The Oak Ridge city staff and and the Knoxville Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) have been working quietly to get started on a process to update the city’s pedestrian and bicycle plans. City Council found out earlier this week that an advisory committee had been formed and several meetings have been held. Currently the city has a sidewalk plan for the center city and a greenways master plan, but neither of these is recent, and some sort of comprehensive pedestrian-bike plan is needed to qualify for certain grants.
A forum for public input will be held on January 5 at the Civic Center A/B Room. Here’s a classy announcement of the forum that’s being distributed.
The
Bicycle Pedestrian Technical Advisory Committee Invites
You to a Public Forum
January 5th, 2010 @ 6:00 p.m.
Oak Ridge Civic Center A/B Room
The City of Oak Ridge, the Bicycle Pedestrian Technical Advisory Committee, and the Transportation Planning Organization have joined forces to prepare a Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan for the City of Oak Ridge. During the first public forum we will be seeking input for establishing policies, programs, and priorities for the plan. If you have any questions you may contact the Community Development Department at (865) 425-3531 or the Parks and Recreation Department at (865) 425-3450. We look forward to seeing you there.
Thursday’s Oak Ridge Observer reported that Alex Moseley is circulating a petition to force a referendum on the matter of whether handgun carry permit holders should be allowed to carry guns in Oak Ridge city parks. The strange thing about this news is that there is no provision in the city charter — and apparently not in state law, either — for citizens to petition for a referendum to override the City Council resolution to “opt out” of the state law that would otherwise allow permit holders to carry guns in parks.
State law does allow citizens to petition for referendums over general obligation bond issues (that law was the basis for the Crestpointe referendum in 2007 and the referendum on the mall project several years before that) , but nothing allows for a referendum over any other type of City Council action (otherwise, we’d probably have referendums in Oak Ridge almost every month). Furthermore, the city attorney tells me that the General Assembly didn’t put any provision for a referendum in the state law that allows guns in parks.
The charter does have a provision allowing for recall petitions against City Council members, and it was rumored that handgun advocates were going to try to recall those of us who voted to keep guns out of our parks. However, the newspaper article clearly indicates that Moseley isn’t pursuing a recall campaign. The article goes into great detail on the requirements that Moseley’s pettition would need to meet (2,610 signatures in 60 days) and how he expects to use the Memphis Commercial Appeal’s database to identify the local handgun permit holders who are assumed to support the proposed referendum. Also, there’s an editorial suggesting that the referendum will teach City Council that we should follow “the will of the people”. What’s missing is any indication of the supposed legal basis for this petition drive and referendum.
It’s hard to believe that Moseley, who was the Republican nominee for the Tennessee House of Representatives last year, is unaware of the law.
Oh, and as long as assertions are being made about the “will of the people” regarding this measure, it should be noted that the great majority (well over 60%) of the many people who contacted me about the opt-out resolution favored opting out (that is they opposed allowing guns in our city parks).
I suppose maybe we can chalk this story up to confusion caused by the long hot days of August…
The issue of guns in municipal parks has aroused a lot of emotion and is generating a lot of e-mail to City Council members. On one side are people are strong proponents of gun rights and residents who believe that having a concealed gun when they are in a public place helps to ensure their safety. On the other side are people who believe that introducing guns into public parks is a threat to public safety. Among the people I’ve heard from are friends with strong views on both sides of this issue.
Following is text from a message that I have been sending to people who’ve e-mailed me on this topic:
The matter of guns in parks is on the agenda for the next City Council
meeting next Monday, July 20.
Guns are currently not permitted in our city parks. A new state law that
allows people with handgun carry permit holders to carry their guns in
public parks will take effect September 1, 2009, and will apply in Oak Ridge
city parks unless the City Council decides by resolution to “opt out.”
The “opt-out” resolution that City Council will consider next Monday
would maintain the existing ban on guns in our parks, with exceptions
for law enforcement officers, hunters in an authorized hunt (we do have
them in some city areas), World War II re-enactors at Secret City, and
similar exceptions. It would apply to all parks, natural areas,
greenways, and similar properties owned or operated by the city. (Guns
will continue to be banned on school property regardless of what we do.)
I intend to support the opt-out resolution to continue the ban on guns
in our city parks. As I see it, this restriction is not related to a
citizen’s right to bear arms, but rather is a reasonable restriction to
ensure public safety and allow citizens to feel secure when they use the
city’s public playgrounds, parks, greenways, and other areas.
