Citizens Oak Ridge

DEVELOPMENT  PROJECTS  MUST  CONSIDER LOCATION

Comments by Jerry Kuhaida

    “Site and Situation” popped into my mind as I was reading Ray Evans’ Letter to the Editor “Economic development incentives common”.  I question if all of cities used in his article have the same site and situation conditions as Oak Ridge?  As I looked at the names, e.g., Overton County TN, Parker CO.,  Lee’s Summit, MO, and Minneapolis, MN,  I doubt if their site and situation conditions are anywhere similar Oak, Ridge, TN.

    Site and Situation are two primary factors for evaluating a location for any major economic activity. I learned this when major companies in the US advertised for geographers as Location Specialists for those companies.  Site pertains to the specific location under consideration whereas Situation involves an examination of the relevant characteristics of the area surrounding the site or region. Both site and situation require examination of relevant economic factors. Situation is the most important location factor in determining the necessity and level of risk associated with a development’s financial incentives.

    I have done economic development work in the United States, Russia and Iraq. For example, in Zheleznogorsk, Russia (Siberia) the “site” location was adjacent to a mountain of sufficient size to house 6 nuclear reactors and a satellite manufacturing facility. The site was isolated and off the beaten path. There were number of vacant buildings and the infrastructure for the site was adequate. The site included a community which was in desperate need of jobs for workers about to lose their jobs because of economic changes.

    The “Situation” presented an interesting challenge for locating an aluminum production plant at the site. It is 3000 miles east of Moscow and far from any major markets. There were few highways and limited air service, however, the Trans-Siberian Railroad passed about 40 miles away. It was clearly a difficult situation………………

    S T O P   T H E   P R E S S  ! ! !

    I just saw the headline on the front page of today’s Oak Ridger —“Target alternative?

    It’s John Chilton’s property near the intersection of Pellissippi Parkway/ South Illinois Ave. and Edgemoor Road. I was involved when the city sold the property to him 4 or 5 years ago. Johns plan was to build houses up on the hill adjacent to Park Meade and build a commercial development along Edgemoor Road. Council approved.

    Speaking of Council, I was on it during the Parcel A attempt at economic development. Council hired ERA to do an independent assessment of the City’s Plan.  The Project Manager told me that the major advantage of the site was its location at the intersection of S. Illinois and Edgmoor Road.  Also, John’s site had previously been selected as Oak Ridges’ site for a baseball stadium when the Smokies pulled out of Knoxville. Why was it selected? Take a guess. (IT WAS THE LOCATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF S. ILLINOIS AND EDGEMOOR ROAD!).

    In the Oak Ridger's’ interview, John says, “If I could just get a developer to come in here……”    Hey John… The City already has a developer wanting to build a shopping center with a Super Target Store. For unknown reasons, the City wants it built on top of a ridge and they want us citizens to pay millions of dollars to help the developer prepare the site. Something is wrong.  The City wants GBT to build on the ridge top and pay them, yet John Chilton has a site with an excellent location and has spent over a million dollars of his own money to level off the site. That makes me more suspicious!

    Let’s see what else is in the paper?  Look, page 3A has a half-page ad saying vote “YES”:

    •  They support the city’s issuing bonds to build a new shopping center anchored by a Super Target.  Gee, Target responded to my email to their HQ in Minneapolis and said they had no plans to build in Oak Ridge.
    • This retail center would generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes and offer greater retail choices. Oh……. If CROET had only developed Horizon Center like they said they were years ago. With taxes from the new industry and the new jobs, and the new residents, we wouldn’t be concerned for our schools.
    • The investment-- millions of dollars-- the City would make would be fully repaid by property taxes. Hmm… Any guarantees?  Who pays if the investment can’t repay the bonds?   Guess... (Increased property taxes on the citizens). I wonder what the assumptions are.  My statistics professor told us to remember “numbers don’t lie, people do.”

     As I read through the list of names, I wondered how so many husbands and wives could agree with all of the issues? It sure makes the list longer.

    Hey, there is something in the bottom of the left-hand corner- let me put my glasses on. It’s a small ad.  It has reasons to vote “NO” in the Bond Referendum:

    • Financially Irresponsible-- $10 million gift to private business, Creates 20-year debt for Oak Rider’s, Unsupported revenue forecast, City government record of poor judgment (sorry, I was just a kid at the time), High public risk if developer defaults, Unreal estimate of zero $ for City services.
    • Unfair to Local Businesses—Corporate Welfare, Creates unfair competition, Discourages new small business, Will Cause some business to fail.
    • Poor Site Location—New stores belong in town, not on a mountain top ( FLASH- Core will issuing their plan for the mall very soon),  Money spent moving dirt and building an ugly wall 50 ft high and 2000ft long, Adverse environmental impact, Traffic bottleneck, Target possible at other sites without public money.

    Well, as Pat Rush would say, “I’ve done my home work.” It took time and effort but I learned something- something smells bad in the Secret City, perhaps it’s all of those secrets associated with CrestPointe. Anyhow, this has made up my mind- VOTE NO!!!

    (If you have any questions, please ask—The City Manager, City Council members, GBT Realty, John Chilton, or the candidates for City Council in the upcoming election for answers.)