built. One commenter said so what if some people’s property values went down – it had to be balanced against economic development. But it seems to me that for the city to “spot” the developer points in putting such a project in an established neighborhood, without any compensation to the neighboring homeowners, is a taking in the true sense of the word.

As expected, our mostly Teflon City Council seemed impervious to the heartfelt concerns of the citizens that the hotel would destroy the character of the Woodland neighborhood. That is, they acknowledged the concerns, but then in their own pre-vote comments some of them exhibited a tin ear with regard to showing that they actually “heard” the concerns. Ms. Miller, especially, seemed to have a “let them eat cake” tone. For example, she reiterated that old gloom-and-doom canard about how developers perceive that Oak Ridge is hard to deal with; as usual, the audience reacted to this statement stonily, because we ordinary citizens think that firmness with regard to standards is no vice and because as one commenter pointed out, there seems to be a more rigorous level of enforcement for ordinary citizens than for developers. She stated too that growth could be “a little bit painful” but “we have to move on” and “Oak Ridge needs to stop saying no”. Ms. Miller also seemed to be miffed at one citizen’s comment that her wink at Mr. Patel was suspicious; she stated (my interpretation of her words) that it defamed her for the citizen to suggest such a thing and that winking at him was treating him no differently than she treats others. Surely Ms. Miller does not want to become known as Ms. Wink-and-a-Nod? She also said that after speaking, the citizen had gone off so angry that Ms. Miller was concerned about the citizen’s safety in driving home in such a state. We audience citizens were shaking our heads over that little bit of “back atcha” character assassination.

Mr. Hensley stated that this vote was an agonizing decision for him and that he personally was getting nothing out of it. Well, there are benefits other than financial ones for making the “right” decision; e.g., you may feel that it is more important to be perceived as a good guy by the people who really count and who have Council’s ear on a continuing and close-contact basis (the Chamber of Commerce, the developers, the realtors, etc.) than by the little people who only want to keep the modest homes they have. Mr. Hayes said that Oak Ridge naysayers were “wallowing in a medieval moat with crocodiles and alligators” and that we shouldn’t delay developers because they “can’t stand it”. Poor babies!

So there you have it, folks: at least three members of City Council think that those who oppose any development are reactionary and ignorant, hopelessly out of touch with reality. It is notable that in the statements made by Council members prior to the vote, the pro-rezoning members talked mostly about perceptions of Oak Ridge by developers and about their own personal feelings about the rezoning, while Ms. Smith and Mr. Golden addressed the specifics of the project in explaining their no votes. Ms. Smith observed that zoning is the mechanism by which individual citizen property interests are balanced against economic development and pointed out that if significant rezoning and variances were made for particular projects, the effectiveness of the zoning standards would be undercut and a bad precedent set for future projects. I think that all Oak Ridge residents should be grateful to the three no voters (Golden, Mosby, and Smith). I propose that we take back our city by pushing back hard against the pro voters on the Council and by remembering them at the next election. We should keep in mind that the power to rezone is the power to destroy.

In closing, I offer the lyrics below. It is to be understood that only four members of the Council are actually singing them at the moment.

The Oak Ridge City Council Song

(to the tune of “I Cain’t Say No”,

with apologies to Rodgers and Hammerstein)

We’re just a bunch who cain’t say no,

We’re in a terrible fix.

We always say, “Come on, let’s go”,

Just when we oughta say “Nix!”

When developers come courting us,

We know we shouldn’t cut them too much slack.

But whenever someone sweet-talks us,

We somehow sorta wanta sweet-talk back!

We are just fools when money flows,

We just throw open the gate.

We ain’t the type that can wait.

How can we be what we ain’t?

We cain’t say no.

Whatcha gonna do when Mr. Money gets flirty,

And starts to talk purty?

Whatcha gonna do?

S’posin’ that he says that your lots are like cherries,

‘R roses, ‘r berries.

Whatcha gonna do?

S’posin’ that he says that your ridges are prime

And he’s gotta have prime or die??

Whatcha gonna do when he talks that way……

Spit in his eye?!

We’re just a bunch who cain’t say no,

Cain’t seem to say it at all.

We hate to disappoint a beau

When he is payin' a call.

For a while we act so wise and cool, 

As though we thought we all could do the math.

But then we recall the Golden Rule, 

And let him lead us down the primrose path!

Though we can feel the undertow,

We just rezone things away,

Till it’s too late to delay

The variances we promised today,

We cain’t say no!

City and State Pull Out All the Stops for A Speculative Private Venture

[Letter published in the Knoxville News Sentinel after August 4, 2008]

The News-Sentinel reported the following on 30 July [2008]. Site work for the Oak Ridge Science and Technology Park has been completed and construction can begin. This work was overdue by two years; site prep costs were $2.4 million; and the private park is “next to” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, but also “on” the ORNL “campus”. The company Pro2Serve is to build its headquarters at the park. The Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee (CROET) fronted some of the site prep money, but is expecting to get it back via a $1.8 million federal grant and a $750,000 state grant, for a total of $2.55 million.

Maybe this is just me being a dumb girl, but in these economically challenging times, why would our legislators expend what must have been a huge amount of political capital to obtain grants for a speculative private venture? Why would the federal government even think of paying for site preparation for a private business park? Why would the state — which is laying off workers and cutting back on services — even consider subsidizing this park? Who will actually own the park — the feds, the state, CROET, or some private entity? Who will control what businesses get to operate there?

The News-Sentinel story also stated that unspecified grants totaling almost $700K were to be used to upgrade ORNL’s Building 2033; as the new Halcyon Commercialization Center, it will be leased to companies who can “make use of lab technologies”. A company whose Oak Ridge coordinator is the former director of a major ORNL facility (HTML) will occupy one floor of 2033.

How cozy this all is for those involved! Spatially, for sure, but also financially. The Department of Energy is apparently comfortable with all this, but it should unnerve the rest of us, who are paying a lot now for an uncertain return later. Surely the News-Sentinel should investigate this in depth.

CROET Fronting Money for ORSTP

[Published in The Oak Ridger, August 18, 2008]

The Knoxville News-Sentinel reported the following on 30 July. Site work for the Oak Ridge Science and Technology Park has been completed and construction can begin. This work was overdue by two years; site prep costs were $2.4 million; and the private park is “on the ORNL campus”. The company Pro2Serve is to build its headquarters at the park. The Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee (CROET) fronted some of the site prep money, but is expecting to get it back via a $1.8 million federal grant and a $750,000 state grant, for a total of $2.55 million.

How cozy this all is for those involved! Spatially, for sure, but also financially. The Department of Energy is apparently comfortable with all this, but it should unnerve the rest of us, who are paying a lot now for an uncertain return later. Surely our local voice of the people, The Oak Ridger, should investigate this in depth.

Conflicts of Interest in Transfers of Public Property

[Published(?) in The Oak Ridger after December 8, 2009]

Regarding the recent actions of Oak Ridge’s Industrial Development Board (IDB) (John Huotari, The Oak Ridger, 1/6/10), I would like to underscore several points.

The IDB voted to take over about 400 acres of land at the almost unused Horizon Center industrial park and to form an “alliance” with the Oak Ridge Economic Partnership to market the Horizon Center (at which CROET has been unsuccessful).

But as IDB member Doug Mason noted, some IDB members are also members of the boards of CROET and/or OREP. Thus any such transfer and alliance would essentially be a rearrangement that would retain the same officials. As Mr. Mason cogently stated, if it is the same cast of characters, “what is it that’s going to make this better?”

Talk about your interlocking directorates! Those who wonder why the leaders in Oak Ridge keep funding every pie-in-the-sky proposal from developers need wonder no longer: it is because we have the same small group of people making all the decisions. They appoint each other to committees and they delegate work to each other.

We also see that city work is delegated to quasi-private organizations. CROET is in fact one of the founding partners of OREP; OREP’s nine-member board of directors includes the mayor, the former mayor, the head of the Chamber of Commerce, the head of CROET, and four people who work for DOE contractors. There is no sunshine law for OREP and CROET deliberations, I believe. So OREP could, say, develop a plan — such as the transfer and alliance proposal appears to be — in secret and then have it pop up in IDB meetings in practically full-blown form.

The net effect of the transfer/alliance is to make CROET look better by allowing it to unload the Horizon Center (and its recurring costs) onto somebody else (the City of Oak Ridge) and attracting new funding for its staff to go on to newer projects. OREP will of course be given a couple of years to market the Horizon Center, so the evaluation of any failures on their part will be deferred.

Everybody will look good — but not the city’s bottom line.

Fishy Industrial Development Board Proposal Regarding the Horizon Center Site

[Published by The Oak Ridger, December 24, 2009]

Our city fathers have been at it again!

There is a proposal to transfer ownership of the Horizon Center Industrial Park from CROET to Oak Ridge’s Industrial Development Board. Although it was reported that the IDB is only “considering” the matter, indications are that the IDB’s acquisition of this white elephant is already a done deal.

It is true that IDB member David Wilson asked “What do we have to gain?” because the IDB would have to assume maintenance costs and liability for the land. It is true that, as he suggests, IDB’s owning it would not increase the likelihood of getting the land sold. (The jury is still out as to whether CROET is competent at marketing land for industrial uses, but assuming they are, how is the IDB to do any better?) The land would be transferred to the IDB now, but as it was sold off, CROET would have to be paid back.

