Taxpayers Opposed to Useless Roads

November 17, 2008

To:  Putnam County Commissioners

From:  Linda A. Owens and N. Faye Pyles Lynch

Re:  Proposed Business Park

I hope that I will be able to speak to you this evening to voice my concerns about the misuse of eminent domain/condemnation by Putnam County and the City of Cookeville of property for the proposed Business Park.  But, since this Commission has in the past limited my mother, Faye Lynch, and/or me to three minutes and because your attorney, Jeff Jones, has cut us off from speaking for even that amount of time, I felt it necessary to put my concerns in writing.  I also want to clarify that my attorney has assured me that there is no legal basis for Mr. Jones to stop my family from speaking to you.  My family has the right to seek legal representation to keep you from taking our private property and that does not give you the right to silence us or impede our freedom of speech.  

My concern this evening is your possible use of eminent domain/condemnation of even more property prior to your receiving the Certificate of Public Purpose and Necessity.  

T.C.A. 13-16-207(f) states in pertinent part:
        Before a city or county may undertake to exercise the power of eminent domain for development of an industrial park, it must obtain a certificate of public purpose and necessity as provided in subsection (1), even if no funds will be borrowed for the project…

The latest drawing by your architectural company, BWSC, shows two road additions/extensions that will take private property.  There is at least one home and private land across from Cane Creek Road as well as land and possibly a home for the straightening of Lee Seminary Road.  As the straightening of this road was not fully discussed at the open meeting, it may or may not be part of the business park and therefore may or may not be included in the certificate application; however, a formal entrance to the business park from Burgess Falls Road was alluded to by County Executive Kim Blaylock.      

I also want to bring to your attention that neither the city nor county is given the right to take property for the building of the 5th interchange and that my family's northern 12 acres are not in the proposed business park.  And, as the grey areas on the architect's map drawing you were given illustrate, there will be a large amount of privately held land within this business park…unless, of course, you are planning to condemn all the property within Holladay Road, Bennett Road, Lee Seminary Road, and I-40 when (and if) you obtain the Certificate of Public Purpose and Necessity.  

I am asking that this Commission not allow further abuse and misuse of eminent domain to take private property until you have the required certificate.  

TDOT to Try Own Stimulus, Take Bonds to Do it
via WPLN Newscast Stories by Blake Farmer on 11/18/08

The state Department of Transportation may deviate from its historical policy of pay-as-you-go and take out 350-million dollars in bonds to help stimulate the economy. At the governor’s budget hearings today, transportation commissioner Gerald Nicely said he wants to issue “garvee” bonds.

“Garvee” stands for Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle. Commissioner Nicely says he wants to take out bonds against an annual stream of 40-million dollars from the federal government. That money is meant to fund repairs for some 300 bridges in the state. Nicely says the bonds would allow the work to begin now.

“We could in effect eliminate about 65 to 70 percent of those structurally deficient bridges in two-and-a-half to three year period. We’d have them either under construction or completed. And yes indeed, it would obviously provide a lot of jobs.”

Governor Phil Bredesen says he supports the bond proposal and acknowledges the break from policy. It would take legislative approval. Bredesen also says he’s confident the state would find buyers for the bonds since federal money would back them.

Some in Congress are proposing an infrastructure stimulus on the federal level. TDOT expects the state could receive some 268-million dollars for road projects if such a bill passes. Chief Engineer Paul Degges says the department has a list of projects ready to go if the money comes down. :20

WEB EXTRA:

At least 22 states including New Jersey and California have used GARVEE bonds, which are relatively new to infrastructure financing. In Tennessee’s case, the state would pay them back over a 12 year period. But increasingly, the credit markets have become an issue. As recently as October, the Idaho DOT delayed a $116 million GARVEE bond sale scheduled for this month to wait out the credit markets.

CARA Members and Friends,

   Just got back a few days ago from three weeks in Guatemala, so this
notice is overdue!  My apologies.

   TDOT has extended until Nov. 30 the comment period until for their I-40 /
I-81 study and plans.   If you have not already sent in your comments,
please don't fail to do so, and remember CARA's recommendation is that TDOT
put more funding into rail piggyback transport across Tennessee to reduce
the truck volume on these interstate highways.

TDOT predicts truck volume on the I-40 / I-81 system to DOUBLE by 2030.   Do
you want to drive to Nashville or Knoxville in that kind of mayhem?

TDOT has considered redeveloping rail connections between Cookeville and
Crossville, to create a direct rail connection completely across the state.
Estimated cost to create this statewide connection:  $1.2 billion dollars.

   To find out more about TDOT's plans, click here   Also here

Looks like TDOT is favoring the widing  various section of I-40 from 4 to 6
lanes, and building truck climbing lanes in various localities (including
Putnam Co.).

I do not think they have put enough emphasis on the development of the rail
option, which would be a much more energy efficient (and therefore
environmentally friendlier) way to carry trucks across our state.

    To send in your comments, use one of these addresses:

>> "TDOT is accepting comments on Technical Memorandum #4, the draft final
>> report, through November 30, 2008. Email your comments to
>> TDOT COMMENTS or RALPH BARNES

    Please don't let this opportunity to exert some influence on how TDOT
deals with the growth of traffic on I-40 / I-81 pass by without comment.

     Happy Thanksgiving to you all,

      Ric

PRIORITY SELECTIONS

     Of all of the RPO meetings, the most dreaded days are those with rankings as their primary purpose. The process was made slightly more understandable this year by switching to an alphabetical map identifier system. In the future it will look like the projects are multiplying, but they will only be getting smaller as they are broken up into smaller segments that are less than 10 miles long.  Once again it was discovered that ranking something high on the list has no influence and makes little difference in exactly when a project gets built. Projects on the list were placed by the year they are ready for funding. There was an attempt to look on the bright side of the predicament by hoping that the project, once placed in queue, would eventually be built but no one could predict when that would be. The legislature was implicated in some of the problems since they do not want to set aside money for something that is not going to happen in the same year.

FIFTH INTERCHANGE / MINE LICK CREEK INTERCHANGE

      The first thing that was mentioned was the push back of the Fifth Interchange. The project manager, Chester Southerland, brought forth an explanation that places the responsibility on local unnamed officials for pushing back the project until 2010.  I suspect if some of those officials were mentioned, RPO members would find out that their opinion ranks well below those of unelected Chamber of Commerce members.

SLIGO BRIDGE CONCERNS

     Another factor in the changing priorities was the impending repair of the Sligo Bridge. Even though there was an attempt to obtain an earmark from both senators and the local congressman, there is no earmark in the year 2009 for this bridge. Nothing makes the prioritization process seem more random than the inability to get this bridge fixed.  This bridge should have been scheduled for replacement, not presented as an emergency.