For weeks, the Crestpointe proposal has been in the local newspapers; it even made the Knoxville TV news once or twice (due to the petition controversy, not the decision itself).  Although there’s been no announcement from the election commission yet that the required number of signatures was certified, I can hardly believe it would be otherwise at this point.

So, it is almost certain that there will be a referendum on June 5.

I’ve attended one Council meeting and several presentations on the project, and I support it.  Some folks have come out against it for various reasons: some because of the need for City assistance, others because of the location.  However, I’m quite certain that there are a number of people — a majority, perhaps — who haven’t made a decision on whether they will support or oppose the measure in the referendum.

If you are among the undecided, what information do you need to make up your mind, how do you plan to get it, and when?

The 3,000 signatures are all the talk today: AT‘s lit up with a righteous lecture on the workings of a representative democracy, while Daco steadfastly defends the petitioners’ right to petition, even while disagreeing with their wish to do so.

Both are absolutely correct.

Yes, we have a right to petition for a referendum on general obligation borrowing in Tennessee. That’s an important right, because it’s a final check-and-balance against an elected body over-obligating the citizenry, well beyond the terms of elected office.

At the same time, it’s possible to over-exercise that right (as well as any one of many others) and develop a reputation that isn’t at all aligned with the image we’d like to present to the world. Just in the last four or so years, we had the mall referendum, the charter referendum, the high school referendum, and now this.

The mall referendum was over a $23.2M note, and failed. It had been a while since the charter was updated and was time to do so, but make no mistake — the whole drive for a charter commission came from the same folks who were upset about the whole mall referendum, with a good bit of the discussion centering on things like a TABOR and such. The high school referendum was called by City Council simply by virtue of the sales tax increase requested to pay the note; $55M is a whole lot of money, spread over a long time. It needed to pass, and it did (thank you).

The current proposal is much smaller, with a maximum proposed borrowing at about $6M. Some members of City staff think they might be able to get it down to as little as $3M. The return on investment, while not a jackpot, is solid. The benefits to the schools and to citizens would be immediate.

So yes, it’s within any citizen’s right to call for a referendum on the general obligation note, but I think it’s petty and small-minded. I also remain convinced that the whole opposition movement is less about the debt than lingering resentment about the site itself… many of the key players are the same ones who objected to the initial development several years ago.

As a community, I think most of us recognize that we need to broaden our tax base. Most understand that sales taxes are a part of that (although many do not understand how much sales taxes in particular directly benefit education). What I’m afraid most people do NOT realize is, if we don’t turn around our sales tax deficit quickly, property taxes will have to rise or services will have to be cut.

Many of the same people carrying petitions today will object vehemently, but property tax increases levied by local government are not subject to referendum. So, the tax increase will pass. Residents will be unhappy, and continue grousing as they subsidize Knox County Schools and Knox County government while shopping at Turkey Creek, Cedar Bluff, and West Town Mall.

Oak Ridge is just full of smart people; how can we be so stupid?

In a post earlier today, I wrote that Raj Jain, one of the vocal critics of the Crestpointe proposal, is employed in some fashion by Oliver Smith Realty, the Knoxville firm that has listed for sale several parcels surrounding Home Depot and National Fitness.

Ellen Smith commented in the previous thread that Raj does not work for Oliver Smith, but has his own company, InteliSim Inc. LLC.

However, upon double-checking my information, I learned that someone named Raj Jain (and matching the physical description of the gentleman who introduced himself to me on Monday) had presented himself as representing Oliver Smith Realty in a meeting with City staff, where the discussion centered on some mini-warehouses and storage facilities proposed by Jain for one of the parcels that Oliver Smith Realty has listed.

It is entirely plausible, therefore, that he is not an employee of Oliver Smith, but it certainly appears that there is an existing business relationship of the nature where he would claim to represent the company before City staff.

The proposal has not come before the Planning Commission, but what is proposed or planned for that property isn’t the point of this thread.  The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether Raj’s motive in pushing for a referendum, and for defeat of the proposed bond issue for Crestpointe, is really one of squeezing out competition rather than looking out for the financial health of the community.

And yes, there is more than one Raj Jain (the most common reference in a Google search is a computer science professor at Washington University in St. Louis); that’s why I asked my source if the physical description I gave matched the fellow linked to Oliver Smith Realty.