But these concerns do not seem to worry the several other members who weighed in enthusiastically in advance of any in-depth discussion of the merits. IDB member Lou Dunlap said that “this is a tremendous opportunity”, IDB member Bill Biloski exclaimed that it was “a wonderful Christmas present for Oak Ridge” and “we’re arguing about a gift”, and IDB chairman Doug Janney asserted that “it would be crazy to pass up” getting developed property for $9500 an acre.

It was also reported that the IDB would work with the Oak Ridge Economic Partnership to market the Horizon site — and that the president of the OREP might then become IDB’s executive director and OREP would take on responsibilities for all IDB operations, including preparing agendas and closing deals. Thus the entanglement of private and public business in this matter would be almost complete.

I urge my fellow citizens to oppose this plan emphatically. We should not bail out CROET and put more of our city funds at risk by acquiring this turkey of a site. We should also not allow the IDB to become a mere tool of development interests.

Developing An Undersized Marina Area

[Published(?) in The Oak Ridger after December 17, 2009]

The city fathers are trying to squeeze a Size 16 development into a Size 2 area.

Why is the city be considering spending $3.8M to develop the marina area? Both an amphitheater and a “pavilion” are proposed. The city already has an amphitheater at the Civic Center. And what purpose would a pavilion serve at the space-limited marina area?

The area has always been a bust as a marina, so it is time to make it something else that would benefit the whole community. The wonderful lakeside walkway is a city amenity we should keep. We would surely want a restaurant too. We might consider having a paddle boat facility in season.

Converting the area into a grand rowing venue is fine, but rowing activities should not unduly inconvenience East End residents, e.g., by blocking off Melton Lake Drive to all but rowing traffic. The city fathers seem to think that East Enders should be happy to make sacrifices since rowing provides sales tax revenue, but there is a limit to what people should have to put up with.

I urge fellow Oak Ridgers to oppose putting a roundabout at the Melton Lake Drive-Emory Valley Road intersection. Roundabouts are confusing and a danger for the less aggressive driver. If the sole purpose of the roundabout is to accommodate rowing traffic, that would be the tail wagging the dog.

One of my service providers, speaking recently with City Manager O’Connor, pointed out that Melton Lake Drive has been used for years for, e.g., providing access for the Anderson County Rescue Squad to get to Claxton. ACRS vehicles, like fire engines and trucks with trailers, would be challenged by a roundabout. O’Connor replied that he did not care, because what was really important was bringing revenue into Oak Ridge.

This is the approach of so many in Oak Ridge city government. We citizens need to “recalibrate” them on that. As the sheriff in “Fargo” said, there’s more to life than money.

Naysayers May Be The Truthtellers

[Published(?) in The Oak Ridger after February 17, 2009]

I would like to say a word in defense of John Job, who was criticized in a letter to the editor by Alix King Ballew (2/16/09). The letter writer said that Job’s opinions were “negative” and his criticisms of our civic leaders were “disrespectful”.

I disagree with Ms. Ballew on two counts. First, while naysayer opinions may be considered “negative”, they serve a useful purpose in alerting both elected officials and the rest of the citizenry to performance deficits or to the adverse implications of policy decisions on the part of the elected officials. Feedback — including negative feedback — is important in keeping any system on track. Mr. Job’s comments have by and large been very much to the point (and are well written in terms of grammar and organization as well) and thus show him to be an excellent communicator regarding areas where he sees problems.

Second, I don’t think that it is disrespectful to name names, as Mr. Job does, and make specific statements about individual members of City Council or the school board. He does not use intemperate language or engage in undue hyperbole; he does not say they are bad people, just inept ones. Surely it is a valid exercise of free expression for a citizen to call out particular actions of particular elected officials; our elected officials do not have any expectation of freedom from criticism in the public press. Also, while we do owe respect to their offices, they themselves should not be considered too special to be criticized; as the old saying has it, “a cat may look at a king”.

One hears comments like Ms. Ballew’s over and over when our public servants are taken to task in the press for their official actions: it is said that we should not talk down our town, but should be boosters of it, that we should not be detractors, but supporters, etc. Certainly we should “find the good and praise it”, as Alex Haley said, but we should also shore up the weak places in our civic life. I for one think that Mr. Job is an effective voice who strives to do just that and his columns should be must reading for everyone who cares about the future of Oak Ridge.

Campaign Contributions to City Council Candidates from Interested Parties

[Published(?) in The Oak Ridger after May 29, 2009)

It’s too bad that The Oak Ridger was not able to print the list of campaign contributions to the City Council candidates until today so that we could all discuss it in print before the election on 2 June. But better late than never

The most obvious thing one sees on the list is the many people who live in Knoxville but are making serious contributions to Ms. Miller and Mr. Beehan. True, their businesses (BWXT, Pro2Serve, etc.) may be based in and near Oak Ridge, but one would think that these essentially DOE-funded enterprises would be rather immune to the administrative activities of one small town. Clearly, there is some reason for them to be interested in having the “right” people in charge of city government. I believe that this reason is that DOE needs to keep the citizenry pacified so that they do not go to Congress with their concerns and demands regarding DOE activities. As the contractors help DOE do this (e.g., by contributing rowing towers and the like), they benefit by DOE’s giving them brownie points on their annual performance evaluations and payouts. I.e., there is a mutual back-scratching ring in all this. Space does not allow me to go into this more at length, but those who are curious can read about this sort of thing in my book posted on the Internet (Google my name).

Another thing that we see in Mr. Beehan’s section of the list is that several people or entities that are out of the area or out of state contributed to his campaign. Why would companies in Atlanta and West Palm Beach care about whether he is on the Oak Ridge city council or not? Two of the entries are not given as a company name, but as “Such-and-Such Operating Account”; it would be interesting to find out what these businesses actually do and what their connection to Oak Ridge is.

It has long been a concern of many Oak Ridgers that the city council is running the city for the benefit of the larger or more connected companies based here and for the benefit of developers and others that allegedly may invest significantly in Oak Ridge real estate, and not for the benefit of the average citizen. I urge that my fellow citizens, when they go to the polls, consider carefully the implications of the contribution list.

Fishy Aspects of the Muddy Boot Awards

[Published(?) in The Oak Ridger after December 14, 2010]

As reported in The Oak Ridger, the purpose of the “Muddy Boot” awards is to honor those who “have made East Tennessee a stronger region through their work and community activities”.

But that is not what the awarding entity, the East Tennessee Economic Council, says on its Web site. Here is their take: “to recognize an individual (not institution) for significant and long-term contributions to the East Tennessee area with respect to the federal government programs and its spin-offs by leveraging the federal presence to create private sector jobs. Participation in the community beyond the workplace is essential”.

Indeed, for the past several years these awards seem to have gone mostly to DOE officials, heads of DOE contractor companies, and city and state officials. Those who win always seem to be the big dogs, not any of the little people who work for the common good in their jobs and volunteer their time in our area. Oh, right, the “Workers of Y-12” won one year (contradicting ETEC’s own criteria), but surely they are not taking turns holding the award. I’ll bet it sits in some corporate display case.

But now, it appears, the bottom of the barrel has been reached. One of this year’s honorees is Helen Hardin, [Representative] Zach Wamp’s chief of staff, who seems to be getting the award because the Wampster already got his in years past. Maybe somebody wanted to throw him a lame-duck bone by giving her something to put on her shelf. The other honoree is Dr. Nat Revis, whose antics on the ridge [Crestpointe] remain a painful memory in the minds of many Oak Ridgers.

This is not to dis these two personally — they may be lots of fun at parties, for all I know. But…..well, let’s just say that when most of us Oak Ridgers think of folks who have done a lot for the area, especially in terms of “leveraging the federal presence to create private sector jobs”, we don’t necessary think of those two.

Political connections make such a difference, even in service awards. “Leveraging the federal presence, indeed”.

Conflicts of Interest in the Promotion of Solar Energy

[Probably not published; submitted to the Knoxville News Sentinel on December 22. 2010]

The announcement of the partnering in a solar promotion firm by Governor Phil Bredesen, Commissioner of Economic and Community Development Matt Kisber, and former Revenue Commissioner Reagan Farr should trouble all taxpayers despite Bredesen’s assurances that there is no conflict of interest. Let’s review the chronology.

In May 2009, the University of Tennessee, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TVA, and the State of Tennessee announced that they were partnering in the Volunteer State Solar Initiative, launched with $62.5M in federal ARRA funds, to establish a Tennessee Solar Institute (TSI) based at UT and ORNL. Some $31M was to be used for basic research at ORNL and at the TSI on UT’s Cherokee Farm campus “to improve solar product affordability and efficiency”; the rest was for the West Tennessee Solar Farm, a 5-MW demonstration project. It was claimed that the latter facility would bring “green energy” jobs to Tennessee by producing power to be sold to TVA and using the proceeds for solar panel experimentation. Some additional money was to be provided by DOE as part of a study on “benefits and barriers to solar energy development”, i.e., a marketing and production speedup study.

Meanwhile, Wacker Chemie AG planned to build a plant to make polysilicon for solar cells and Hemlock Semiconductor broke ground on a reportedly $1.2B plant to make solar materials. Sharp Electronics’ Memphis facility had switched to making solar panels in 2000 and AGC Flat Glass was making glass for panels in Kingsport. So it would seem that the TSI was established at the right time to make Tennessee a hotbed of solar research and installations. (Note that Farr and Kisber were instrumental in attracting Wacker Chemie AG and Hemlock Semiconductor to Tennessee.)

