JUDGE TURNBULL SPLITS THE BABY AND GIVES BOTH HALVES TO THE GOVERNMENT
by Danny L. Newton
02:29 07/22/2008
The City attorney, Dan Rader, and the County Attorney, Jeff Jones, met in court on 21 JULY 08 with the attorney for Mrs. Norma Faye Pyles Lynch in the matter of the condemnation of her land for a business park. Judge Turnbull was presiding. In opening statements by the city and the county it was made quite clear that the city and the county had not abandoned their intention to build a business park, especially after the city and the county spent so much money buying the rest of the land. They reminded the judge that they never took back the $296,000 dollars that was deposited in order to begin the condemnation suit. The county attorney made the point that there was no one living in the house that the government wants to destroy.
The attorneys for the government asked that the non-suit petition be set aside and that the case be continued until a time when the government finally gets a Certificate of Public Purpose. The attorney for Mrs. Lynch, Bob Anderson, had written a letter to the city attorney and asked for an estimated time for the certificate to be issued and it was estimated that it would be 15 to 18 weeks. It has been nearly 5 months since the government served a summons on Mrs., Lynch and that certificate has not been acquired yet. A new estimate of 18 weeks for the engineering and 30 to 60 days for the state process to follow that makes the earliest date nearly another half a year away. The city attorney made the point that the plaintiffs petition to have her 20% of the property partitioned would not need to be done since the city would have all of it anyway as a result of the eminent domain. Bob Anderson hammered away at the fact that the city wanted to take property that had no apparent purpose with respect to the new business park. To bolster this idea he presented six different concept drawings, obtained through discovery, that showed no use for a small triangle of land that was on the north side of the Interstate. He also went after the fact that most of justification for taking the property was because TDOT was going to need it for an interchange. Even though the drawing was not seen by people in the court room, it was obvious by references to the loop that goes through the house that the city had taken the old Corridor J Interchange drawings and transposed them to the drawings of their Business Park. This old design was for a road that crossed with about 9000 cars per day, not the 1000 per day that currently use it. This is not the interchange that TDOT plans to build because there is not enough money in the Mine Lick Creek Budget to build the interchange except as a diamond. Also, there is not enough money in the project to get a road attached to it as the Federal Highway Administration approved. The judge punted on the question of the lawyer fees and allowed the voluntary non-suit petition to be set aside. The Judge was very keen to suggest that the two parties agree to some kind of settlement between now and the next meeting. He also seemed to agree with the city attorney in suggesting that the most likely outcome would be a monetary settlement, not a partition of the land. There was some fireworks when the city and the county tried to use the city manager, Jim Shipley, as an expert witness in the matter before the court. Dan Rader, kept leading him to endorse the project as an expert on economic development and other crystal ball techniques but finally the only testimony that got through was that based on him being a city manager, he thought it was a good idea. When pressed to say what was going to be done with the little triangle outside of the business park yet still wanted by the city and the county, the city manager said that they would "ultimately" use it. It was also quite clever of him to cover himself in the event that the Corridor J Interchange was not built by stating his belief that the state department of transportation would eventually "fine tune" the drawings. Later, Mr. Shipley again clarified the depiction as being "pretty close" to what TDOT is going to build. Another comment made by the City Manager was that the park would work "with or without" the interchange. I have a feeling that that comment might be revisited later next March. Nothing was said about developing part of the land as a park, open space or green space. There was a lot of discussion about sinkholes and flood plains, none of which are on the Lynch property. There was another off hand remark made by the city attorney about a bond issue in the future that caught a few people by surprise. This was a delicate balancing act that maintained on one hand that the city and the county had agreed to all actions but there were a lot of actions implied like the bond issue and the fine tuning of the drawings that the local governments did not agree to. As I remember the vote, the county agreed to a five million dollar limit on the purchase of the property. Since that has already gone to the limit. It begs the question of exactly how the city and county may freely negotiate a different sum of money beyond what they already have on deposit with the court. The Attorney for Mr. Lynch was clearly disappointed about the failure of the judge to see as improper, on a technical level, the city and county actions in signaling that they were ready to abandon the condemnation suit by petitioning the court for a voluntary non-suit. It was suggested in the proceedings that the petition for setting aside that voluntary non-suit was propelled by the adrenalin rush of suddenly seeing the enormous legal fees that Mrs. Lynch had accrued. Bob Anderson put the judge on notice that there could be a possibility of an appeal of this decision. RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKSLETTER TO PHIL VALENTINE ABOUT EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE IN COOKEVILLE