Thus, there appears to be some truth worth pursuing in this story.

The post published this morning has been called into question, and I am in the process of attempting to verify or disprove the allegation that Mr. Jain is affiliated in any way with Oliver Smith Realty. Take as rumor only until further notice.

The initial post about the survey has generated significant discussion; although it seems very straightforward, Raj seems convinced that the questions should be interpreted differently.

The following questions (10 and 11) are not limited to those who responded “yes” to question 9 — those who indicated that they do most of their non-grocery shopping outside Oak Ridge; it includes people like me, who do most of our shopping in Oak Ridge, but invariably have to go elsewhere for some things that simply cannot be purchased here.

10. “Do you think the proposed shopping center would help Oak Ridge retain more of your shopping that is currently being done in other areas?”

11. “How often do you travel to Knox Co. to go shopping: every day, a few times a week, twice a week, once a week, or less often?”

Even people like me who do MOST of their shopping here might have a valid opinion about whether the proposed center would retain more of their business — in my case, it absolutely would.  Even people like me who do most of their shopping here could provide an answer; in my case, the response to question 11 would be “less often.”

My only doubt about the survey is now knowing that Raj’s house was called twice (because he has several land lines), while mine was not called.

Look, I don’t have any gripe with people who have a different opinion about the project than I do, but I do have a problem with folks trying to mislead others with charts and graphs and obfuscation.  One of the most common difficulties people encounter with math is making something more complex than it really is.  If someone asks you, “what’s half of two-thirds?” you don’t need to find a common denominator, cross multiply, or anything like that; it’s as simple as “what’s half of two?”

Half of two-thirds is one-third, plain and simple, just like half of two is one.

I’d love to know what the survey would have said after people attended the several informational meetings that occurred following the survey, but there simply wasn’t time to wait.  One thing the survey does tell us is that the more information people have about the return on investment, the more likely they are to be in favor of it.

Listening to the parade of speakers at last night’s City Council meeting, I noticed a common thread among the several who spoke in opposition to the project.

Pine Ridge.

Everyone says they’d welcome a SuperTarget, but the opponents tend to be carrying a set of talking points that were circulated by DFET members on their listserv (which I’ve apparently been removed from – I guess I don’t have the right “progressive” credentials).  In short, the environmentalists were enraged with the development of Pine Ridge several years ago, and they’re dead-set against something going up there now, lest the guy who bought it and sunk millions into improvements actually make a buck on the deal.

There’s nothing at all wrong with this group of people stating opposition to something that is contrary to their beliefs — that’s the American way, after all.  However, they are promoting the referendum website, which contains some significant errors:

City officials have talked as though a contract with Target were already signed and a Target was a guaranteed part of the development. This is not the case. The City proposes to subsidize a shopping center developer who will then market his center to Target.

In fact, the City Manager stated quite clearly last night that one of the proposed conditions for release of any funds toward this project is Target’s signature on the purchase contract, with a commitment for a SuperTarget in particular.  Another condition is that the City be provided a list of other tenants who have signed leases for the associated stores — who do not have a current presence in Oak Ridge — showing a long enough lease term to ensure that the City’s investment will have some expectation of return over a long period.

This agreement has not yet been fully developed nor signed by any of the parties, but the fact that there will be such conditions that must be met before any City funds are released is a reasonable assurance upon which to move forward in the negotiations.

Look, I’m one of the folks who got burned by Arnsdorff and his snake-oil promises of mall redevelopment, and as such, view other projects requiring a large municipal investment with a healthy dose of skepticism.  When this one surfaced publicly a few weeks ago, I attended nearly every meeting (public and otherwise); I asked a lot of questions.  I studied the numbers, and weighed it against what else we might use the money for that would generate a better return.

Now, this group is preparing a petition drive to call for a referendum on the $6M general obligation bond issue.   That is their right, certainly, but I don’t think it’s wise.  Of course, they probably realize that a referendum could jeopardize the whole deal (with the option on the land expiring April 15, but June 5 is the soonest possible date that a referendum could be held), and that’s part of their motivation.

I won’t be signing it, and I do hope that the people and the media (Stan, John, Bob — that’s you) are willing to call these folks where there are discrepancies or misinformation being circulated.

For everyone else, don’t trust what someone spoon-feeds you; go to the source.