In January 2010, Bredesen announced that Confluence Solar was going to build a new $200M manufacturing facility in Clinton to produce high-efficiency silicon ingots for photovoltaic solar power generation. He remarked that his administration had embarked on its campaign to promote Tennessee as a focus of solar experimentation some two years earlier and claimed that since then, more than $2B in capital investment was promised, a thousand jobs created, and a “statewide solar footprint” made. Confluence, co-founded by a former ORNL researcher, was projected to add a total of 50-75 jobs initially, 250 later on, and up to 500 eventually. Of course, Confluence would qualify for lots of state help, including FastTrack Job Training Assistance, FastTrack Infrastructure Development, Tennessee Jobs Tax Credit, and the Super Jobs Tax Credit. Testing for Confluence would be done by ORNL.

In February 2010, Sharp was ramping up its workforce based on the demand created by the federal Solar Investment Tax Credit (reimbursing homeowners up to 30% of what they paid for the purchase and installation of solar equipment) and the New Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (financing the installation of solar equipment in commercial facilities). Sharp had also received “only” $1.6M of the ARRA Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit funding the previous month because “we’re conservative about getting government support”. Their most efficient solar product, however, was still being produced in the company’s Japanese and European facilities and not in the US.

In July 2010, it was announced that the funding of the Phase II construction of the Legends Park West project in Memphis would come not only from Hope IV grants and other public funding, but also from $1M provided by the government for solar energy equipment installation at the project. This was expected to increase further the employment by Sharp. A Sharp official said that “every form of energy gets an incentive from the government, whether it’s a tax credit or a direct payment” and the project designer said that “as more and more people do it, you won’t need the incentives any more”. It was claimed that the solar installation would provide at least 10% of the electrical demand for the project’s 100 apartment’s and townhouses.

In August 2010, it was announced that the TSI was providing grants (from the $9M of stimulus funds) totaling $4.5M for solar power projects throughout Tennessee, for an estimated 2.8 MW of solar power. The first round of applicants quickly took up all the grants.

In September 2010, it was announced that the state, TVA, Pinnacle National Bank, and Pathway Lending were establishing the Tennessee Energy Efficient Loan Program to help businesses wanting to retrofit their facilities to be more energy efficient (including by installing solar equipment). The first three players contributed $15M each and Pathway (who would run the program) contributed $5M; the loans would be for $20K to $1M, 5% interest, 10 years, and up to 100% of a retrofit project because, said Pathway’s president, “we really want the companies not to have out-of-pocket costs” even though some energy costs might not be markedly reduced. Debtor companies would be allowed to keep 50% of the energy savings and use the other 50% to pay back the loan. It was also announced that the state and TSI would partner to provide funding for “companies that manufacture or provide products to companies that manufacture solar products”. Jobs were expected to be created for energy auditors and general contractors who do the retrofits.

In October 2010, it was announced that Great Neck Saw Manufacturing, a Memphis hand tool manufacturer employing 60 people, would be awarded four separate grants of almost $1M each out of the $9M in TSI’s grant fund. The project, including the installation of some 3300 solar panels, would cost about $4M. Other awardees included First Tennessee Bank, Memphis Bioworks Foundation (who earlier had received a $2.9M federal grant to train workers for green jobs), Shelby Electric Co — and Sharp Manufacturing. The companies were free to sell any surplus power to TVA. A VP of the local utility, Memphis Light, Gas, and Water, observed, “Solar’s not cheap, so it doesn’t work for everyone, but we’re trying to become more green in our energy choices”.

Also in October 2010, Kisber and Farr met with Corrections Company of America and various solar vendors to explore ways in which CCA could “go green” in its facilities. Farr had resigned on 1 September, but Kisber was (and is) still working for the state. When the meeting with CCA hit the news, it was disclosed that Bredesen, Kisber, and Farr had formed a new company called Silicon Ranch whose purpose was to help companies that want to build solar arrays find funding from private investors. Bredesen, described as a passive investor, is the chairman of the company; both Kisber (president) and Farr (vice-chairman and secretary) were said to have been involved in their commissioner roles in recruiting solar businesses to the state.

In November 2010, it was reported that Farr had reserved the name of Silicon Ranch in Tennessee in July 2010 and he set it up as a corporation in Delaware in August of 2010, i.e., before he resigned. Silicon Ranch was said to be leasing office space from Pathway Lending, Tennessee’s partner in the Energy Efficient Loan Program. Asked about this, Bredesen commented that it was Kisber’s and Farr’s idea and he invested to encourage them. He was keeping this investment outside his blind trust, asserting that the three of them were receiving no benefit since there were no consulting contracts and that his investment was “a perfectly appropriate thing”. Bredesen was described as a “minority shareholder” but the other shareholders and their relative holdings in the company were not stated. Bredesen amended his state Disclosure of Interest form only after The Tennessean reported on his investment.

In December 2010, it was announced that various companies had received Solar Innovation grants from TSI. Sharp received $1.2M; Mid-South Sustainable Energy Solutions (a promoter of industrial solar installation), $218K; AGC Flat Glass, $1.5M in multiple grants; Soltility (design, financing, installation of solar systems), $90K. About 17 other businesses also received grants. The corresponding private investment of all the businesses (all solar businesses, per a UT VP) was about $13M. Sharp was going to use its grant for an energy audit and an expansion of its manufacturing line to promote efficiency; Mid-South, to upgrade its internal solar and “sustainable” (presumably non-solar) energy equipment; AGC, to have an energy audit, install a 50-kW solar array, and train its workforce in new technology in glassmaking (“so AGC can better compete”); Soltility, to develop a market study to explore ways of finding customers for companies like Sharp and AGC. These grants were apparently made from the original ARRA stimulus funds used to found the TSI, in contrast to the original description of the TSI as using the funds for UT-ORNL research and for establishing the Solar Farm.

We can see that Bredesen, Kisber, and Farr were involved for a long time in promoting the solar industry in Tennessee. They recruited solar-related businesses to the state (using all sorts of tax breaks and other incentives); helped obtain federal funding for the development and promotion of the industry in Tennessee; and sought partnerships with various other entities as a way of getting these efforts off the ground.

That they themselves chose to invest in the solar industry by forming a company might just mean that they are enthusiasts about solar power, except for one thing. The company they chose to form seems to be a sort of middleman or broker as regards investments in other solar companies or obtaining grants. This means that they are selling their expertise — when they seem to be solar amateurs — or they are selling entrée. If they had just waited patiently until Bredesen had left office, this would not appear to be the conflict of interest that it clearly is now, but evidently they wanted to get going before the federal funds dried up.

It seems that state officials have taken solar energy generation and turned it into a boondoggle. All this building of solar installations and the increase in the demand for solar energy-generating equipment seems to be largely generated and propped up by government subsidies; it is not taking place by popular demand. It is promoted as benefiting the welfare of the planet as a whole, but in Tennessee it seems just to be a device to benefit insiders and favored companies by raking off state and federal taxpayer dollars. I.e., there is a big pile of money out there that is going to go to someone and our state officials have decided they might as well be among them.

Moreover, many of the funds are not going directly to new solar installation. For example, training the workforce in core production activities (such as glassmaking) does not appear to be in the R&D and pilot project nature of the originally stated intended use of the federal funds. Besides, many of the claimed benefits are not truly solar benefits. Me, I love my little solar-powered calculator. But it is more aptly called a light-powered calculator — I can use it at night wherever I have enough light, unlike a solar energy-generating device. Solar energy generation may be greener but it does not by itself save any energy; all that insulation being installed under the rubric of solar backfits is not saving any heat loss due to the use of solar power per se. Ordinary companies know this and that is why they don’t make huge investments of their own money in it; they require subsidies and sweetheart loans in order to install this new gadgetry.

I hope that my fellow taxpayers will see the governor’s little investment for the self-serving act that it is — and for the conflict of interest that it manifestly is.

Pat Fain and City of Oak Ridge Finances

[Published in The Oak Ridger, August 10, 2010]

We Oak Ridgers are fortunate to have Pat Fain investigating the city’s finances and reporting the results to us (The Oak Ridger, 6/2/10). She seems to be taking up the mantle of the late John Reeve, who as older Oak Ridgers may recall diligently dug through the Parcel A balance sheets and expressed concern publicly. I hope that Oak Ridgers pay more attention to Ms. Fain than they did to Mr. Reeve.

It seems incredible that Ms. Fain was told that she could not obtain from the city a financial compilation such as she eventually put together herself; surely the data set that she compiled is well known to the city staff and has been summarized by them periodically. Perhaps the reason for the roadblock is that the facts, if known, would enrage the citizenry. For example, I feel sure that very few people besides the city council and staff were aware that the city’s debt is being paid back as interest only for 20-30 years and that balloon payments on the principal will be due at the end of that time.

I don’t disagree with Ms. Fain about her solution to our civic financial problems, that is, establishing a financial advisory board. However, I think an even better solution is one that I have suggested before: vote out all of those council members who have put us into this situation by going along with irresponsible “never pay today what you can put off until tomorrow” proposals. We need to do this before the city goes bankrupt.

Marina Plan a Done Deal

[Published in The Oak Ridger, March 19,2010]

The Oak Ridger headline says it all: “Council wants casual dining at Melton Lake”. The City Council always gets what it wants, despite a line of citizens standing in front of them to ask them to vote otherwise. The city staff claims that residents have expressed a “desire for…casual dining” at the Marina, but I wonder if this was based on a push poll designed to elicit just that response. If so, respondents likely were not aware that the choice was either casual dining or the New China Palace, not both.