by Linda Owens
09:02 07/18/2008
|
On Monday, July 21st at 1:00pm, in the Cookeville Justice Center,Chancery Court Judge Turnbull will hear the Eminent Domain lawsuit brought against my mother, Norma Faye Pyles Lynch. The June 2008 /Catalyst, Volume 5, #36 /, put out by the Cookeville-Putnam County Chamber of Commerce, that was inserted in the Herald-Citizen newspaper, put its focus on recruiting new Chamber members. It stated that the "Chamber Offers Firsts" to Chamber members. The "Firsts" included first in the Highlands for Publicity, Visibility, Online Connections, Networking, Sponsorships, Access to Resources and First to Know. It appears to be a promise that Chamber Members will receive first offers for information and development opportunities in the new Highland Business Park. It is for the land for the proposed Highland Business Park that Cookeville and Putnam County are attempting to condemn my mother's property. They already have purchased over 300 acres for this project from willing owners..all the owners who sold property to the City or County retained ownership of additional land in or adjacent to the proposed Business Park. But these purchases include land without road frontage and nearlby areas. My mother's property is prime! It has road frontage on four different roads, it is clear, flat pasture land and it is located on both sides of I-40 with an existing bridge over I-40 connecting the property. Our twelve acres on the north side of I-40 are not included in the proposed Highland Business Park and nearly twenty acres on the south side are zoned RS20. But, irregardless of the zoning, the property belongs to my mother and is therefore hers to keep, sell, or develop...not the property of the Highland Initiative of the Cookeville Chamber of Commerce to offer as a financial incentive to recruit new Chamber members. The City of Cookeville and Putnam County would receive the same tax benefits from the development irregardless of the ownership...they should not be in the business of using their power to take prime land from a private person and reselling it, at a profit to themselves, to a chosen Chamber member.
Linda Owens |
PUBLIC MEETINGS ON TOLL ROADS POORLY ATTENDED
by Danny L. Newton
The public meeting held on Tuesday July 15 at the Nashville TDOT headquarters was poorly attended. Clearly, TDOT brought in an impressive array of experts such as Mary Margaret Collier from the State Funding Board and several people representing Wilbur Smith Associates, the toll consultants who did feasibility studies for the proposed projects. The commissioner, Gerald Nicely, started off the meeting before handing it over to Ed Cole, TDOT's Chief of Environment and Planning. After a few remarks, he then handed over the presentation to Elizabeth Beeching, who is the Tolling Coordinator.
The meeting was not well attended. I counted 18 people at the beginning of the meeting and most of them worked for TDOT or were in some way a part of the presentation. There was a short slide show but there was not hard sell for tolling. After only 16 minutes, the question and answer process began and two minutes later it was all over and the group broke up into small groups that chatted among themselves until 7:00 PM.
Ed Cole told me that the meeting at Memphis was also poorly attended, maybe ten people, but they were expecting a large contingent of people at Knoxville on Thursday, July 17 2008 because there was a lot of people who are upset about the project in Knoxville which started out as a half a loop around Knoxville that begins on I-40 at the west side of Knoxville and ends about 52 miles later on I-40 at the east side of Knoxville. Probably, only the most financially viable section, the northwest quadrant will be targeted first because it is the most financially viable project and thus the most likely to succeed.
These public toll meetings were required by the legislature as a part of the Tennessee Tollway Act. So far the legislature has done everything wrong when it comes to having a successful tolling program. They have limited the number of studies and projects that they are willing to tolerate. They have forbidden any foreign companies from bidding. They have insisted that the final solution contain highly expensive cash tolling and they have passed laws that will prevent HOV lanes from being tolled.
Of all of the things that have been done to damage a successful toll project, the legislature still shows no sign that they are in anyway cognizant of the importance of not bleeding the cash box in the same way that they do their other road systems. It is estimated that the legislature has bled a net amount of about $265 million dollars out of the state highway fund and sent it to the general fund. Some sums borrowed have been paid back but not all. The legislature is making sure that if tolling is allowed, it will never work. There is no way that members of the legislature can be forced to attend financial responsibility boot camp or make them self limit their own proclivity to move what seems to be spare cash around for random purposes.
Raiding the cash box is not an exclusive Tennessee habit. North Carolina, and Virginia do it too. The Big Dig in Massachussetts also borrowed money from a very successful toll system and wrecked it financially as indicated on the news links above.
TDOT will present a report to the legislature in January 2009 and Commissioner Nicely assured me that he thinks the legislature will be learning more about what it takes to run a financially successful toll program and will act accordingly. I reminded him of our own representative Henry Fincher who will be seeking another term. Representative Fincher has converted even voice votes to public records showing that he has consistently voted against tolling.
RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKS|
TENNESSEE INDUSTRIAL POLICY: A FAILURE FOR 29 YEARS by Danny L. Newton 15:47 08/05/2008 Ever since the budget shortfall of approximately $468 million in May of this year, governor Bredesen has attempted to extinguish what was originally estimated to be 2250 government jobs with a buyout of $60 million dollars. Recently, the governor has been forced to admit a miscalculation in making government jobs disappear. Preliminary estimates of the incentives given to Volkswagen for 2000 jobs, places the expected payout shared between Chattanooga and the state to be at least $500 million. If buying jobs is more complicated than getting rid of jobs, we are entitled to expect that there may also be a profound miscalculation within the latest incentive package. In the mid-Fifties, the Tennessee industrial policy was never questioned because it seemed to be working. The numbers of U.S jobs in manufacturing went up every year from 1958 to 1979 but, since 1979 those numbers, for 28 years, have been declining at an annualized rate of 1.2 percent per year. From 2000 to 2007, manufacturing jobs in the US have declined at an annualized rate of 3.1 percent every year. At this rate, half of the existing US manufacturing jobs will disappear in 22 years. Not only has the Tennessee industrial policy of incentives, liberal loans, tax subsidies and the power of condemnation failed to stabilize the number of industrial jobs in Tennessee, it also has failed to maintain the percentage of jobs retained within Tennessee compared to those outside of Tennessee. Since 1994 Tennessee manufacturing jobs have declined faster than the national average. In 1994 Tennessee manufacturing jobs were 3.05 per cent of all US manufacturing jobs and in 2007, Tennessee manufacturing jobs were 2.74 percent of all US manufacturing jobs. The only thing that has changed since the policy stopped working in 1979 was to increase incentives. In the first six months of 2008, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 3200 manufacturing jobs were lost in Tennessee. The number of manufacturing jobs lost between June 2008 and June 1990 is 129,900. This would be like losing a Volkswagen plant every 102 days for 18 years. It would take 65 Volkswagen deals to roll back these losses to 1990 levels. Major assembly plants usually do not locate within 100 miles of each other so that they can avoid competition for labor. This strategy would disqualify hundreds of hopeful sites throughout the state regardless of size or the investment in infrastructure. Probably, the upper limit of major auto assembly plants in the state of Tennessee is five. The fact that major population areas are along the Tennessee state border means that any average impact is likely to be blunted by spending in adjacent states. Alabama got out of this incentives race at $385 million and the state of Michigan did not expose publicly their negotiations. It is estimated that Alabama paid a billion dollars for an auto plant subsidy in 1992 and it is possible that their lack of aggressiveness in this race is connected to the public outcry when they promised more incentives than could be delivered. Legend has it that part of the cash for the 1992 Alabama deal had to be borrowed at 9% interest. Hamilton County, without major incentives, has been creating an average of 1,538 jobs per year from 1996 to 2006 according the Bureau of Economic Analysis records. The Metropolitan Statistical Area of Chattanooga has produced fewer jobs, averaging 1008 per year, but has never gone negative in the same time ten year period. Much of the enticement to giving incentives lies in the theory of job multipliers. The Commerce Department makes a listing of these multipliers but does a lousy job of warning that they are averages and that real multipliers are site specific and fact specific. Multipliers also have decreased over time. If there is a miscalculation on the Volkswagen deal, it will probably be in the area of these job multipliers. If Volkswagen does gain market share, that will only decrease the job multipliers at other assembly plants, some in Tennessee. Job multipliers are great when they add jobs to the economy but they also multiply the negative impact when manufacturing jobs leave. According to Bureau of Economic Analysis, the average ratio of state and local taxes in Tennessee to the value of all personal income in 2007 was 8.5%. Ideally, for every tax dollar paid in VW subsidies, someone or business in the state has to make $11.76 in new money. The state of Tennessee and local governments giving subsidies will have to tax $5.88 billion in new income to get back the VW subsidies. At the rate of growth that all Tennessee manufacturing, measured in current dollars, is increasing is from 2001 to 2006, it will take 9.8 years to add enough manufacturing production to the Tennessee economy so that both the state and the local governments have a chance to recover the incentives at zero interest. A lot can happen in 9.8 years which is about the length of time that VW was in Pennsylvania before they shut down a car plant and left the state. The incentive that Alabama gave to get Daimler-Chrysler might also go sour in the next year or so. The customers required to absorb the entire first year production of the plant is fairly easy to approximate. The ratio of people in the US to the total number of cars produced, using 2004 numbers, is 22.88. If the first year production at the Volkswagen plant is 150,000, then a customer base of 3.58 million people is needed if everyone in that group commits to replacing their old car with Volkswagen. VW has about 3% of the market share so a population containing all future VW buyers would have to be 119,400,000 people. That is about 19.5 times the current population of Tennessee and about 40% of the US population. The percentage of local money in the total VW deal is still not exposed to the public. The state of Tennessee may take a long time to get this incentive package back into the tax coffers but Hamilton County and the city of Chattanooga are even less likely to recover their investment than the state. Twenty percent of sales could be exported to the headquarters in Virginia as white collar salaries and another 20% of the costs could be exported to dealers all over the country. If the failed deal to get Toyota to build at the same location is any guide, it is highly likely that Chattanooga and Hamilton County have provided the majority of the incentives by making incremental improvements over many years. This is another probable area of miscalculation since local governments do not have the ability to recover investments unless the resulting economic activity takes place in their jurisdiction. The only protection for the taxpayer in this process lies deep in the belly of the government beast. It is, perhaps, a single person or small group of people who could see and warn of a perfect storm of miscalculations. It would be an extraordinary event that would cause some government worker at the state or local level to sound a warning after his boss, Matt Kisber, and the governor have already done a victory lap around the Chambers of Commerce wining and dining circuit to take credit for an alleged coup. No government employee should be subjected to such temptation to neglect their duty, especially when the governor is looking for more volunteers to leave. |
MORE MISCALCULATIONS ON THE BUSINESS PARK
Many people will be surprised to find out that Interchanges are not usually free from the state and were never intended to be free since the legislature passed the Interstate Connector Act of 1965 that provided for a 50-50 share to be paid for by the local government. That 50-50 split can be seen in the last four budgets available on the TDOT web site. For the past four years, ending in the years 2004 through 2008, TDOT lists Interstate Connectors as being paid for with 50 % local money. The increased participation of local governments in the cost of state transportation accounts for the ability of TDOT to maintain the total amount of money in the work plan in spite of weak fuel tax collections and declines in federal matching money. Recently, TDOT has modified the program so that the state will not have to pay more than $2 million in matching funds.
