Tract 1. Rainbow Lake – Map 107 Parcel 005
Tract 2. Bluff Property – Map 107 Parcel 006
Tract 3. Land between Shoal Creek, 127 and Palisades – Map 107M B003
Tract 4. Green Gorge (Patten Park) – Map 108P Parcel B016
Tract 5. Dogwood Park - Map 108J Parcel B009
Tract 6. Land NE of Shoal Creek – Map 107M Parcel B002
Tract 7. Lot below CVS – Map 107M Parcel B008
Tract 8. Overlook Park – Map 117A Parcel E011.01, Map 117A Parcel E015
Tract 9. CE James Park – Map 107L Parcel J009
Tract 10. Lena Givens Park – Map 107L Parcel J010
Tract 11. Ravine between Norvell & Palisades – Map 117A Parcel D014.01
Tract 12. Ravine between Wilder & S. Palisades – Map 117A Parcel C002
It’s autumn in Signal Mountain, and longtime foes of incumbents seeking re-election have turned Rainbow Lake and 11 other town parks into a timely political football.
Monday night, weeks before the upcoming Nov. 4 election, current town council members are scheduled to vote on whether to grant a conservation easement to the Land Trust for Tennessee in order to protect the parks from development.
Two incumbent members seeking re-election, Annette Allen and Susan Robertson, support the proposed easement agreement.
Their votes, combined with that of Mayor Bill Lusk, could transform the long-delayed measure into reality at the meeting tonight.
The third incumbent running, Dick Gee, is opposed, as are the two remaining candidates -- newcomers Chris Howley and Dr. Robert Spalding – who have taken strong stances against the easement.
Opponents of the measure, consequently, have developed a two-prong approach to defeating it.
First, they urged in letters to a variety of editors, pressure the current council to delay the vote until after the Nov. 4 election. And second, vote against the two incumbents who support it: council members Allen and Robertson.
“Good luck to Dick Gee, Chris Howley and Bob Spalding. Time for change on the Mountain (long overdue),” Clive Bonnick wrote on League of Signal Mountain Voters, a site created by former Mayor Paul Hendricks.
Among the most fervent opponents to the proposed easement is Joe Dumas, who has run a number of unsuccessful campaigns over the years for town council and other political offices.
Way back in 2011, long before most residents were paying attention, Dr. Dumas wrote an open letter to the council asking them not to “proceed with this well-intended but, in my opinion, faulty idea.”
“It is the ‘in perpetuity’ aspect, which is touted as a feature, that troubles me most about this type of arrangement,” he said then. “Once the town commits to establishing the conservation easements, and they are signed by both parties, there is nothing the current or future Town Councils can do to alter the agreements . . . (C)onsider that in the future, some valuable, useful mineral might be discovered on town property . . . Suppose one of the parks protected ‘in perpetuity’ contained enough of some natural resource to constitute a financial windfall for the town. It might even constitute enough of a windfall to enable a significant tax reduction or elimination, or even to purchase more park land or construct new recreational facilities. But, once again, a perpetual conservation easement on that parcel of land would prohibit the development of such a resource that might benefit the citizens.”
Today, some opponents of the measure aren’t nearly that polite.
“(E)vidently the only issue important to the incumbent Signal Mountain Commissioners seeking re-election is the preservation of polluted streams,” Steve Smith said in a LSMV post.
“My family was just annexed into what I thought was a municipality,” Mr. Smith continued, “but evidently it's more like a city incorporated for the purpose of preserving overgrown runoff areas that no one will allow their grandchildren to swim in. These areas need to be remediated, not worshiped. This isn't wilderness. It is 50-year-old scrub surrounding rutted out logging roads. It can be improved.”
Cheryl Craven Graham, also posting on SMLV, begged to disagree.
“(M)any years ago, the Town sold the property on which the old Town Hall once stood (where CVS now sits), for some additional funds to build the new Town Hall,” she told readers. “. . . The Town had given up the old Town property, and now would never again get it back. We do not know what future Councils will face, if they might not love and appreciate the irreplaceable parks and green spaces we now enjoy, and if they might let them go, as they did with the old Town Hall property . . . I want to know the Signal Mountain parks will never be developed. This will help to ensure that.”
At the Signal Mountain Golf and Country Club, president Bobby Morrison is worried that the agreement might encroach on that town-owned property since a portion of the land that would be protected by “abuts or even possibly includes parts of holes 12 and 13.”
On Oct. 10, an email signed by Bobby Morrison III and titled “ATTENTION MEMBERS - An Urgent Message from the Club President” went out to all SMGCC members.
“Last week, the newsletter informed you of the progress of the attempts by the Town Council to pass a Conservation Easement Agreement which essentially locks away 300-400 acres of your public land to a trust managed by a company in Nashville in perpetuity. Needless to say, the grantees have no accountability to the citizens of Signal Mountain, unlike your elected representatives on the Town Council,” the email began.
Last week, I expressed the Club's concerns to the Council. They have responded to our first request by placing language in the Agreement which specifically excludes the golf course. However, it appears that our second request regarding the completion of a survey of the property involved prior to their vote is going to go unheeded.
Last night, Bob Morrison, Jr. conducted a forum designed to bring our members up to speed. Councilmember Annette Allen presented the Town's case in favor of passage. Turnout was light, but for most who attended, it was an eye opener in that most of us have paid very little attention to the subject until very recently. Needless to say, once facts are presented to responsible citizens, informed decisions can be made. It is very clear that the proposed agreement is not ready for prime time.
On SMLV, where a majority of posters say they oppose the conservation easement, some posters admit they have been troubled by the charges and countercharges raised during the heated debate.
For example, “I was late coming to the discussion table because I know Annette Allen to be intelligent and thoughtful and the idea of making sure that these park areas remain green spaces in perpetuity jibed with my personal feelings,” Vanessa Stemps Young wrote.
“I had questions after reading this site and appreciate the fact that those of you who are against the conservation easement made me stop and ask those questions,” she continued. “. . . I am now convinced that though there may not be a perfect answer for everyone, the proposal to enter into this agreement with the land trust is the best solution to try to protect our town's parks/green spaces. I don't believe this is a slap to the face of future generations or town councils but rather a well considered solution to prevent problems for them. This has been discussed openly for at least three years, so I do not believe that it can be argued that this has been done in haste . . . I now can sleep well knowing that my support of granting this Land Trust the ability to be the ‘green police’ of said park lands is a good decision. I support those council members who will vote in favor of this easement.”