So the Palace, which has been operating and paying taxes for 37 years, is going to be out and some unnamed “casual dining” business will be in — something like Panera Bread or O’Charley’s. Since we already have versions of these two eateries in town, will more revenue really be raised by replacing an established restaurant with one of them? Do we really want a higher potential for fast food wrappers to be strewn about the lake?

The city manager averred that the Palace was “not being thrown out”, because the Palace could submit their own reconfigured business plan to include casual facilities. But since, as usual, it appears that the City Council, or its backers, already have someone else in mind, I advise the Chou family [owners of the New China Palace] not to bother, on the grounds that it is a done deal.

The Council has also voted to replace two Industrial Development Board members who resigned. Any hopes one had that non-development interests might be considered were dashed when the two successful applicants were announced: an executive at a financial institution and a local developer and real estate owner. The vote was even more significant in terms of the Council’s strong pro-development tilt since the mayor (who is employed by a realty firm) and another member (whose Facebook friends include one of the new members of the IDB) were not present for the vote.

Many features that made Oak Ridge a wonderful small town have gone by the wayside, especially several unique small businesses and the sense of being a united and purposeful community. Further sacrifice of our assets and our community focus seems inevitable with these new developments. (Pardon the pun.)

Answer to the Marina Dilemma

[Published in The Oak Ridger, May 12, 2010]

Sigh. Just when it appeared that reason might prevail in our civic affairs, the Oak Ridger reported that the City Council is still fixated on the idea of kicking out the New China Palace and waving in an vaguely defined “casual dining” entity at the marina.

This occurred despite the spate of letters to the editor against this plan, the many people who spoke up directly at a City Council meeting, and the reports that the “what to do with the marina” meetings that supposedly produced the citizen recommendation for a casual dining establishment appear to have been rigged to produce the desired conclusion.

The City Council does not seem to have learned the lessons of the past and neither have the voters who keep electing those council members who favor development projects even when they make no sense. The citizens who mobilized public opinion against the Crestpointe project managed to get that stopped, but it was a huge fight that they would not want to have to repeat. I suggest that an easier and more efficient way to bring common sense back to civic decisions regarding the encouragement of commercial development would be to throw the bums out in the next election. We have no other realistic choice if we do not want to keep paying through the nose for one cockamamie project after another.

A Trojan Horse for Development by Other Means

[Published(?) in The Oak Ridger after April 5, 2011]

I rejoiced with many other Oak Ridgers when it was announced that the replacement of the New China Palace with a fast food palace had been postponed indefinitely. It seemed a good sign when the city manager announced that a new Parks and Recreation advisory board was to be appointed.

Since then, however, the omens have not been auspicious. First, the City Council will not weed through the list of 61 applicants for the board one by one in open session, possibly using a ranking system. No, each member of the City Council will pick his faves and only those picks will be considered by the full council. This leaves applicants or their adherents free to lobby individual members to be placed on the faves lists. Some perfectly good candidates who might fare well with a ranking system may fall by the wayside in the “who do you like?” system. There is a lot of scope for “packing” of the board with people sympathetic to favored interests.

Second, in a recent op-ed piece in which parks and rec priorities appear to have been pre-set, the city manager says that “citizens have expressed strong interest in the development of a vibrant riverfront”. Which citizens, exactly? Who is it who has the city manager’s ear? Are they the pro-development crowd, as usual? Along the same lines, the phrase “business acumen” — dropped in there with the bullet about dog parks, which would not seem to require much business acumen, sounds like a signal to, again, the development crowd.

Finally, the focus of the vibrant waterfront is said to be the “rowing basin at the end of Emory Valley Road”. The rowing folks seem to want to dedicate that whole area to regattas, but those of us who live out that way aren’t so sure that the acreage will support a big expansion. The traffic issues alone on Melton Lake Drive, not to mention all those heedless rowing kids jogging on the narrow shoulders of Emory Valley Road, are problematic. “Sports tourism” indeed — what “tournaments”?

This board may be a Trojan horse for development by other means. I.e., when faced with unexpected citizen opposition to a proposal, an administration may choose to feign citizen representation by forming a cherry-picked board that will of course reach the proper and predetermined conclusion.

Watch your back, New China Palace.

City Promotes Free Improvements for a Private Development

[Published(?) in The Oak Ridger or The Oak Ridge Observer after December 23, 2011, or January 9, 2012]

After my letter including comments on the Woodland Town Center (WTC) TIF proposal was published in The Oak Ridger (TOR, 11/24/11), someone remarked to me bitterly that the fix appeared to be in for this proposed project and its use of taxpayer dollars. Only six weeks elapsed from the public announcement of the TIF to the approvals by the Industrial Development Board (IDB), the city, and the county — against Mr. Hardy’s saying that the TIF has been in the works for three years. In fact, some IDB minutes from 2009 showed that Mr. Wheeler said then that the developers were to take out Quincy Avenue and that the city had already agreed to provide a new road with traffic light. (Back then, the planning was for five businesses, not two, with patios for outdoor dining and parking at the back of the complex.)

Now that the approvals are in, talking up the WTC project has gone into overdrive. Mr. Wise terms the new area a “Great Crossroads”; Mr. Hope says it is “the way to go”; Mr. Hitchcock says it is a “wonderful thing”; and Ms. Miller (who Mr. Wise says originally told him and his partner about the two restaurants being interested in coming to Oak Ridge) declares it is “all good”. Despite all this, however, questions remain.

The Oak Ridger slid around the question of the funding of the road and electrical “improvements” in the beginning, but the Knoxville News-Sentinel told us from the get-go (KNS, 11/11/11) that it is an “investment” by the city and the IDB, a term that indicates that some risk is involved. Mr. Jenkins assures us that the risk is minimal, with “the bank” being liable if the tax proceeds are not sufficient to cover the IDB-issued bond costs. But the bank has not been signed up yet and anyway Ms. Smith tells us clearly in her thoughtful blog that the city/IDB itself is borrowing the money. So how can it be that the city is not on the hook to pay off the bonds out of other revenues if the increase in the property taxes is not sufficient?

The risk factor is also reflected in TOR’s repeated reporting that “a new development generally increases site value which sometimes generates increased tax revenues”, “property tax growth could go from $20,000 to $40,000 annually”, etc. (my underlinings). It seems that these could-would terms are coming from the city and the IDB (apparently quoting from Wikipedia). Of course they can’t guarantee results.

Ms. Denton of the IDB referred to the TIF as a “joint cost-sharing solution”; one at first thought that that was between the developer and the city, but it seems now that it is between the city, the IDB, and the county. As various reporting sources state regarding, say, Knoxville TIFs, it is supposed to be the developer who borrows the money for the improvements, which it is allowed to pay back with the later tax proceeds; an IDB or other governmental entity seems to control the disbursement of the loan in stages. Knox County’s IDB is therefore referred to as a conduit lender. This seems to be different from an IDB’s borrowing the money itself and issuing the bonds in the name of the city, for use by the city in making improvements that benefit the development. So exactly who is on the hook is unclear.

As many sources also point out, TIFs were originally for aiding development of blighted areas or areas unlikely to be developed without some help, i.e., for development would not take place “but for” the TIF goosing. It has expanded in many juridictions to help finance retail developments in non-blighted or even affluent areas. The taxes foregone are usually only increments in the property taxes, as apparently is true for the WTC TIF; increased sales taxes, if any, are a cherry on top.

If the WTC TIF increment in the city property tax is $20K as per Mr. Jenkins, it will take 30 years, not 20, to pay off the $600K+ city investment. (And does the $600K include time value of money considerations? Interest on the bonds?) What the city is really counting on is an increase in the sales tax, none of which will go toward the bonds: $83K for the city and $86K for the county, with part of the county’s portion to go to support the Oak Ridge school system — a whole $29K, or about $580K over 20 years. $600K to get back $580K….such a deal….

If you forego all the property taxes for two decades, that means that that money is all committed in advance to paying off the improvements put in and paid for at the front end via the issuance of bonds, essentially a loan taken out by the city. The city’s outlay on the improvements is paid off when the bonds are sold, but doesn’t the entire bond offering has to be bought up by investors in the near term for this to work? One would think that the bank would require the city to make some guarantee for the contingency that the increment in the property taxes is not sufficient to pay off the bonds. The IDB plan is, in financial terms, “debt financing in anticipation of future tax revenues”. So we had better be certain that we really are going to benefit from the improvements.

One hopes that the sales contracts will be completely finalized before the city puts in the improvements. Supposedly the developers are only selling the land to Panera and Aubrey’s and it is the restaurants who are actually investing at least half of the $4M. Down the road, although the number put forth as the city/IDB investment is $600K, the cap on this investment is $1.2M, meaning that we could end up spending twice as much as is projected now. Besides, the extra costs accruing to the city — such as extra police protection for the developed area, maintenance of the traffic light, etc., will go on and on.

There is also the unfairness factor: favoring new development — such as new or expanding restaurants that compete with existing ones — disfavors already established businesses. As one source commenting on a study done for the State of Tennessee says, “the study authors also argue that TIF favors big businesses that can negotiate incentive packages with local governments, and leaves small businesses that pay all local taxes to fund financial incentives given to their competitors.”* Other businesses are not getting help with their drainage issues or with access to their businesses. It may be argued that if a stoplight is to go in, the city should pay for it, but what about the drainage and electrical improvements and the new street on the site itself, owned by the developers? (And do the vaguely termed “utilities” improvements include running electrical and sewer lines into the development, properly a developer cost?)