Added: A recent News Sentinel article helps explain why it is that police officers and recreation managers in Tennessee — and many Oak Ridge citizens — prefer not to allow handguns in city parks, even in the hands of permittees. A man with a handgun permit who “did not seem to be mentally stable” (according to a Knoxville Police) fired his handgun in a greenway area near where children were playing. Fortunately, no one was hurt. Charges against the shooter included impersonating a law enforcement officer and reckless endangerment, and his handgun permit was suspended “and will be revoked if he is convicted.” It’s unfortunate but true that the fact that someone passed a background check and went through firearms training is no guarantee of that person’s future mental stability and responsible handling of firearms. Yes, he was already violating state law by taking his gun into a public park, but the fact that some people violate laws is not a reason for eliminating those laws. I believe that telling people like him that it’s OK to take their guns into parks increases the chances for gun violence in parks — it certainly does not make people safer.
Phew! This year’s Secret City Festival was a big success but it’s a relief that it’s over, and a relief that we made it through last evening’s marathon City Council meeting.
We had a long agenda and a long meeting. Kudos to John Huotari for quickly spinning out reports on two of the major business items addressed at the meeting:
1. Mayor Beehan and Mayor pro tem Miller were both re-elected to two-year terms. I supported Beehan (he was elected unanimously) but I was one of the three who voted for David Mosby for the pro-tem position, as I saw him as the better choice to provide leadership for the City Council and the City in the absence of the mayor. Several people contacted me over the weekend and on Monday to urge me to support Miller, citing the help she has given them in getting city staff support with issues related to things like animal control and code enforcement, but that type of constituent service (which any Council member can provide) is not what I see as needed in a mayor pro-tem.
2. We delayed action on the proposed lease for the senior center to allow more time for senior services advocates to put together a funding package to allow acquisition of the former Trinity Methodist Church for use as a senior center. I’m very pleased at this result (which came on another 4-3 vote), and I hope that the senior advocates can pull it off. (This deserves its own blog post.)
In some of our other business, Council approved new one-year lobbying contracts — with Bill Nolan Associates to represent the city in Nashville and with Ferguson Group for representation at the federal level. I opposed both. One reason is because I was irritated that Council members had been uninformed about what the lobbyists were doing for the city over the 6-month contract until the 11th hour before this meeting. (OK, 3 pm Monday wasn’t the very last hour before the 7 pm Monday meeting, but there was very little margin…) I hope for better communications in the future. Also, I believe that the benefits we get from the federal lobbyist could be provided at less cost by other mechanisms (such as a combination of “Washington insider” newsletters to provide current information on issues and opportunities, plus grad student interns here in Oak Ridge to do legislative research, “legwork” on grant applications, and drafting of letters and discussion points for officials to use).
Also, we received a letter from TDOT’s Gerald Nicely regarding options for the next phase of the widening of State Route 95. The exciting part is that TDOT says that a redesign changing the “typical section” from a 48-ft depressed grass median to a 12-ft paved median (this is being called “Alternative 2″ — basically, this is the change from a “rural design” to an “urban design” that some of us had been asking for) could be accomplished without delaying the September 2009 bid opening, but the City would have to compensate TDOT for any additional costs of construction. Other alternatives include a total shift of the road alignment away from the current right-of-way (this is being called Alternative 1 and is favored by some Southwood subdivision residents, but it’s impractical, and would result in a long delay in the highway project) or (in what’s being called Alternative 3) making small modifications to the “rural” design to reduce its impact (steeper slopes, modified ditches, and guardrails to reduce encroachment on the neighborhood and avoid some loss of vegetation, and lower speed limit to address noise and safety concerns). I think the new “urban” option is the right direction to go — I’m delighted that TDOT is revisiting its plan and proposing what I think is a “context sensitive” solution for this highway segment. City Council probably will have a work session to discuss the proposal on Monday July 6, followed by a special meeting to act on it on Monday July 13.
Added June 24: I forgot to say that City Council approved on first reading (second reading will be July 20th) an ordinance to change the speed limit from 55 to 45 mph on the stretch of Hwy. 95 that passes the Southwood subdivision. The lower speed limit would apply all the way west to a point 200 ft west of the western entrance to the Rarity Oaks subdivision. Among other things, a lower speed limit should improve safety near the subdivision and reduce noise for residents.
