Letters to the editor: 05/24/01

Town manager decision is premature

To the Editor:

Also, Tommy Thompson, who is currently acting as the town administrator, has about three more years to go until he retires. Wouldn't it make more sense to wait until he is almost ready to retire and then hire a town manager to replace him?

It's almost unbelievable that two weeks ago town board members said they did not have enough money for Christmas bonuses and now, suddenly, they can afford $60,000 to $80,000 to hire a manager.

They also stated that they do not intend to eliminate Tommy's job, but the wording of their announcement in the paper states that all personnel decisions will be made by the town manager, and I cannot believe he will feel the way they do.

Let Tommy Thompson finish what he has been doing well, and change to a manager shortly before he retires.

Herb Zachmann

Sylva

Moratorium editorial was 'too harsh'

To the Editor:

I am somewhat reluctant to criticize The Herald's editorial because I find myself in near total agreement with the editorial's intent and the goals it advocates. The Herald has been very supportive of reporting our concerns here in the Qualla community.

However, I think the editorial made an inaccurate assumption, one that does potential damage both to our struggle here in the Qualla community and to the cause of land use planning throughout the county. The Herald seems to have assumed that any ordinance that may come from our moratorium on asphalt plants would only place restrictions on the future locations of asphalt plants. In the third paragraph of the editorial the Herald asks: "what will save Qualla (or any other community) from being the site of a noisy chip mill or smelly hog farm?"

I would like to answer that question by shouting out: a polluting industries ordinance! And that is exactly what we are working for! As I understand it, the county cannot legally enact laws that single out asphalt plants because of their emissions or noise, even if they wanted to, and expect such laws to stand up in court. Every county that I'm aware of, that is struggling with this same issue, is trying to create a "polluting industries" or "high-impact industries" ordinance that regulates any industry that emits significant noise, odors, smoke, measurable pollution or even vibration. Such an ordinance would certainly regulate the noisy chip mill or a smelly hog farm. Typically, such ordinances prohibit polluting industries from building too close to schools, hospitals, day cares and private residences. They may also require stricter control of offending noise or pollution.

Such an ordinance is probably one of the most important first steps in "smart growth planning" that we could take. What type of planning could be more popular? Who wants to invest in property, build a home, and then have an asphalt plant, hog farm, or chip mill move in next door? It is especially important that the Herald, and the citizens of Jackson County, recognize the importance of this opportunity. This is not just a Qualla community issue. We are very unlikely to get any meaningful protection from polluting industries unless the whole county joins us and supports this effort. Jackson County is completely open to any polluting industry moving in next door to any one of us, because it has no land use planning of any sort. A well planned polluting industries ordinance is surely one of the most important steps we could take together to protect the quality of life in Jackson County.

I ask the Herald to reconsider its words, and to be very careful that it does not misrepresent the importance of the process that the Qualla community has recently set into motion, and that the Commissioner's have, so far, supported unanimously. This struggle is no longer just about an asphalt plant in Qualla.

Would you be happy to have an asphalt plant, race track, chip mill, hog farm, tourist helicopter or any other polluting industry move in next door to you and your family? If your answer is no, please join us in calling for a meaningful polluting industries ordinance for Jackson County. Robert Franz

Whittier

What Heritage Hills is, is not

To the Editor:

Over the past few months we have been initiating our main push for community outreach, and in that time we have learned a lot about how our plan will address many of the needs seniors in Jackson County face. We have also come to realize that there is some misunderstanding in the community as to our purpose and focus. I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for any miscommunication on our part.

It is important to Heritage Hills that the public knows what we're about, but also what we are not about. To address the first issue, Heritage Hills will be a place to consolidate current services and programs for those aged 50 and over in Jackson County onto one central location. We also want to include independent and assisted living housing units, which is a growing need in Jackson County. Heritage Hills will also be a place for all seniors to use. We hope that with the variety of programs and the convenience of one central location for Heritage Hills that residents throughout the county will feel welcome.

Due to some misunderstandings it is important to clarify to the community what we are not. We are not a nursing home or a retirement community. We hope to provide services for seniors to use on their own time as they see fit. We are not going to be an exclusive club. As stated earlier, Heritage Hills is intended to be for the whole community. All should feel welcomed as this is a facility for the people of Jackson County.