Nobody seems to have said much about the new traffic light, so close to the one at the intersection of Lafayette and Illinois. Although Ms. Smith acknowledges that citizens have expressed concerns to her about this, she thinks that the stoplight is “inevitable” — perhaps like death and taxes and revenues falling short of rosy projections. Then there will be that vacant Panera Bread building to fill. There is also the troublesome fact that the City Council, having previously ordained that food could be delivered only within any restaurant (i.e., as sit-down service or takeout) in this area, has now revised the ordinance to state — explicitly for the WTC — that drive-through delivery is allowed from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm. The WTC clearly is being accommodated six ways from Sunday.

The improvements paid for by the city are supposed to be for the benefit of the public. In the present instance, we are supposed to benefit by the addition of jobs, tax revenue (for the schools), and, oh, inspiration for other businesses to come. However, if we build it, will they come? If they don’t, we are stuck with an unnecessary and traffic-slowing stoplight and a vacant old Panera Bread building.

I am not per se opposed to this project or to a TIF. But I am concerned about the conjectural nature of so much that has been said about the funding for this project. So far most of the arguments have been of the “free money — won’t cost us a thing” sort. I hope that the city — officials and citizens alike — do some more homework on this before that stoplight goes in.

Marina-Woodland TIF-Electic Switches-Partnering Agreement

[Published by The Oak Ridger, November 24, 2011]

Again we must ask: are the people who control our tax money going to keep shoveling money out the door and into the pockets of special interests?

Exhibit A is that pavilion at the Oak Ridge Marina that the city fathers seem to think we just have to have although nobody else does. Should the city, in these straitened economic times, be spending money on this? As with the undoubtedly related casual dining/New China Palace affair, the fix seems to be in for some special interest. I am guessing that it is the rowing crowd, but perhaps they are just being used by some enterprising developer who has found — as so many such have — that you just have to dangle the prospect of more tax revenue in front of the City Council and they will start to salivate.

Exhibit B is the unprecedented TIF financing proposed for two restaurants in the Woodland Town Center under development just off South Illinois Avenue. To enable this development to be built, Quincy Avenue would be closed, a new road would be built, and a new traffic signal would be installed on Illinois Avenue to facilitate entry into the Center, all at public expense. As usual, the city will be paid back “some day” from new tax revenue from the development — which the city would get anyway if the developers paid for the traffic improvements, so why is an Industrial Development Board calling it “a joint cost-sharing solution”? Oak Ridgers may wonder if we need another two restaurants to compete with those we have, especially at what the mayor calls “the entrance to the city” (as if the other restaurants were so far away from that point). Oak Ridgers may also remember that a previous proposal for a hotel on a too-small lot in that neighborhood was essentially killed by public protest, for good reason.

Exhibit C is the circuit switches that the City of Oak Ridge and the Industrial Development Board will pay $78,000 for on behalf of an insurance company that said it would walk if the city didn’t fork over the money. Everybody else suffers from our power outages, but somehow this company has switches provided for it. Why? The company has promised to add 125 jobs to its payroll by 2014 (paying an average of $45,000), but we all know what such promises are worth. Unless the city has it in writing that the company will refund the switch money if it is not able to provide the jobs, the money should be listed as a gift. But….isn’t it illegal for the city to make a gift to a private for-profit entity?

Exhibit D is the “new” partnering agreement that “establishes goals” (but apparently nothing more concrete) to “enhance reindustrialization” at ETTP. Every year, it seems, there is a new such agreement or some announcement by CROET of progress to come. But like Godot, progress never arrives. DOE (per The Oak Ridger) “envisions an ever expanding, sustainable, and commercial economy for the region”, but somehow this vision never comes to pass. DOE has bought off Oak Ridge for years by doling out a little money and land bit by bit to CROET and by promising to foster development at ETTP. The city fathers, in lieu of other payments, keep accepting these promissory sops on behalf of the city, even though so far there doesn’t seem to be any direct benefit to the city or its residents. The money must be going into somebody’s pockets, but it somehow doesn’t support any jobs…oh, right, except those of CROET itself.

The city should have a contest for a new motto. “Special Interests ‘R’ Us”? “Make Us An Offer We Can’t Refuse — Because We Never Refuse Any”? Or “Spin Our Wheel of Fortune — Every Slot A Payoff”? Joking aside, if all the exhibits above don’t motivate the citizenry to reconsider our leadership, what will?

City Manager Requests That the City Pay for His PhD

[Published(?) in The Oak Ridger after July 7, 2012]

City Manager Mark Watson’s request for the city to cover the costs of his pursuing his PhD certainly shows a lot of chutzpah. One would think that a man who is getting a raise and will soon be earning $136,700 a year could afford to pay for his own educational expenses.

The thinking behind an employer’s paying for an employee’s further education is that a degree or certification earned by the employee will benefit the employer, either directly (by adding a needed skill or body of knowledge in the scope of the employer’s business interests) or indirectly (by increasing the level of education the employer can claim for its employees or by increasing the likelihood that the employee will stay). This does not seem to be the case for Mr. Watson: Oak Ridge does not need for him to have a PhD, its business operations will not be enhanced by his having a PhD, and he is already getting a contract extension.

Is he threatening to leave if he doesn’t get the educational subsidy? If so, the city fathers may think it cheaper to pay for his PhD than for a new city manager search, but that would set a bad precedent. Besides, why does he want a PhD anyway? Is he angling for a new job down the road, perhaps as a professor or high-level administrator at UT or some other institution of higher learning? In that case, he might be leaving us anyway after he gets his PhD even if he does have to pay us back.

I hope that the city fathers, already concerned about where our next tax dollar is coming from, will kick this proposal out to the curb.

Paying an Advisor…Or Facilitator……Or Closer….Or Enforcer?

[Published(?) in The Oak Ridger or The Oak Ridge Observer after July 15, 2012]

I doubt that there is anyone in Oak Ridge who assumes that the city can remain the same forever, like Brigadoon. Nearly everybody would enjoy having a nice new comprehensive shopping area such as we used to have in the mall. But a lot of Oak Ridgers are concerned that city officials are pushing development aggressively in ways that seem not to take account of Oak Ridgers’ desire to preserve our quality of life, besides giving a boost to some developers and their partnering businesses and disfavoring others. The hiring of Ray Evans as a part-time contract worker seems to bear that out.

I don’t mean to impugn Mr. Evans’ motives or abilities. After all, he has a number of supporters who back him so enthusiastically they wanted him to become city manager instead of Mark Watson and one must respect the fact that he was the CEO of a prominent engineering firm. But it is hard not to view the hiring of Mr. Evans as just another ploy to allow developers to have their way with Oak Ridge.

According to The Oak Ridger, the city used to have a full-time economic director who left and was not replaced. Also, the departed deputy city manager has not been replaced. Thus the city is saving the cost of these two positions. But why would hiring a part-time contract person be preferable to having a full-time direct hire business liaison, if bringing in new businesses is such a high priority for the city? It is eye-popping to hear that the City Council doesn’t think so.

City officials and others claim that the city has a bad reputation among developers and potential new businesses regarding business-friendliness. For example, according to The Oak Ridger Observer, developer Walter Wise (Woodland Town Center Project) said he had to attend 80 meetings with city officials just to sell three acres in Oak Ridge. (Sounds improbable, but he swears it’s true.) But now, it seems, life for Mr. Wise is much easier because Mr. Evans does the legwork with the city regulatory and advisory entities. Wait: Evans is doing the developer’s work, on the city’s dollar? What is wrong with this picture???

The Chamber of Commerce says that while it does try to attract new business to Oak Ridge, it cannot speak for the city regarding, e.g., decisions about sewer lines, etc. This is as it should be, of course. But surely Mr. Evans is not empowered to do that either. And couldn’t the Chamber of Commerce run around doing project presentations to advisory boards and helping the developer prepare approval paperwork?

As we have seen over the last year, at least two neighborhoods have been eviscerated to create retail centers. It seems that homeowners were picked off one by one in secrecy until the last few saw their futures as living surrounded by a mall and caved in. Of course, all these homeowners will relocate, but will they all stay in Oak Ridge? The fate of the Unitarian [Universalist] church is in the balance too. Do these machinations seem to be in the true spirit of Oak Ridge?

City officials and the pro-development crowd claim that there’s nothing anybody can do about all this: “It’s not illegal”, “You can’t stop progress”, “Gotta grow”, they say. But when a development project proceeds very far in the planning (and especially in property purchases and other financial outlays) before rezoning has occurred to allow the project and before TIFs or other concessions are approved, does this not suggest that the fix is in, or at least that developers can count on the city’s cooperation (possibly signaled in advance by friendly city officials)?

City officials have clearly let developers — representing new businesses and new neighborhoods — know that they will use their discretionary powers not just to let the developers in but to help them. They are not just asking others to move over on the couch to let the new ones sit down, but actually kicking others off the couch to let the new ones have a seat. The hiring of Mr. Evans seems to be another high sign to the development interests.

Urging a Vote for Trina Baughn To Help Get Our City Back on Track

[Published(?) in The Oak Ridger after July 25, 2012]

I urge my fellow Oak Ridgers to vote for Trina Baughn for City Council in the upcoming election.

Oak Ridge is at a crossroads in its civic life. We need thoughtful people to make decisions for the economic and social future of the city. We need people who will examine each new proposal to see if it has a reasonable probability of success and each city operation to see if it is cost-effective and truly responsive to citizen concerns. We need people who will not continue to follow the failed policies of the past and will not automatically accept the received notions held to be true by many of those currently running the city.