Even with the limited two lane road on a four lane right-of-way of the 2.87 mile connection to U.S. 70, the connector road should cost about $15.5 million dollars. A letter to TDOT recently confirmed that TDOT has no intention of adding additional funds to the Mine Lick Creek project so this leaves two possible interpretations. The first is that TDOT does not intend to comply with the FHWA Finding of Negative Impact Study or FONSI and construction of the project as approved by the Federal Highway Administration or that the City and the County are planning to save up the additional connector costs and pay for the 2.87 mile connector. This would leave the City of Cookeville and Putnam County needing to pay $13.5 million to get the connector road. The standard contract would also require that the city and the county to stand good for any cost over runs.
A check with TDOT proves that no contract for a connector has been signed yet. This also proves that the cost of the Infrastructure in the new business park does not include a connection charge from TDOT. It is likely that the $11 million required for Industrial Park Infrastructure is already being secretly accumulated in the Debt Service Fund. This fund, on 01 JULY 2006, contained $16,247,409 in 2006 according to the audit on Adobe Page 98/218. On 30 JUNE 2007, this fund grew to $17,877,699 according to the 2007 audit on Adobe Page 88/206. Only $16,247,409 is available according to Adobe page 51/206 because of internal or self-borrowing.
According to the 2006 Audit, the debt service fund took in $9,482,504 from taxes and other local revenues. The following year, the Debt Service Fund took in $8,143,145 through taxes and local revenues. This $1,339,359 drop in income is not well explained by the local pretend newspaper called the Herald-Citizen. In a complicated set of circumstances, the Debt Service fund pays for the business park, refinances the old school debt, increases bonded debt from $70,790,000 to $92,195,000, increases the period of indebtedness from 13 to 20 years and manages to loan about $2.5 million dollars to the City of Cookeville for the empty Business Park.
In another miscalculation and reversal of fortune, the City of Cookeville settled a dispute just before the Fourth of July with the Upper Cumberland Electric Membership Corporation for a lump sum of $6 million dollars plus a series of $1 million annual payments at zero interest for ten years to settle a dispute over past annexations. The business park annexation was within the list of annexations that will cost each person in the city about $500 over ten years. On average, residential and commercial property accounts for only about 11 percent of total US usage of electrical energy while industrial use is double that. It would be interesting to know if the city paid for income loses at the residential rate or the industrial rate in the business park. It would also be interesting to see if the City comes to the county and asks for partial compensation since the city will now have an uneven share of the business park development costs.
RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKS
COUNTY LAWYER REQUESTS ANOTHER POSTPONEMENT OF THE EMINENT DOMAIN CASE AGAINST MRS. LYNCH
by Danny L. Newton
21:20 06/18/2008
A spokesman for the family reported tonight that the city has again found a flimsy excuse for extending this day in court for Mrs. Lynch. This time the county lawyer, Jeff Jones, suddenly realized two days before the court date that he had to go on vacation. In April, the city attorney was unable to make the 11 April 08 court date because of a conflict. The judge bought that!
The delay before this one was based on the lack of a Certificate of Need. The city and the county are probably having a problem getting a real certificate of need because there really is no need to have a 400 acre business park on top of the 46 properties that are already advertised in the three counties of the Highlands Initiative. The old self-certifying process of getting a Certificate of Need was as rigorous and as reliable as a séance complete with Chamber of Commerce Ouija Board. Apparently, the Certificate of Need must now come from the State Department of Economic and Community Development. In spite of several attempts to seek confirmation, the State Board of Economic and Community Development refuses to acknowledge my requests for information on this matter.