Finally, and most important, we are not going to be funded by tax money. Heritage Hills is not going to receive a penny from any proposed bills or agendas that may affect taxes in Jackson County. We are privately funded 100 percent, period.

What I have hoped to convey in this letter is some of the basic information about Heritage Hills. If you are unfamiliar with Heritage Hills or unclear about our purpose, I hope this clarifies some issues. We want to address the concerns of the public, and answer their questions. We want to know how the public feels by receiving your ideas and feedback.

That being said, I would like to invite all members of the community to attend our open house Tuesday, June 5, at our office in the East Sylva Plaza from 5:30-7:30 p.m. We will also be hosting a community forum at the Golden Age Senior Center at 7 p.m. on June 26. For further details please call use at 631-0433. Let us share our ideas with you; come see why we feel so strongly about this project.

Sincerely,

Scott Holcomb

Sylva

Asphalt moratorium, Smart Growth should lead to land-use planning

To the Editor:

In light of the "Smart Growth" meetings being conducted throughout Jackson County, it appears there is overwhelming support for the preservation of our rural character and natural resources. The critical part of this process will be determined by the level of citizen response and involvement in the follow up meetings. If a community can energize and empower itself over a single issue (e.g. industrial polluters in the neighborhood), can this also be done over the more thorny issues involved with long-range planning, the future vision of a community?

There is currently no structure for a community to determine its future development and the desired pattern of that development. Maybe this would include a community needs assessment, describing existing community conditions and focusing on major community problems such as land use conflicts, growth management, the identification and preservation of "critical" lands - farmland or ecologically-sensitive areas like headwater areas of our watersheds). How would a community interact with local and state government to request and receive county assistance and possible regulation in lieu of countywide regulations?

The formation of community councils has been done in Watauga County with some success. This is an attempt by that county to develop a system of planning guidelines for specific communities (defined as having a minimum size of 3 square miles or 1,920 acres).

A community may request planning assistance from the county through presentation of a petition signed by 33 percent of all property owners. Councils consist of from seven to 15 residents (representing a broad cross-section of that community) who work with the county planners and inspectors to assist in the creation of a comprehensive community plan. All meetings are open to the property owners.

It seems like this would be a natural direction for the Smart Growth process - from the ground up whereby communities initiate the procedure rather than the county trying to sell its citizens on some type of land use planning.

Roger Turner

Sylva

Emergency volunteers do exceptional job

To the Editor:

These men really do a fantastic job in protecting our lives and our property.

We recently had an occasion to call for their help and they responded in jig time and stayed for many hours till the fire was well controlled, their tanker truck and pumpers doing a great job. The following morning the Forest Service returned with another truck and dozer and they stayed until the fire was totally out.

These are all very professional and dedicated men.

Again, we want to say "thanks" and a job well done.

Betty and Lester Fetty

Cullowhee

Foreclose on delinquent taxpayers to boost budget

To the Editor:

I was also wondering what the incentive is for me to continue to pay my property tax if so many others can get away without paying and the county does nothing about the collection.

I know for a fact that some properties are tax delinquent for many years. The government may be able to stop raising taxes so much and initiating new taxes, such as the land transfer tax, if they were a bit more efficient in collecting the taxes that are already due.

Martin Beatty

Alpharetta, Ga

Press, politicians wrong to 'beat the zoning drum'

To the Editor:

H.L. Mencken said, "For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, neat and wrong." There are those in the press and in politics who have used the occasion of this controversy to beat the drum for zoning, offering it as the simple and neat solution to a series of very complex issues. While zoning may be simple and neat, it is also wrong.

Before explaining why zoning is the wrong solution, let's first dispose of one of the great myths of this debate - all those who oppose zoning are opponents of any planning and the public good to the benefit of their own selfish interest or as the press has coded this, "property rights advocates."

Yes, I believe in one's right to control one's own property. I believe that is a fundamental tenet of our democracy and a key in preserving our freedom, heritage and culture.