Trina Baughn is such a person. Over a period of years, she has shown herself to be diligent in ferreting out information regarding city finances; her inquiries into school spending have been especially useful. She is principled and forward-thinking in her consideration of how city needs and wants might be prioritized. She keeps the human element in mind in thinking about what might be workable for the city, now and in the future.

Given the issues facing the city at present, Ms. Baughn is the right person to be chosen for the City Council.

Boosterism As A Way To Encourage Spending on Pet Projects

[Published(?) in The Oak Ridger after October 3, 2012]

There seems to be a new Oak Ridge boosterism campaign, one seemingly calculated to make Oak Ridgers feel all warm and fuzzy about the present city administration and its agents right before the upcoming election.

Earlier, it was announced with great fanfare that the feds were going to give $500,000 toward “stabilization” of the Alexander Inn. Now with even more fanfare, we are told that a company proposing to turn the poor wreck into an assisted-living facility wants a “payment in lieu of tax” (PILOT) amounting to $644,000 to be awarded as a 10-year 90% tax abatement. That would be a total of $1.14M, sure to help somebody’s bottom line.

Mr. [Ray] Evans says the company reps “have a passion for” restoration of old buildings. But surely the acquisition of a building that brings with it considerable possibilities for federal, state, and local funding is also attractive to them. It is questionable whether a majority of Oak Ridgers really approves of this use of public funds — there are so many better ways that the money might be spent. Besides that, it may not feasible to turn the Alexander [Inn] into a quality assisted-living facility: e.g., the difficulties of replumbing because of the “pipes and storm drains under the building”. And once the building is gutted, how much “history” will be left to preserve other than the façade? The Oak Ridger should be out asking ordinary people’s opinion on this, not just the city officials and the Alexander fans.

The Industrial Development Board may have a significant role in this PILOT decision, despite doubts that “the preservation of the property [will] fit the existing matrix of the IDB” (because it is not an “industrial” project). But the city will ask for their concurrence anyway. A recent article by Mr. Biloski touted the great things done by the IDB, particularly mentioning the 10 present and one former “partners” (who knew there were so many?) in IDB’s PILOT program. It seemed to be another paean to city administration and to be self-back-patting because he is, of course, chairman of the IDB. He calls the IDB “your IDB” (to enhance citizen identification with this unelected body) and declares victory for some projects on which the jury is surely still out. After all, a PILOT partner may never finish a project or may go out of business fairly soon, as happened with various projects of the IDB’s sometime partner, CROET. And how ’bout the IDB’s “creativity” in funding the $68K electric switch for a private business that threatened to leave if it was not provided? Seems more like enabling to me. Taxwise, we have more to fear than to anticipate from the IDB.

Then there was the letter to The Oak Ridger from a former Oak Ridger. She is excited by the completion of the Melton Lake greenway: “That was the right thing to do.” (Somebody official already said that about that.) She was unhappy to see “some of the poor choices made by past town councils,” “especially the rotting of the Alexander” (a sentimental childhood memory), which the current administration is by inference remedying. She deplores the way other cities have nothing but chain stores and chain restaurants (I guess like Target and Panera Bread and Kroger). Was her letter a spontaneous utterance or did someone put her up to it?

And are we to see more booster-class letters and articles all the way up to the election? Groan.

Urging Votes for Smith, Baughn, and Abbatiello

[Published(?) in The Oak Ridger after October 14, 2012]

“If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.” I urge my fellow Oak Ridgers to vote for three candidates who will be part of the solution: Ellen Smith, Trina Baughn, and Leonard Abbatiello.

Ms. Smith has distinguished herself on the City Council as a thoughtful and informed member who considers the merits of each issue, especially development and fiscal responsibility. We should keep her.

Ms. Baughn is a prominent advocate of openness and fiscal accountability in government, energetically inquiring into the details of how money is being spent, especially in the schools. She will be a vigilant guardian of our public purse.

Like most Oak Ridgers, Ms. Smith and Ms. Baughn are not against development per se: Ms. Smith has voted for various projects and Ms. Baughn has noted some that she thinks will work for Oak Ridge. But the track record of some other incumbents includes near-automatic approval of any project that developers bring them. We need smart development, not deals that give huge tax breaks or even outright gifts on the mere promise of new facilities and jobs, or that favor new businesses while disfavoring existing ones.

Mr. Abbatiello, when on the City Council, was a tireless digester of detailed finance documents. Recently he has made a considerable effort to untangle school finances and explain them to the public. The school board clearly needs him as a financial watchdog.

Keys Fillauer and Angi Agle have been on the school board since at least September 2003, i.e., they were there when the “21st century” high school rebuilding/renovation plan was hatched (2003) and when the half-cent sales tax increase was pushed through (Aug 2004). They are still defending that enormous expenditure and feuding with the City Council over it. Unlike them, Mr. Abbatiello will help resolve this mess.

Ms. Smith, Ms. Baughn, and Mr. Abbatiello, by their sustained efforts to sort out the good information from the bad and to explain it to the public, deserve to be elected.

An Alternative Proposal for a Historic Museum

[Published in The Oak Ridger after September 3, 2012]

DOE inexplicably gives a $500,000 grant to acquire and “stabilize” the [long unoccupied] Alexander Inn, while Oak Ridge has to borrow $500,000 to help expand Roane State [Community College]? And then someone wants a TIF for the Alexander? Seriously?

Last year, someone I respect urged me to help save the Alexander. So I took a special interest in it. But I remain unconvinced that a crumbling building of no architectural interest should be kept on life support just because a few people of interest mostly to Manhattan Project buffs stayed there. If private efforts failed to raise the needed funds, public funds should not be used to cover the gap.

Surely the real interest of the oldtime Oak Ridge facilities is in the unique aspects of the work. Furthermore, all the wordy plaques and interpreters in the world are not going to make history come alive by themselves.

My ideal Historical Exhibit/Museum (HEM) for Oak Ridge would be as follows.

Why make people drive to five or six different sites to see historical exhibits — to ORNL, K-25, AMSE, the Children’s Museum, the Alexander, the plaque garden at Bissell Park, etc.? My HEM would consolidate exhibits at a single site (except that AMSE and the Children’s Museum, because they are attractive to visit for their other exhibits, might choose to keep their own displays but maybe send selected bits to my HEM). Some plaques and pictures would be included, but the main thing would be the visual interactive displays.

I’d start my HEM at the established Graphite Reactor area at ORNL. Visitors there can see what went on on a real scale, e.g., human-sized mannekins in uniforms shoving in rods by hand. My HEM would have a companion scale model of the reactor that kids could themselves push rods into and out of, with lights going on to show when criticality was reached. Large photographs would show other aspects of early reactor work — not people standing in a row for a picture, but workers actually involved in jobs.

I would have K-25 and Y-12 exhibits, e.g., a couple of rehabbed calutrons, with mannekins sitting on their stools. Again, a “bring-the-principle-to-life” display would be essential. For gaseous diffusion, for example, there could be a shaker table arrangement, with color- and size-coded marbles representing the uranium isotopes.

On an ORNL “Take Your Children to Work” day years ago, my daughter and other children got to try working the manipulators in a hot cell bank. They loved it! My HEM would have several hot cell replicas with real (recycled) manipulators, mirrors, etc., for visitors to try out. Another remote hot work display could include a small platform from which a visitor could try to take the lid off a small tank below and fish out an item using a rod run through a ball port. A strong colored light in the tank could show the visitor when he was being “irradiated” by the tank contents.

There would be an area with radiation detectors for visitors to try out with the usual legal sources (old Fiestaware, Coleman lantern mantles, etc.). Hidden sources could be placed around the room for visitors to locate.

At the exit, I would put that wonderful picture of Oak Ridgers holding up a newspaper whose giant headline is “WAR ENDS”, just to remind everybody of what it was all for.

My HEM would limit the oral recitation and plaque-presentation of information that, however factual and scientific, gets boring very quickly when imparted only that way. It would be STEM-friendly for schoolkids and would reduce stress on older visitors by reducing travel time. My HEM would ideally elicit this reaction: “I never knew that! Cool!”

Questionable Project: the Alexander Inn

[Published(?) in The Oak Ridger after April 27, 2013]

In his 21 April 2013 op-ed column, Scott Brooks said that the Alexander Inn project will create 40 jobs and have an annual economic impact of $2.7M. Some people will see only the dollar signs and pay no attention to the many concerns associated with this questionable project.

Mr. Brooks says that the Industrial Development Board is required by state law “to maintain title” to the property through the life of the PILOT. Sure, but what we want to know is why. I consulted the Tennessee Code Annotated at the library (Title 7, Chapter 53, Section 101 et seq). I had trouble following what it said; as a librarian joked, that’s why it’s called a “code”. It must say somewhere that it must be an industrial development “corporation” that has to hold the title to a property in the case of a PILOT (or “pilot” as the Code has it), but I couldn’t find anything but a mention of the corporation having a first lien on the property. In any case, I again ask why, if the PILOT is not in the IDB’s scope to approve and if the IDB itself is not leasing the property to the developer or issuing bonds, is the IDB apparently administering the process?