The new court date will be 21 JULY at 1:00 PM in Cookeville.
RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKS| TDOT BUDGET SUMMARY |
|---|
| Description | 2004-2005 | 2005-2006 | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 |
| TDOT Headquarters | $ 14,271,000 | $ 14,633,000 | $ 15,493,000 | $16,854,000 |
| Bureau of Administration | $ 32,840,000 | $34,324,000 | $35,345,000 | $41,316,000 |
| Bureau of Engineering | $25,900,000 | $ 17,896,000 | $ 20,122,000 | $ 22,953,000 |
| Bureau of Environment and Planning | $ 7,174,000 | $ 6,621,000 | $ 8,126,000 | $ 9,343,000 |
| Field Engineering | $ 26,630,000 | $ 37,512,000 | $ 40,721,000 | $ 46,158, 000 |
| Insurance Premiums | $ 10,282,000 | $ 11,000,000 | $ 11,000,000 | $ 10,000,000 |
| TOTAL ADMINISTRATION | $ 117,097,000 | $ 121,986,000 | $ 130,807,000 | $ 145,625,000 |
| EQUIP PURCHASES & OPER | $21,431,000 | $ 21,020,000 | $ 26,020,000 | $ 29,177,000 |
| Highway Maintenance | $ 154,528,000 | $ 238,528,000 | $ 253,724,000 | $ 287,559,000 |
| Highway Betterments | $ 5,700,000 | $ 6,400,000 | $ 5,800,000 | $ 9,800,000 |
| State Aid | $ 37,681,000 | $ 37,681,000 | $ 39,853,000 | $ 40,570,000 |
| State Industrial Access | $11,015,000 | $ 11,615,000 | $ 19,065,000 | $ 24,200,000 |
| Local Interstate Connectors | $ 2,950,000 | $ 4,150,000 | $ 16,450,000 | $ 8,000,000 |
| Capital Improvements | $ 10,055,000 | $ 7,100,000 | $ 7,015,000 | $ 5,193,000 |
| All State Construction | $67,501,000 | $66,946,000 | $88,183,000 | $87,763,000 |
| Mass Transit | $ 56,357,000 | $ 87,976,000 | $ 129,763,000 | $ 144,255,000 |
| Planning and Research | $ 17,200,000 | $ 21,100,000 | $17,500,000 | $ 17,900,000 |
| Interstate | $ 150,025,000 | $ 183,400,000 | $ 161,300,000 | $ 149,500,000 |
| Forest | $ 900,000 | $ 900,000 | $ 900,000 | $ 900,000 |
| Bridge | $96,100,000 | $ 124,900,000 | $ 76,900,000 | $ 64,100,000 |
| TOTAL FED CONST | $1,159,288,000 | $1,410,134,000 | $1,247,096,000 | $1,107,116,200 |
| All TDOT Spending | $1,619,845,000 | $1,858,614,000 | $1,745,830,000 | $1,747,240,200 |
| TOTAL STATE REVENUE | $ 805,800,000 | $ 820,900,000 | $778,400,000 | $ 840,461,200 |
WHO IS NEXT?
THE NORTH WEST QUADRANT OF THE LOOP AROUND COOKEVILLE
by Danny L. Newton
The extension of the loop beyond Kenny's Auto Salvage and on to SR 111 will be relatively painless for most people in Putnam County because the route shown in the 2000 version of the Environmental Assessment is mostly over farm land. The problem of getting from one side of a farm to the other side of a farm that is divided by a four lane interstate is something that most city people and urban planners do not fully appreciate.
There is no clue as to the number and the placement of interchanges on the extended loop so it is impossible to predict with any certainty exactly how many people will benefit, in a transportation sense, and how many people will actually have to drive farther to get to Cookeville or some other destination to the east or south. If the pattern of the past holds up, there will be two alternative routes approximately the same length. After the Fifth Interchange is built the next logical step is to head north and east to Algood.
This 6 mile segment is a long way off financially because TDOT must wait until everyone else in the state has thrown in about 180 million dollars worth of gas taxes to begin construction. Out of a budget of $1.8 billion dollars, this should not be too hard to find. If all of the gas tax money paid by Putnam County were saved up for 9 years, there would be an adequate amount of money as long as inflation was not considered.
The "B" Route that will emerge and masquerade as an effort to show good intentions will be very similar in length but probably much more likely to require relocations and disruptions. The illusion of optimizing choices can be cheaply purchased with a few drawings and aerial photos. Neither "A" or "B" route would need to exist if adequate money were permitted to flow to the city and county to repair the existing faults that have been perpetuated.
