As a resident who has not lived in the Chattanooga community for an extended period of time I am not well versed in the city laws and ordinances. However, it would seem to me that sidewalks would be required for any new development. Is this not the case?

Given the architect's comments that "sidewalks are probably not feasible on the narrow street, but he said there will be three pathways leading from the apartments" why would this development be moving forward? Where will these paths lead?

How will the developer ensure these "paths" are ADA compliant? With the
amount of rain we get on a regular basis can we ensure accessibility for
those that may require a wheelchair?

It seems that this project is being
rushed through the system. Shouldn't the Chattanooga Housing Authority ensure all of these questions and concerns from local residents are addressed prior to moving forward?

Erik Rippon
North Chattanooga

* * *

Have you ever called CHA? No one has ever returned any of my four messages which I left the week after the story came out in the paper.

Aside from that, CHA has a horrible financial history and weak leadership. They have responsibility and accountability problems as well as communication problems. Craig Kronenberg first said CHA had an easement from Normal Park School for those 'pathways' but when Councilwoman Robinson asked him to elaborate he said, "Well, we intend to talk to Normal Park about that." Sir, you lied in public and on the record.

CHA was in a state of desperation and scramble before this grant was awarded. Now all of a sudden this grant money is the most wonderful thing ever that will bring joy and happiness to all of CHA. We will call it 'The Redeemer.' If something is too good to be true, it probably is.

I am skeptical that the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development would award this grant money to CHA if they knew all the details. Why would they give money to an organization that has recently lost millions of dollars in irresponsible dealings? I would like for someone to review CHA's application for the grant money.

If lies or half truths are found in the application, CHA needs to return to the original plan, which was to demolish the Fairmount Apartments.

Property owners and taxpayers have been told for quite some time now that the apartments were slated for demolition. To all of a sudden hear that not only would it not be torn down but that it will be built back up bigger and better is a slap in the face. I don't blame them for being angry. When you have been told one thing and then get the opposite it is infuriating.

But let's imagine CHA goes forward with this project. But then they mismanage the money and the project, like they have so many times in the past. Will neighbors get stuck with an unfinished project? Or will the quality of the project, as promised, be compromised and more of the same old same old gets built. Who is going to be accountable?

And what if the construction vehicles destabilize the embankment and it all slides onto Normal Park School's football field? I bet the taxpayers will be paying to clean that one up. Rockslide is the buzzword of November.

I do believe in affordable housing for low income Americans. HUD's intentions are good, but this is the wrong location, and CHA is definitely the wrong recipient.

The rapid rush to move forward with this project is concerning and frankly a bit suspicious. Let's look at all angles before moving forward.

Rhiannon Maynard
Hill City