Besides that, let’s follow the bouncing ball. The title to the property is initially held by the owners. Then DOE gives a grant of $500K to the East Tennessee Preservation Association to purchase and stabilize the property. After purchasing the property for $350K, the ETPA hands the title over to….whom? To the developer, for subsequent transfer to the IDB? To the city for ditto? Or to the IDB directly? Is it legally appropriate for the ETPA to purchase the property with federal money and then in effect transfer it to a private party to turn into a commercial enterprise? As for the $150K of stabilization money, was it handed directly to the developer by the ETPA or Oak Ridge with no strings attached, or are there requirements for auditing its use, with penalties for misuse? Aren’t these details important? Are things being done the right way so as to avoid legal troubles down the road? When will the details be made public? We keep being told the same generalities, but as we all know, the devil is in the details.

After my Alexander Inn column appeared on 7 April 2013, various people told me by E-mail or telephone that they agreed with me. Two other people told me this in person at band practice; my dentist thanked me for my column while I was in his office; my appliance repairman and I had a conversation about this as he repaired my stove. These folks don’t seem to think the dilapidated Alexander Inn is an “iconic” must-have or that “the PILOT does not cost the taxpayers anything”. Whatever the Alexander Inn project promoters tell us, clearly many people in Oak Ridge think this project is both fishy and foolish.

One Hand Taketh Away, The Other Giveth

[Published(?) in The Oak Ridger after July 7, 2013]

The Oak Ridge City Council has decided to reduce support payments to the Chamber of Commerce, clearly preferring to use hired direct recruiters to attract new businesses.

But the Industrial Development Board has found a way to make it up to the COC. The IDB will move into the COC building and pay rent; it will also pay the COC $25K per year for doing IDB bookkeeping and minutes, answering the IDB phone, etc. The COC will become in effect the IDB’s administrative staff. The money for this will presumably come from the city as part of the IDB budget, thus seemingly circumventing the city’s decision about funding the COC.

Did the IDB previously do their administrative stuff themselves? Why can’t they continue to do it or ask the City Council to fund part-time help? Sure, the IDB is a “part-time volunteer board”, but they agreed to the work when they accepted their appointments.

The IDB is an official board with statutory responsibilities, representing the interests of the citizens and serving as the official point of contact for prospective new businesses. The COC is mainly an affiliation of businesses; even with city funding the COC is not an official agency of the city and serves the interests of its members.

So if the COC answers phones for the IDB (and thus gets the lowdown on what new businesses might be interested in coming in Oak Ridge), does the IDB books (and thus sees what the IDB has to spend and how it is spending it), and prepares the IDB minutes (and thus controls the record) — well, there does seem to be the potential for a significant conflict of interest here.

Is it really in the best interests of the citizens to have the IDB bunking with their buddies, the COC?

Oak Ridge Gives….And Gives….And Gives Some More

[Published(?) in The Oak Ridger after March 20, 2013]

Oak Ridger recently reported that Protomet Corporation is applying for a new PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) arrangement from the Oak Ridge Industrial Development Board. The Oak Ridger said that Protomet had already had one PILOT that started in 2005.

The IDB, according to its minutes, actually approved the first PILOT in January 2006 and the application closed in January 2007. The capital investment was said to be a total of $1.9M and 34 jobs were to be provided. Protomet even at one point asked that a further building be added to the PILOT, but the IDB thought that rated another PILOT application.

That first PILOT was a 100% tax abatement for 4 years and it ended in December 2010. So if the IDB appoves the new PILOT, it will not have been quite three years between Protomet PILOTs.

In 2004 TVA apparently approved an economic development loan to Protomet to assist its expansion. The statement then was that $1.1M in capital investment and 50 jobs would be provided by Protomet. Not only that, but in 2005 TDOT provided a grant of $62K to Oak Ridge to improve and extend a drive to serve the Protomet site in Bethel Valley Industrial Park; the city would otherwise have paid for this out of the proceeds of selling the site to Protomet.

Nor should we forget the “Incumbent Worker” training grant of about $30K to Protomet from the State of Tennessee in 2012. A State of Tennessee Web site stated that Protomet said that the grant would “allow the company to balance capital expenditures with process and organizational improvements to keep cost low and compete in the global economy, allowing the business to grow and retain employees”, whatever that means.

As we can see, Protomet has received a lot of government assistance one way and another. Isn’t it time the IDB cut the cord and made Protomet support itself?

Marina Slowly Being Ceded to the Rowing People

[Published(?) in The Oak Ridger after April 9, 2014]

The marina seems to be turning into a wholly owned subsidiary of the Oak Ridge Rowing Association. The recent Oak Ridger article about the ORRA director’s “vision” shows why the city fathers are allowing the marina to be converted into a commercial site mainly benefiting rowing interests: it’s all about how much money will flow into the city’s coffers.

Significant Melton Lake Drive traffic issues arise whenever there is a regatta or training session and for months ugly orange barrels have obscured the line of sight up Melton Lake Drive for those turning from Emory Valley Road. Making regattas and rowing training the priority for the marina area also has a big impact on the non-rowing public’s use of the greenway, pavilion, and playground: we get to use these only when the rowers aren’t. These areas are supposed to be for all of us, but for weeks on end it is impossible to park in the marina area much of the time.

On a recent non-rowing Sunday, the windows of the now unsightly former New China Palace building were bricked up. It is occupied by a company that rents out bicycles and recreational boats. Is this company paying as much in taxes or rent as the New China Palace did? Where is the fast-food emporium, the selling point to the community for kicking out the New China Palace?

Nearby, there was a rowing instructor in a motorboat, with her students in rowing sculls. She constantly shouted orders at her charges. There was also the noise of people’s radios and children at play, but that was very different from the shouting. So much for peace and quiet.

The marina/greenway area is a wonderful amenity for Oak Ridge, but its being co-opted for priority use as a rowing venue is problematic for public benefit. Unless you follow the dictum most of our leaders subscribe to: money trumps every other consideration.

Nitrogen Company “Needs” Water from a Free Public Source

[Probably not published; submitted to the Knoxville News Sentinel on August 12, 2014]

In July Tom Ferguson of the Greene County Partnership said that for its new ammonium nitrate plant, US Nitrogen switched from cooling water provided by the Greene County Water Department to water from the Nolichucky River because US Nitrogen engineers underestimated the amount of water needed. But he also asserted that US Nitrogen assures everyone that up-to-date equipment and processes will be used; he said the new plant has been vetted by “so many engineers it’s hard to count them all” and plant engineers will be measuring water quality daily.

I.e., US Nitrogen’s engineers aren’t very good at calculating the amount of water needed for a type of plant that US Nitrogen is supposedly experienced at building and running, but they are completely competent at taking water samples and doing calculations of water quality.

Mr. Ferguson is obviously not the most authoritative person to be vouching for US Nitrogen’s technically competence (e.g., it would logically be chemists and not engineers who actually assess water quality). Clearly, the statement that USN underestimated its water needs was just a pretext to support USN’s claim that the water department’s supply was inadequate and potentially unreliable and that USN consequently “needed” the essentially free water from the Nolichucky. This lie does not inspire confidence in statements by USN and development advocates backing the plant.

Despite the claims of safety, a toxic release from this plant is possible, as we have seen from the cases of releases from other types of industrial plants. What would be more reassuring than pooh-poohing people’s fears would be for the company and public officials (not development advocates or the Industrial Development Board) to provide actual data and contingency plan information.

But perhaps that would be going too much in the direction of transparency for this hatched-in-the-back-room project.

The Chamber of Commerce Establishes Its PAC in City-Owned Property

[Published(?) in The Oak Ridger after September 25, 2014]

The Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce claims that establishing its own PAC is legal because its city funding is dedicated to marketing and will not fund the PAC. It seems doubtful that a Chinese wall can be effective within the COC. Besides, the PAC will be headquartered in a cheap-rent (government-subsidized) building owned by the city.

Some candidates have declared that they will do the interview and take the money, while others have declared that they won’t; they have principles. Some other candidates have said they will participate in interviews and accept the PAC endorsement (if offered) but not the funding – i.e., they will mouth the toke but not inhale. Still other candidates say they will participate in interviews but decide only later about the money – i.e., they are waiting to see which way the wind blows. Voters should consider whether these fence-straddlers are secure enough in their principles to be city council or school board members.

Voters should also pay attention to the possible future composition of the city council and the school board. Many in Oak Ridge have been troubled by the overly deferential attitude of some city council members toward development interests and their financial allies. Although two such members are leaving the city council, some candidates even more closely aligned with the development interests are running. Similarly, the school board became dominated by former teachers of relatives of teachers and has identified heavily with the school administration rather than representing broad community interests. Surely everybody has appreciated the effect on school funding and testing issues.

If the city council becomes even more development-oriented, we can expect to see more TIFs, lasting for longer and longer periods; the poor taxpayer-residents will still bear heavy taxes while businesses get subsidies for site development and maintenance. E.g., the mall TIF will pay not just for new lights and road improvements but for demolition of buildings, surely a responsibility of the developer. If the school board remains best buds with the school administration, we can expect to see more cockamamie proposals like issuing tablets to kindergartners.

Soon I will not have a dog in this fight any more, as I am getting married and moving to Knox County. (I would have stayed in Oak Ridge, but we could not find a suitable house; in this aging community, more one-level houses should be built.) But as a 25-year resident, I hope that Oak Ridge changes in the direction of being business-favorable but not development-crazy and of being school-supportive but not nonsensical about education.

A City Councilman Wants To Ban A Colleague – But Why?

