posted March 18, 2008
Ok…. I just read yet another epistle on why Stinger’s Ridge should not be developed. Thus far, some of the reasons I have read include:
“Developing Stringers Ridge Isn't Best For Majority”
" the “benefits” of another chunk of overpriced condos do not outweigh the value of preserving this historical site "
" will this development be the best thing for the majority of the citizens of Chattanooga?"
" The property could easily be sold to another developer and be left vacant."
" A development of this magnitude in an uncertain market, and with the negative aesthetic impact on North Chattanooga neighborhoods is not what we need to pursue at this time"
“…..How about a LiveRoof. Plants, grass, wildflowers on the roof? Yes. Live roofs provide an evaporative cooling effect, maximum storm water detention and optimal aesthetic….”
To begin with, I think the idea of building a wad of condos there in light of the current economic/housing climate is about the most boneheaded thing I have heard of (I’ll be willing to bet a buck that there isn’t a bank within 4,000 miles that would be willing to loan money for the project), but it is none of my business.
I may be missing something but bereft from this whole debate is any discussion of the idea that this property is not owned by the city, the public or anyone else that has posted. As I understand it, the property is owned by a private individual located in a country that is assumably still based upon a free market economy. While the public has agreed to some limits on the use of private property via zoning, since when is it the public’s right to determine if a person’s proposed use of their property fits within a perceived need for it in the marketplace? Do we need another pizza place, auto parts store, gas station, weight loss clinic, etc?
Who knows but it is the marketplace that decides that question, not our government. If you don’t want to shop there, live there or lose your five year’s worth of pizza there…don’t go the establishment in question. If we pursue the original line of thinking, what happens when a group gets together and says: “Hmmm…you know, there are way too many Catholic Churches…we don’t think we need another one so we want the development of that church stopped….”, “Hey, a bunch of us got together the other day and we decided that that tree house you are building in your back yard is really not necessary. After all, there is a playground downtown, so you just need to use that one. Also, we got to looking at your house and those asphalt shingles are simply the worst. We decided that your roof needs wildflowers growing on it (no you bucket head, moss does not count) and you need evaporative cooling. What? Expensive? Oh, you feeble minded dolt.
In the short term maybe so, but you are not thinking long term. We have thought this through for you and here is what you will have to do….”, “Vern…have you lost your marbles? You want to build another exercise club where there are wads of young, thin women running around?!?!? No way! We think that there are way too many of those around and it is demeaning to pizza eaters and beer drinkers. We decided you can only build an facility that serves non trans-fat, low impact tofu and show films on the benefits of voting for Al Franken”, ad infinitum, but in each case its someone else besides the property owner and the free market deciding what you need to do with your property.
Unless we want to turn our city into Red Square (oops…they have begun to embrace capitalism…better scratch that example), it’s none of the public’s business as to the economic viability of a proposed project. If various individuals truly do not want the private citizen to use his property as the existing law allows than I can’t help but thinking “Pony up boys!”.
Put your money where your mouths are and buy the property from the landowner and turn it into hiking trails, a park or even a place to celebrate the civil war (yipes!…only if celebrates the Northern soldiers….we can’t make any mention of those horrible Southerners…better consult with the city of Berkley and find out what is an appropriate use of a public park).
Of all the concerns I have read, the one that seems the most appropriate is "…there are significant environmental concerns that accompany the building of such a development….". On that statement, I agree but with a slightly different twist. The next time you drive across the country, look at the surrounding areas as you approach a town. Too often, you are met by miles of trees being cut down as new developments are built. As you get closer to the town, you are met by even more miles of abandoned strip centers with massive unused parking lots dumping a sea of rainwater into storm sewers instead of into the ground.
Again I don’t begrudge the farmer that wants to sell his property to add another Mama Coco’s tarot card reader-nail extension-tax planning service, but if we as a society are going to try to mitigate the “environmental concerns that accompany the building of such a development” , why don’t we encourage continued developments in areas like Stringer’s Ridge that are close to existing infrastructure vs. pushing it further and further out into the countryside where there are insufficient roads, sewers and an ever shrinking areas of nature? Put another way, which would the public rather provide: infrastructure for 100 condos downtown on Stringer’s Ridge or infrastructure for 100 condos at Shackleford Ridge?
Arch Willingham
arch@tuparks.com
* * *
Thanks, Arch for a very logical and articulate summation of the situation.
Here we have a chunk of private property which might have sat there unnoticed for generations to come. It's covered with kudzu, crawling with snakes, woodchucks, rodents of every stripe, and littered with tons of pre-311 ignorance.
I never even heard about it, until it became the focus of the latest "green" hysteria. Had the family decided to stop paying tons of money for taxes to keep the family name attached, this would have been houses and duplexes ages ago, and no one would be griping. It would be a non-issue.
A concerned gentleman approached this issue from the Civil War angle. Anyone could tell he's passionate about his love of U.S. history and the part this area played in that conflict. I understand that, as I've been reading U.S. and world military history since I was a kid, and a lot of memorabilia has passed through my part-time business. I go about once a year to the Silverdale cemetery and just wander around, reflecting on things, and wishing some old photo might someday surface showing us what it looked like in the early 20th Century, when the original wood grave markers were all but rotted-away.
My take on both the "green" and historical aspects of this parcel of land is this: is there anything so very especially worthy of preservation there that a chunk of land no one cared about a year ago should be added to a cash-strapped Department of the Interior? With due respects to the Civil War historians, and I respect you all, I'll bet this parcel has been scoured for decades, since the end of WWII, and the old mine detectors being sold-off in the 1950s and 1960s likely denuded most of this place of relics a long time ago, and the modern discriminators must have finished the job. I understand the old gun pits are nothing more than shallow depressions. Can we learn much from a shallow depression? Would tourists make preserving them a viable proposition?