The idea that a loop around a city is some kind of magic bullet is a concept born during the Depression, not for transportation purposes but for the purposes of maximizing the amount of work for idle hands. This is one of the oldest of urban legends and has metastasized under repetitious chanting in Chambers of Commerce throughout the country. This over simplification has been reinforced and believed in spite of copious counter examples pointing to different conclusions.
The only proven urban concept for minimizing time and resources is the modern day version of the old Roman Grid system with major arterials spaced roughly at one to two miles apart. Streets are nothing more than highly complex conduits for traffic. Unlike particles or molecules in a fluid, the behavior of traffic is more complex because the driver is more complex and does not always have to behave according to logic or even rules of thumb. There is nothing magic about bending one of the conduits in the shape of a circle.
Even though the number of roads has been increasing every year since records have been kept, it does not follow that the economic development is somehow expanding with or at a predictable pace along side the length of roads. The U.S per capita road length has been falling every year and in spite of improving per capita income. Tennessee has better rates of lane length per person than most states and the nation but has no outstanding economic performance to match that investment. One might possibly prove that roads are a part of the equation but even attributing a percentage of total impact to all contributing factors is a very risky claim. With economic development claims there is no such philosophy like in science where an extrordinary claim requires an extrodinary proof. When talking about economic development claims, extrordinary claims are caused by the inability to prove or disprove.
In spite of the topography, a rough grid system is already emerging around Cookeville. It suffers quite a bit from a problem with connectivity in both the east-west directions and the north-south directions. The failure of the planners in Cookeville to optimize and evolve their own road system into a more efficient grid is a phenomenon related to money. The legislature has a system of revenue sharing with urban areas that keeps urban areas from getting the money to do big or dramatic changes in their road infrastructure. Traffic problems are more likely to be attacked with four-way stop signs, one-way streets, paint or speed limits than addressing the proper flow of traffic by geometric reform and adding needed lanes to form a proper sequence and balance between the number of local roads, collector roads and major arterials.
The following table has some, but certainly not all of the locations along the next section of the Cookeville Loop. The third column contains a guestimate of the probability that a structure might be impacted or taken or a large part of the property. There is no attempt to attribute impact to noise or increased difficulty due to the isolation of the property from the local road system. If you live at one of these locations or plan to in the future, you might be treated to the rare chance to sacrifice your property for the alleged benefit of your neighbors.
| 1 | 2100 North Road | 95% Chance For Impact |
| 2 | 1100 Pippin Road | 95% Chance For Impact |
| 3 | 1200 Pippin Road | 92% Chance For Impact |
| 4 | 1944 Anderson Road | 95% Chance For Impact |
| 5 | 2200 Wakefield Road | 95% Chance For Impact |
| 6 | 3500 Gainsboro Grade | 95% Chance For Impact |
| 7 | 1492 Shipley Road | 95% Chance For Impact |
| 8 | 2705 Kendall Drive | 95% Chance For Impact |
| 9 | 2900 Hilham Road | 95% Chance For Impact |
| 10 | 920 Shannon Drive | 95% Chance For Impact |
| 11 | 2190 Jasper Drive | 80% Chance For Impact |
| 12 | North Side of Phillips Drive | 75% Chance For Impact |
| 13 | Cookeville Auto Salvage | Possible environmental Cleanup |
FIFTH INTERCHANGE TIMELINE
30 SEPT 1988 Herald-Citizen Reports that Vice Mayor Grogan expects Fifth Interchange by the year 2000. Estimate for the interchange is $1 million. The estimated cost of extending Gould drive to the industrial park is $500 thousand.
03 DEC 1998 Cookeville City Council asks TDOT to perform a feasibility study on constructing fifth interchange on I-40 at Mine Lick Creek Road. SPONSOR-JIM SHIPLEY
01 APRIL 1999 The Cookeville City Council asks TDOT to study the Maple Avenue flyover at I-40 as the new Fifth Interchange.
25 OCT 2000 TDOT dates the Interschange Justification Study for Federal Highway Administration Review as part of Corridor J intersection at Mine Lick Creek Road.
20 MAY 2002 Cookeville proposes to move the city limits to the vicinity to surround the Fifth Interchange
21 JUNE 2002 TDOT Advance planning report on the Northern Connector
15 JULY 2003 Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury releases report to the legislature with reccommendations for objective system of project selection.
AUG 2003 Final Report of Independant Investigation Sanctioned by TDOT. Studies selection process of 15 problematic road projects in Tennessee, Mine Lick Creek Road is one of them.
24 FEB 2003 City of Cookeville approves alternate "A" as Phase I Councilman Sam Sallee asks that The Northern Connector be Considered as Phase II.
22 SEPT 2005 Herald-Citizen reports Highlands Initiative Kickoff with $2million.
OCT 2005 State Transportation Improvement Plan Shows Project #71005 "Construct New Interchange at Mine Lick Creek Road" ROW acquisition marked for 2006 and construction marked for 2008. See Adobe Page 41/99. Estimated Cost is $10.3 million.