But I also believe that with rights come responsibilities. While I may believe that I have a basic right to use my property as I see fit, I also understand that with that right comes a responsibility to my neighbor and community. Furthermore, as a matter of practical reality in a modern society, I understand that certain uses of property transcend one's individual rights and that the community as a whole has a legitimate interest in regulating some private uses of property. I oppose zoning because in this environment, in the circumstances that currently exist in Jackson County, it is bad public policy that would have exactly the opposite effect that its proponents claim. Zoning is not a panacea, it has very limited uses as land use planning tool. Zoning, more than anything else, is an economic tool that is used to further short-term economic interests. Zoning promotes an environment where the highest priority is to have land and its use seek the highest possible economic value. In a setting where we are trying to control and moderate growth, where we are seeking to preserve open space and farmland, where we are attempting to limit sprawl zoning would cripple those goals.

The folks in Qualla don't want an asphalt plant, the folks in Forest Hills don't want student housing, the folks in Webster and Greens Creek don't want landfills or industrial parks. The list goes on and on, nobody wants any bad stuff in their backyard. And the proponents of zoning stand up and say we can stop all that with zoning. Besides failing to recognize reality, that position is a deception of the worst sort.

The simple fact is that like it or not we need landfills, and if we want roads, we need asphalt plants. If we want the benefits of the university, then we must also have students and student housing. All the ugly stuff has to go somewhere, and more to the point, it has to be accommodated by someone.

Zoning does nothing to answer the difficult questions of how we live with the ugly stuff, how we lessen its impact or how we make it tolerable. What zoning does well is create a system of exclusion and economic bigotry whereby those with power can move the asphalt plants and landfills and other needed but unsavory uses of land into somebody else's backyard. By creating greater minimum lot sizes, or increasing square footage requirements, or limiting other uses, we can assure that only people of a certain economic level can live in our community. By worshipping property values over all other considerations we can assure that the bad stuff is pushed off on someone else.

Would zoning have prevented an asphalt plant in Qualla? Perhaps, but one thing is sure - zoning would have established a legal framework through a Board of Adjustment and the variance process for the possibility of a plant in a neighborhood regardless of the original zoning designation. In the end economic considerations will trump every other factor. So what is the answer to our dilemma?

First, it is recognizing that there is no magic bullet. There is no simple and easy answer. It is recognizing that the debate should not be about how to keep stuff out of our backyard but about how to live with it, about how to minimize its impact. I am not advocating putting an asphalt plant in anyone's community, but since we can't rope off one corner of the county and say this is where the asphalt plants and landfills and industrial parks ought to go, our only choice is to develop a set of conditions that make these things tolerable.

Surely we can come up with a process that develops regulations that protect communities while not being overly burdensome to plant owners. In the case of the asphalt plant, can we not determine that a certain amount of setback, buffering and landscaping is needed to contain odors and obscure views? Can we not come up with requirements that the developer put in roads and infrastructure in such a way as to protect the surrounding community? Can we not develop bonding and compensation structures to protect surrounding property owners in the event of real economic loss due to property devaluation?

We must also recognize that land use planning and zoning are not synonymous. Land use planning is a whole range of tools and concepts. Land use planning includes an honest appraisal of tax policy so that folks are not pushed off their land by increasing property values. Land use planning is identifying high impact uses and being proactive in developing fair, reasonable and effective regulations to accommodate those uses and protect our communities.

Land use planning is about understanding the need to limit our "I wants" and "they shoulds" - yes we need modern school buildings, and greenways and recreation centers, but we also need to be able to pay for them in a responsible way. Land use planning is about coordinating the construction of infrastructure and recognizing that every road you build and - every sewer line you extend means not only more growth associated with that expansion, but also the creation of heightened expectation for future expansion. It means developing ways to ensure that those who reap the economic benefits of development pay their fair share of the burdens.

Land use planning means protecting our streams and soils. It means developing affordable incentives to preserving farmland and forests. Land use planning means bringing all the institutions of the county together including the university. It means recognizing that no institution is an entity unto itself and that economic development is measured by the gains of all not just a select few.

Land use planning is about economic development and recognizing that the end is not how much new business and industry we brought in but about how much wealth was created, how many lives were improved and how many people we lifted up.

Land use planning is hard, mainly because land use planning is not really about the land; it is about people and how they can live well, individually and as a community.

Abraham Lincoln said, "I like to see a man proud of the place in which he lives. I like to see a man live so that his place will be proud of him." Perhaps that ought to be the ideal behind land use planning.

We face difficult and complex problems. Let's put aside our prejudices, agendas and self-interest and get down to the very had work of crafting solutions that are fair, reasonable and inclusive. Mark Jamison

Cullowhee

Back to Archive: 05/24/01.