I’ve heard from an Oak Ridger who is concerned that his neighbors have been feeding raccoons. As far as I know, there’s no local ordinance or state law against feeding wild animals in Oak Ridge, but I wonder if that’s a direction that the city might need to take in the future. Cities in bear country (such as Gatlinburg) ban feeding of bears, and some cities around the country (particularly in California and the Rocky Mountains) already restrict feeding of other wild animals, such as deer, coyotes, raccoons, foxes and opossums (but they do not ban birdfeeders for wild birds). This is a restriction that people would dislike, but unfortunately there are plenty of excellent reasons not to feed wild animals.
According to various sources:
1. Some of the food that is put out probably gets eaten other animals that we don’t want in our yards and neighborhoods. People who intend to feed raccoons are probably also encouraging coyotes, skunks, or rats.
2. As a general rule, human food is not good for wild animals.
3. Feeding wildlife makes animals dependent on people, which can actually be detrimental to them when they stop seeking their usual food sources are move into human neighborhoods where they may fall prey to dogs, people, and vehicles. (Here’s an online article on the problems that feeding can cause deer and other animals.) Animals that have been fed by people get into the habit of expecting handouts from people and can become aggressive in seeking more of the same. (Here’s a cautionary story about a rogue coyote that had been fed by people.)
4. Raccoons are cute, but unfortunately they are suburban pests that can be a nuisance to homeowners and landscaping (they may even attack pets and small children) and can spread rabies, canine distemper, and other diseases. (For confirmation, check out this article from Birdwatcher’s Digest and the following two fact sheets from the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency: Canine Distemper fact sheet and Rabies In Raccoons, Bats, & Skunks.)
5. Wild animal populations (for example of raccoons and skunks) may grow unnaturally large because the animals are being fed. This not only increases the likelihood of damage from the animals, but increases the potential for transmission of rabies, distemper and other diseases that spread faster in denser populations.
Bottom line: Feeding wildlife might be fun, but it’s not good for public health — or for getting along with the neighbors. Please don’t feed the animals! (If people stop feeding wild animals voluntarily, then we won’t need to think about an ordinance.)
According to a press release from the City, the 30-day warning period for the City’s first traffic safety camera has ended. This is the camera that monitors southbound traffic on Illinois Avenue at the intersection of Illinois Avenue and Robertsville Road. It monitors red light and speed violations. Violations “caught” by this camera will now lead to $50 tickets.
A second traffic safety camera at the same location that monitors northbound traffic is in a warning period until June 6, 2009.
The two traffic safety cameras that monitor east- and westbound traffic on Oak Ridge Turnpike at LaFayette Drive, including speeding and red light violations and illegal turns, are still in the warning period. The westbound camera is in a warning period until June 8, 2009, and the eastbound camera’s warning period ends June 18, 2009.
In addition to the two intersections with traffic safety cameras, fixed speed systems are being constructed in Oak Ridge school zones on Robertsville Road at Willowbrook School and on Oak Ridge Turnpike at Oak Ridge High School. Both systems will monitor the speed of passing vehicles 24 hours a day, including school zone times. Neither system is operational yet and each will have a separate thirty-day warning period.
As of May 28, 2009, the City had printed 2,322 notices of violations for the locations with traffic safety cameras. These notices will be mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle committing the violation. Notices received require no action by the recipient during the warning period.
The red-light cameras only detect a violation if a vehicle crosses the stop bar after the traffic signal turns to red — if you are already in the intersection when the light changes from yellow to red, you are not in violation.
I did vote against the camera contract last year, but as a city official I figure I need to do my part to keep people informed and to ensure that the system operates fairly — and I do hope it contributes to public safety!
E-mail from the city manager indicates that the Redflex traffic enforcement cameras are installed and being tested. It looks like they will be ready to start issuing warnings some time later this week (the $50 penalties won’t come until after about a month of warnings-only operation). Cameras at the Illinois-Robertsville and Turnpike-Lafayette intersections will monitor both red-light compliance and speed, while the cameras on Robertsville Road near Willowbrook Elementary School and on Oak Ridge Turnpike next to Oak Ridge High School will just monitor speed.
Update on Tuesday, April 28 – Information we received today suggests that they won’t start issuing warnings until the week of May 11th.
Update on Saturday, May 2 – Information sent yesterday indicates that the red-light cameras are now running — for testing and for issuing warnings. (It looks like I was right the first time.)