DECEMBER 2005 TDOT Provides explaination of the Project Evaluation System.
23 MAR 2003 TDOT report reccommends using SR 111, not Mine Lick Creek Road for Corridor J intersection with I-40.
24 MAY 2006 Tennessee Legislature removes protection from land owners when government acts to build roads or build industrial parks. Bill allows transfer of property to private concerns. Charlotte Burkes listed as a sponser.
29 JUNE 2006 Putnam County loans Cookeville $2,452,685 for their share of the Business Park.
14 DEC 2006 TDOT Signs the Environmental Assessment FHWA concures later on 18 APRIL 2008. The connecting road is to have a design speed of 70 MPH and 250 foot wide controlled access right-of-way.
05 JUNE 2006 Tennessee Governor signs bill limiting the ability of the state, county and city to condemn property. PDF FILE HERE
16 JAN 2007 County Commission votes to listen to Mrs Lynch's side of the story and votes down condemnation request.
05 FEB 2007 Center Hill Regional Planning Meeting votes on transportation projects
06 MARCH 2007 TDOT Holds a public Meeting on the Fifth Interchange
29 JUNE 2007 $5 million transferred out of Putnam county Debt Service Fund to by 400 Acre Business Park.
01 NOV 2007 Condemnation of Pyle Property on the City Council Agenda. The vote was unanimous.
12 NOV 2007 The County Planning Commission in a voice vote decides to condemn the Pyle Property.
13 NOV 2007 The Cookeville Chamber of Commerce Refused Tour Editor Access to Engineering Report on the Highland Business Park.
14 NOV 2007 The Chamber of Commerce called a little after 5 PM to advise the Tour Editor that they had prepared a copy of the report that is being used to justify the condemdation of the Pyle Property and that it would be available at the front desk.
12 FEB 2008 The Sheriff Served Mrs. Lynch a summons this morning to initiate the condemnation process on her land.
17 MAR 2008 The City and the County ammend their condemnation suit. This will push back the court date into April 2008.
17 MAR 2008 The Herald-Citizen quotes TDOT spokesperson Jenifer Osborne Flynn as saying that the Fifth Interchange and the Northern Connector are "non related." This suggests that the useless road attached to the interchange can be built later.
18 APRIL 2008 Federal Highway Adnistration, Charles J O'Neil, signs Finding of No Signifigant Impact Statement For Mine Lick Creek Interchange Road And Northern Connector Road.
25 APRIL 2008 THE LYNCH FAMILY ANNOUNCE THAT THE COUNTY AND THE CITY HAVE WITHDRAWN FROM LEGAL ACTION TO PRESS THEIR OUTRAGEOUS EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE UPON THE LYNCH FAMILY
01 MAY 2008 TDOT puts up a partial electronic copy on their web site of the FONSI. This describes the staged construction of the connecting road from two to four lane but on a four lane right-of-way.
08 MAY 2008 The Lynch Family files a petition for Partition in Kind in Circuit Court. Attorneys ask for legal costs and damages.
09 MAY 2008 Herald-Citizen prints Finding of No Signifigant Impact or FONSI claiming that the Northern Connector and the Fifth Interchange are Connected.
18 JUNE 2008 The City Attorney suddenly discovers that he has to go on vaction on the same day that the City and County are scheduled in court to continue their campaign of eminent domain abuse. The Judge rescheduled the next court date to 21 JULY 08.
03 JUL 2008 City announces on the radio that they are paying $16 million to the Upper Cumberland Electric Membership Corporation to compensate them for land annexed in the past few years.
21 JUL 2008 Judge Turnbull permits the city and the county to witdraw from their previous motion to withdraw from the suit. The judge further suggests that the two parties settle the matter out of court in a judicial confrence in November. The Judge allows further delay, until next year for the city and the county to obtain a Certificate of Public Purpose. RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKS
CONTACT YOUR TENNESSEE
STATE TRANSPORATION OFFICIALS
House Committee on Transportation
Representative Phillip Pinion, chair ( D - Union City, District 77 - Obion, Lake, and part of Dyer counties)
Representative George Fraley,Vice-Chair ( D - Winchester, District 39 - Franklin, Moore, and part of Lincoln counties)
Representative Bill Harmon, Secretary ( D - Dunlap, District 37 - Sequatchie, Van Buren, Grundy, and Marion counties)
Representative Curt Cobb ( D - Shelbyville, District 62 - Bedford and parts of Lincoln and Rutherford counties)
Represenattive Vince Dean, (R - East Ridge, District 30 - Part of Hamilton County )Representative Henry, The Fifth Interchange, Fincher D - (Cookeville, District 42 - Most of Putnam County)
Representative Dale Ford (R - Jonesborough, District 6 - Part of Washington and Hawkins Counties )
Representative G. A Hardaway, (D - Memphis, District 92 - Part of Shelby County, Midtown and Inner City Memphis; Communities of Orange Mound, Rozelle, Bethel Grove, Glenview, Magnolia, Copper-Young and Lamar/Parkway corridors, part of Binghampton.)