[Published(?) in The Oak Ridger after February 4, 2015]

It seems ironic that [Councilman] Charlie Hensley has declared that Councilwoman Trina Baughn should be censured by the City Council and kicked off Council committees. If memory serves, he seemed to take the opposite tack when Anne Garcia-Garland tried to have Joseph Lee similarly treated.

Hensley doesn’t rebut any actual point made by Baughn except for simply denying that she is right, even in the face of support by informed parties. Rather, he criticizes her for making the city look bad by saying negative things about city administration to the media – and thus to the public.

Many observers of the Oak Ridge scene think she is doing exactly what she should be doing: looking carefully at issues brought to her attention by citizens, sharing her information with the Council and the public, and trying to get Council to take action where needed.

Why would Hensley go off on Baughn like this? Given his history of shooting from the hip, it may just have been another blast of hot air. But there might be another, more sinister explanation.

I would not have thought that an Oak Ridge election could be bought. But sure enough, in the last election all the candidates funded by the Chamber of Commerce PAC – and only those candidates – were elected. The money clearly made a difference: if the electees were obviously the best candidates, the COC would not have had to spend a penny to grease the electoral skids. As a result of the PAC, development interests now control the Council.

It was to be expected that these interests would then try to neutralize the alert and energetic Baughn. This ploy by Hensley may be part of such an effort.

Public Officials Use Public Money To Bribe Private Companies

[Published(?) in the Knoxville News Sentinel after November 1, 2015]

It used to be that companies bribed public officials for favors. Now public officials bribe companies, using public money.

E.g., the proposal to move Regal Cinema’s headquarters from Halls to the Baptist Hospital site, with the usual whiffs of corruption associated with the obvious behind-the-scenes dealing and the subsequent done-deal presentation to the public. We taxpayers wonder why it is that despite Regal’s reported quarterly earnings increase of $31M, they somehow “have to” have $12.5M from the taxpayers in support of the move. Clearly, Regal could afford it if they chose to. But they pouted and the city and state threw them a bone. Well, 12.5M bones.

Other examples are the many PILOTs/TIFs given to various businesses, with increasingly lengthy tax forgiveness terms and increasingly numerous perks sweetening the pot; the land or buildings or backup generators purchased by public entities and leased or given outright to pre-designated private entities; the sudden rezonings of areas, contrary to long-settled land-use planning; the no-interest loans; the pipeline right-of-way and water permit.

Governmental entities claim that they “have to” do this to attract new businesses and generate more jobs and revenue for their communities. Well, somehow most businesses manage without government help. Besides, giveaways to [new] private businesses disfavor existing businesses, especially smaller ones. But on this path, someday every business, however small or marginal, may expect a public handout for startup or expansion.

Municipalities and states in other areas have for decades built stadiums for sports teams as bribes to keep the teams. Few of these have paid off in terms of jobs and revenue, resulting in a net loss to the taxpayers. So how many Tennesseee PILOTs, gifts, etc., will actually turn out to have paid off in the long run – not just for private businesses but for the community?

Probably darn few.

Local, State, and Federal Entities Bribe A Company To Move to Tennessee – But Why?

[Published(?) in the Knoxville News Sentinel after November 26, 2015]

Ouch! Another sock to the gut!

We taxpayers are reeling: even more of our money is being transferred via the political system to private entities. This time it is to AMI, poised to move from a little Arizona town to Alcoa [Tennessee] to manufacture munitions, in return for an eventual benefit of $26.6M from a city, a county, a state, and the federal government.

The Blount County Industrial Development Board has already deeded property nominally worth $11M to AMI per the News Sentinel (11/19/15). But KNS also said that the IDB will “convey” (give?) the land to AMI for $1, “reacquire” it, and then lease it and “the facility” (what facility?) to AMI “with a nominal $1 purchase option”. Beyond KNS’ convoluted reporting, this complicated do-si-do sounds awfully fishy.

The state is giving a grant (read “gift”) of $6.0M and is anteing up nearly $2.3M for access roads. Alcoa and Blount County are giving a PILOT.

TVA gave AMI a secret $6.8M grant. TVA is claiming to earn record profits; as usual much of it will go toward bonuses for its managers rather than toward paying down its monumental debt and reducing its rates to customers. But TVA is also bestowing a chunk of it on AMI.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory gave a grant of $125,000 to AMI. For what? Is that strictly legal under federal rules? Does DOE know? Silly me – of course they know. Let’s see…munitions…maybe Homeland Security….could the feds be greasing the skids for this deal?

There is supposed to be a clawback provision if AMI doesn’t live up to its obligations, but do those things ever work? Can anybody cite an instance?

Talk about crony capitalism. Bet there are a lot of smaller companies that wish they could get a deal even half as sweet as this one.

Another Dopey Proposal By Senator Lamar Alexander

[Published(?) in the Knoxville News Sentinel after September 20, 2015]

Lamar Alexander proposes to rename “the four-lane highway from the Knoxville airport to Oak Ridge” — which we common folks call the Pellissippi Parkway – “the Oak Ridge Corridor”. This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

It’s all about branding: by Alexander’s logic, if business is not going well, you just have to come up with a catchy name and people will beat a path to your door. Or your corridor. Really? ”Silicon Valley” and “the Research Triangle” were nicknames that became commonly used because of the work already being done there, not logo names chosen with deliberation in order to market those areas.

Alexander claims that “it’s time” to make this change, as though it had been considered a good idea for some time. This is news to the rest of us. Who put this dopey idea into his head? Alexander does not seem to think of these things himself; he appears to be just the mouthpiece for those advocating them. So who would this change benefit? How many businesses would be affected without benefit to them, e.g., by having to change their addresses?

Alexander cites facilities whose need for advertising supposedly justifies the renaming, such as ORNL (a going concern for decades despite the alleged confusion in road names). But he unwisely includes the notorious Uranium Processing Facility (UPF), a monument to mismanagement and government waste. Although Alexander has been a cheerleader for the UPF for quite a while, it still seems curious that he would associate his big renaming idea with this total turkey of a project.

Alexander fondly imagines that when people hear someone state that his business is located in “the Oak Ridge Corridor”, they will want to hear more. That seems delusional. Me, I hope this turkey of an idea gets put into the round file.

The Curious Case of Raynella Dossett Leath, Perennial Murder Suspect

[Not published by the Knoxville News Sentinel after May 20, 2017 – so I started this Web site]

The case of Raynella Dossett Leath represents a spectacular failure of the justice system. Her lawyer, Joshua Hedrick, opines that the reason she was tried for her husband David Leath’s murder was that people resented her position of “power and authority”. Shame on him for claiming that, because he surely knows her history of getting off because of her position. Her whole modus operandi is clearly one of finding enablers.

The death of her first husband, Ed Dossett, was suspicious (e.g., marks on his body did not match the story of his being trampled to death by cattle). Various sources have said that Ms. Dossett Leath was politically connected and that pressure was put on police and prosecutors to back up the story. The medical examiner declared it an accident despite the pending drug report. When the report finally reached his office, he ignored it – if indeed he read it at all.

People may argue about whether she killed her two husbands, but she definitely tried to kill Steve Walker, as her lawyer back then admitted. She lured him to her farm, shot at him multiple times, and stopped only when she ran out of bullets. She would have killed him if she could. Yet she skated on attempted first degree murder — because of her connections. Enablers got her off, saying that she was just temporarily unhinged because she had lost both her husband and her son. Mr. Walker was not happy about her not being punished, but in the calculus of privilege he didn’t count. Still, on this evidence she is the type of person who has no compunction about killing someone who is in the way of her getting something she wants. So why would anybody doubt that she would be capable of murdering a husband or two?

The News-Sentinel said that Judge Paul Summers is regarded as an upright and principled judge, by way of explaining his otherwise inexplicable decision to dismiss the [retrial of the] Leath murder case. But judges who have been in power for a long time can lose their perspective and come to believe that the way they think is always the right way – not principle but a “La loi, c’est moi” attitude. Most judges would have thought that whether Ms. Dossett Leath was guilty or not was a matter for the jury to decide, but not Judge Summers.

It was apparently a stroke of luck for her that such a judge presided over her recent trial. She had had another stroke of luck: she actually was convicted of murder previously by a jury, in a trial presided over by that awful Judge Richard Baumgartner. He, of course, had a host of enablers for years, allowing him to use drugs on the bench, which was why she got a new trial. His enablers thus became her enablers.

Ms. Dossett Leath’s lawyer has been trying to rehabilitate her character, saying that she appears “motherly” to him. Well, he had to defend her in court, of course, but telling the press that she is “a good person” just makes him ridiculous. He implies that she had no motive for murder. There appear to have been money motives in both murders, but in addition to that, an impulsive, impatient person such as she seems to be would find caring for a terminal cancer patient or a potential senility case to be tedious. For her, murder may have been a form of labor-saving. If I knew the address of Cindy Wilkerson, David Leath’s daughter, I would send her a sympathy card: she probably feels as though she had lost her father all over again.

Letters About Tennessee State and East Tennessee Local Affairs

LEFT SIDEBAR MENU

Archives

C&S Left Sidebar Menu

Garden Left Sidebar Menu

Knitting Left Sidebar Menu

Music Left Sidebar Menu

Whistleblower Left Sidebar Menu

Columns Written for the Newspapers

RIGHT SIDEBAR MENU

C&S Right Sidebar Menu

Garden Right Sidebar Menu

Knitting Right Sidebar Menu

Music Right Sidebar Menu

Whistleblower Right Sidebar Menu

Letters Written to the Newspapers