I’ve already heard from one citizen with a question about an item on the April 13 City Council agenda (the agenda was posted Friday), so I guess it’s high time to discuss some of the business items. There’s a rezoning, action on the Chamber of Commerce contract, numerous bids and contracts including purchase of new police vehicles, “and much more.” Here are my musings about a few of these items (I’m interested in hearing what other residents think):
Rezoning request (updated April 7th)
The proposed rezoning is for a 1.25-acre lot at the corner of Tulsa Road and Tusculum Drive (there was a rezoning sign on the property, which is next to the entrance to the Burnham Woods subdivision, but I didn’t see the sign on Saturday). Requested rezoning is from R-4-B (multiple family residential) to O-2 (office district), to allow SMB Group (a construction contractor) to build a company office. (The company now has its office in the building at 100 Tulsa Road, at the corner of Tulsa and South Illinois Ave.) In addition to offices, permitted principal uses in the O-2 zone include multi-family dwellings, churches, hotels, day care facilities, and barber/beauty shops.
The Planning Commission recommended the rezoning by a unanimous vote at its March 26th meeting. The impact of the rezoning isn’t entirely clear. The R-4-B zone is supposed to be phased out, and uses in the new R-4 zone (which presumably would replace R-4-B) are pretty much the same as in the O-2 zone. The biggest difference I see are (1) in the R-4 zone buildings can occupy no more than 50% of the property, but the O-2 zone allows them to cover up to 80%, and (2) building plans in the O-2 zone require Planning Commission approval, but only staff review is required in the R-4 zone.
One possible concern is that the lot is mapped as being in the floodplain (of East Fork Poplar Creek and Gamble Valley Creek), but outside the floodway. Oak Ridge’s zoning ordinance does not restrict development in the portion of the floodplain outside the floodway (this is called the “floodway fringe”), as long as the ground floor is at least 1 ft about the calculated height of the 100-year flood. Fill already placed on the lot appears to have raised it above the flood level, so this is no longer a concern. The contamination (by mercury and PCBs released from the Y-12 Plant) in the floodplain of East Fork Poplar Creek also should not be a concern because the project should not disturb soils.
We’ll learn more about the rezoning proposal at the City Council agenda review work session on Monday, April 6 (6:30 pm in the City Services Center on Woodbury Lane, behind K-Mart), and there’ll be a public hearing at the April 13th City Council meeting (7 pm in the municipal building courtroom).
Chamber of Commerce contract
The City of Oak Ridge has a contract with the Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce under which the Chamber (including the affiliated Oak Ridge Economic Partnership) provides economic development services to the City. The current contract is worth over $250,000 annually, including a $20,000 addition that the Council approved by a 5-2 vote in January of this year (Tom Hayes and I were the two who opposed this) to help fund an additional staff member to support the Chamber’s “Live Where You Work” residential recruitment program. The current contract expires June 30, 2009. It could be renewed for an additional year, but the Chamber wants to negotiate a new 3-year contract to begin July 1. City Manager Jim O’Connor is asking for Council authorization to negotiate with the Chamber to determine which option is in the City’s best interest.
Although it’s unlikely that meaningful changes will be made between now and July 1st, I hope to re-open meaningful dialog on the purpose and scope of the City’s relationship with the Chamber. Many residents question the City’s whole relationship with the Chamber of Commerce, asking whether it’s in the public interest to subsidize a chamber of commerce, which is fundamentally operated for the benefit of its membership. The cost of the contract and its benefit to the city are also perennial concerns. The rationale for the contractual relationship with the Chamber has to do with a concern that open-government laws would conflict with the need for confidentiality in business recruitment, as well as a perception that city government is inherently not very good at economic development. I think there is merit in this rationale, but it does appear to me that the City is essentially subsidizing the chamber without having a clear picture of what the public is getting for its money.
Much effort went into creating quantitative performance metrics for the current contract. It’s clear to me that it’s a lot of work for the Chamber to calculate and report those metrics (it turns out that the statistics they are asked to report are not readily available or easily determined), but it’s not clear that the metrics serve the intended purpose of ensuring that the City’s objectives are being met. I think the metrics need to be revisited.