Representative Mathew Hill, ( R - Jonesborough, District 7 - Part of Washington County)
Representative Curtis Johnson, (R - Clarksville, District 68 - Part of Montgomery County)
Representative Phiillip Johnson, (R - Pegram, District 78 - Cheatham and part of Montgomery and Williamson counties.)
Representative Debra Maggart, (R - Hendersonville, District 45 - Part of Sumner County)
Representative Jimmy Matlock, (R - Lenoir, District 21 - Parts of Loudon and Monroe counties.)
Representative John Tidwell, (D - New Johnsonville, District 74 - Houston, Humphreys, Perry, and parts of Hickman and Maury counties.)
Representative Nathan Vaughn, (D - Kingsport, District 2 - Part of Sullivan County)
Representative Eric Watson, (R - Cleveland, District 22 - Meigs, Polk and part of Bradley counties)
Representative Ben West Jr. (D - Hermitage, District 60 - Part of Davidson County - Donelson, Hermitage and Antioch Communities)
Represenatative Leslie Winningham (D-Huntsville, District 38 - Clay, Jackson, Pickett, Scott and parts of Anderson counties.)
You can find all bills, fiscal notes, bill histories and co-sponsors, U.S. mail legislative and district office addresses and streaming video of committee and subcommittee meetings HERE
RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKSSENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE:
RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKSSenator Jim Tracy, Chair - R - Shelbyville
District 16 - Bedford, Moore and part of Rutherford counties
Phone: 615-741-1066
Staff Contact: Judi Butler and Clint Hall
Senator Tommy Kilby, Vice Chair - D - Wartburg
District 12 - Campbell, Fentress, Morgan, Rhea, Roane and Scott Counties
Phone (615) 741-1449
Staff Contact: Michelle Stephenson, Brenda Gadd
Senator Jack Johnson, Sec. - R - Brentwood
District 23 - Williamson, and part of Davidson Counties
Phone (615) 741-2495
Contact: Catherine Haire
Senator Jerry Cooper - D -Morrison
District 14 - Franklin, Bledsoe, Coffee, Grundy, Sequatchie, Van Buren, and Warren counties
Phone (615) 741-6694
Staff Contact: Christina Barber
Senator Doug Jackson - D - Dickson
District 25 - Dickson, Giles, Hickman, Humphreys, Lawrence, and Lewis counties
Phone (615) 741-4499
Fax (615) 741-8745
Staff Contacts: Kim Andrews
Senator Rosalind Kurita -D - Clarksville
District 22 - Cheatham, Houston and Montgomery counties
Phone (615) 741-2374
Toll Free (800) 449-8366 Ext. 12374
Staff Contacts: Pamela George and Andrea Smith-Hummel
Senator Steve Southerland R - Morristown
District 1 - Cocke, Greene, Hamblen, and Unicoi counties
Phone (615) 741-3851
Staff Contacts: Carolyn Newman, Loudene Gee
Senator Micheal Williams - I - Maynardville
District 4 - Claiborne, Grainger, Hancock, Hawkins, Jefferson, and Union counties
Phone (615) 741-2061
Staff Contact: Rosalyn Martin
Senator Jamie Woodson - R - Knoxville
District 6 - Knox County
Phone:(615) 741-1648
Staff Contact: Pat Farmer, Alexanderia Honeycutt
YOU MIGHT HAVE A USELESS ROAD IF...
1. The road cost more money than it could ever hope to generate in taxes in a lifetime.
2. The local Chamber of Commerce says it will be good for the economy
3. The Chamber of Commerce organizes a pilgrimage to the Governor's office to tell him that everyone wants it.
4. The local paper tells everybody that if you don't want it your are a NIMBY
5. The local Chamber of Commerce is telling everyone that we have to do this because everyone else is doing it too.
6. The local Chamber of Commerce is claiming that we have to do this to get ahead of everyone else who isn't doing it.
7. TDOT says that it will cure the traffic problems.
8. TDOT says it won't cure the traffic problems.
9. The Chamber of Commerce claims that it will be good for the quality of life.
10. The Chamber of Commerce says it will help get the next factory
11. Your State Representative just thinks you are against it because of a pre-existing oppositional character flaw.
12. The Chamber of Commerce is in secret negotiations with the next whiz-bang company that only needs this road to make the whole deal come together.
13. TDOT is building a four-lane road when a two-lane would still have a high life cycle service level.
14. TDOT is building a road that will damage your business but does not go through your business. (No blood, No foul)
RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKS
web counter