I’d also like to see emphasis placed on helping local businesses (both new start-ups and long-existing companies) succeed, whether or not they are Chamber members. It’s an unfortunate fact of life that many small businesses fail, but if local government resources are being spent on supporting business development, we should be helping existing small businesses (folks who have already invested in this city) avoid the types of mistakes that often lead to doom. Also, we should be helping local retail businesses promote themselves through measures like improved signage, special events, and “shop Oak Ridge” campaigns.
The “Live Where You Work” campaign is a great initiative (and long overdue), but I would have preferred to see it included in the current contract (which was supposed to include residential recruitment), instead of being added on as if it were an extra activity. I am waiting to hear whether the Chamber and City Manager want to enlarge the contract on a permanent basis, or if the $20,000 is a one-time thing (as Council was told back in January).
New police vehicles
Council is being asked to approve bid awards to spend $186,000 to buy six new Ford Crown Victorias (equipped for police use) and two Chevy Tahoes.
The Crown Victorias would replace some existing police cars (including some that have already broken down). Replacement of these cars is included in the City budget. I’m unclear on the purpose of the Chevy Tahoes, but the documentation indicates that the police would like to buy a third Tahoe if the city gets a federal grant. The bid prices for all of the vehicles are exceptionally low, so the City would get a good deal on the purchases.
It’s clear that our police vehicles need to be replaced on a regular basis, and that these bids are a pretty good deal, but I question the business-as-usual approach of continuing to buy new gas-guzzling Crown Victorias and SUVs. Two new directions that we should be exploring are (1) greater fuel efficiency and (2) take-home vehicles.
Fuel-efficient wheels for police. After experiencing last year’s high gas prices, and in face of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, many police forces around the country and the world are testing more fuel-efficient cars for police use. This includes our local Anderson County Sheriff’s Department, which is trying out Dodge Chargers for patrol use. The Charger is a muscle car like the Crown Victoria, but it is rated as more fuel-efficient. Some other jurisdictions are testing smaller vehicles and hybrids for police use, including Chevy Impalas in Mobile, Alabama, the Pontiac Vibe in Cahokia, Illinois, and Toyota Camry hybrids in Salt Lake City, and even the Toyota Prius in Marion County, Florida. I know that police officers like their Crown Victoria, but if other vehicles meet the performance requirements of police work without using as much fuel, they can both save money and help reduce our impact on global climate and air quality.
Take-home vehicles. In a meeting some time back, I was surprised to hear Police Chief David Beams say that it would be possible to stretch the service life of some police cruisers by assigning them to police officers as take-home vehicles. Take-home vehicles would last longer because they would be used for only one shift (instead of being used around the clock). There’s plenty of support for this idea. In addition to saving on vehicle replacement costs, this could increase the police force’s ability to respond to unusual incidents, as officers called in from home could respond quickly. Only officers who live in Oak Ridge city limits should be eligible to take vehicles home, they should be used only to travel to and from work, and a police officer in a vehicle would have to be required to respond to any incidents he or she observes while in the vehicle. For those who qualified, a take-home car could become an added fringe benefit — this would even provide a tangible incentive for our men and women in blue to live inside the city. A take-home program wouldn’t eliminate the need to replace six cars this year, but it might be worth trying out on a small scale to see if it’s truly beneficial.
At Tuesday’s meeting of the City Council Budget and Finance Committee, fire chief Mack Bailey shared some statistics that reminded me why it makes sense to live in Oak Ridge. Per capita fire losses per capita in our city are only about 1/3 of the average in the southeastern U.S. (just $15 to $25 per year, versus about $65 in the region) and well below the national average of $50 per year. Also, he said that our Fire Department makes 3 times as many runs as is typical for a town our size — when people call for help, the ORFD shows up to come to their aid.
So this is what we get from the taxes we pay for our professional fire department: efficient fire prevention and response services that help minimize fire losses, plus a helpful bunch of people who will be there when we need them, whether it’s a fire, a medical emergency, or the proverbial cat stuck up a tree.
Good news for families or communities with older drivers — and good news for all of us who expect to get older. It seems that the higher rate of auto accident fatalities for older drivers is not because they are bad drivers, but because they are more frail. This suggests that the number of senior citizens who continue driving past the time that they should quit is smaller than we often hear (or fear).
I’d still feel better if Tennessee required testing (especially of vision) for driver’s license renewals of people over a certain age, and I’d like for Oak Ridge seniors to have more transportation options to make it easier for them to turn in their car keys, but it’s good to know that senior drivers aren’t the “hazard on wheels” that they are sometimes suggested to be.