I don't think so.
As for the "green" thing, why don't all of you who feel this stuff is important put your money on preserving still-pristine places outside of suburbia? It doesn't mean squat for young idealistic types to pick up trash and gather up old abandoned tires, except to yourselves. Put your money where your mouths are. Hold fund-raising drives, sell cookies at your flea markets, maybe even reach into your own concerned pockets, rather than expect some local, state or federal government to come in and wave the magic wand, okay?
And if you do raise money, don't waste it on saving some piece of property in the city limits. Other than the Bend, there probably isn't anything that exciting. Focus on the Tennessee River Gorge, maybe. The conservancy which buys up plots of land has my utmost respect. Let's keep that part of the river looking much like it did when the Cherokee people paddle through there 200 years ago.
Another good target for green preservation: the two approaches into Sequatchie Valley. Buy up as much land as possible now, while it's affordable, especially around the north end. I hope I never see a hotel along that stretch, in my lifetime.
Lastly, why are the environmentalists always so fixated on preserving only pieces of land which were never developed? Personally, I'd love to drive along Manufacturer's Road and not have to look at that acreage where Green Life and all those other glitzy, materialistic businesses presently stand, an eyesore in the eyes of Mother Nature? Tear down these for-profit places, sell-off the contents and give them to the conservancy which would work to return this area to a pristine wilderness.
John R. Smickle
Chattanooga
jsbottomfeeder@juno.com
* * *
Mr Willingham, I very much wish that we could showcase those "horrible Southerners" as you called them. Unfortunately, the works from which the Confederate artillerymen fired counterbattery against Capt. Lilly's guns have long since been developed by both private landowners and the government. These developments
are: The Hunter Museum, the Tennessee Aquarium, Bellsouth Park and the Hwy 27/ Olgiati Bridge fill from Cameron hill. There is almost nothing left of the Confederacy's mark on the Chattanooga area. I wish I could stand in the big Rebel fort on Cameron hill and look north at Lillys' gunpits and imagine what those gunners saw that hot August day in 1863. Unfortunately all these works were long gone before I was born.I'm afraid that I really don't understand the rest of your letter, are you for or against the proposed development?
It seems that you are for private property owners developing their land as they desire with no public input from the people this development will affect while at the same time decrying rampant over development in the countryside. Which is it?
Mr. Smickle, while it is true that the gunpits in question are somewhat faint, after 140+ years they will not be pristine examples of Civil War fortifications. I take it from your statement then that because it's hard to see just what the ground in the Chickamauga Battlefield looked like in 1863 we should just give the park up to development. After all, just what can we really learn from it? Just because this site is in the city limits why should it not be saved?
And yes, I know that there are probably no Civil War relics left in these sites because they have been hunted with metal detectors in the past. The thing is, if people like myself and our club members didn't chase the 'dozers with our detectors much more Civil War history would have already been lost. I still hope we can save Stringers Ridge from Cameron Hill's fate.
John T. Sanders
President
Chattanooga Area Relic and Historical Association
* * *
So this property is owned by an individual, but we want to tell him what he can or cannot do with it?
If the site has that much historical significance, then perhaps groups like Mr. Sanders need to raise money to purchase the property from the owner.
Gary Massengale
Chattanooga
* * *
In response to the Willinghams, the Smickles and the Massengales' opinions, I would like to point out that none have provided sufficient argument for the development of 500 condos (other than Willingham's attempt at promoting city density versus urban sprawl - which wasn't a cogent argument) or for the leveling of a perfectly good ridge. The arguments put forth by these men have only been attempts to negate the opinions and actions of those of us who strongly oppose the development. It is true that when one engages in community action, there will be more people volunteer to beat you down than to join and work beside you. So don't listen to them.
By the way, those of us who oppose the development, live very closely on, around, or below the ridge. I would like to know where these men live in relation to the ridge. I challenge all of you to consider what your reaction would be if presented with a similar proposed massive development in your backyard. You just can't say that you would embrace the development and applaud "land owner's rights."
Let me also say that you and I as hard working, tax-paying, long time citizens of Chattanooga (true Chattanoogans) have different rights than some out of town developer who looked on Google Earth and found him a green patch. The rights of a 150-year-old neighborhood and its citizens trump those of any developer just looking to make a couple mill and move on to the next green patch.
One more thing: as reported in the Times Free Press, Mike Cooke is committed to purchasing the land regardless of the City Council's decision. If that is the case, then why didn't he purchase it on his "drop dead date of March 17?" Why does he have to negotiate an extension with the Hudsons? Wake up Chattanooga, don't get played. Realize that this city can make a legacy for itself by what it refuses to destroy. Look at what Philadelphia has done to preserve urban parks. They have one of the country's largest urban parks and "has produced one of the longest-standing examples of city and citizen cooperation."
Now, Mr Smickle, Mr. Willingham, and Mr. Massengale, if you are not against the development then you are for it. Instead of voicing your strong opinions on the Chattanoogan, why don't you put your money where your mouths are and go give the developer, Mike Cooke, his first, second, and third pre-sold units. Put up, or shut up.
Rhiannon Maynard
* * *
Okay, I think I've got it straight now.
So we have one person, who doesn't own a piece of property and who has failed to ante up with any cash to the property owner, but presumes to have a right to dictate to that property owner what he or she may or may not do with their personal property, telling someone else, who is advocating for the right of the property owner to do what they want with their personal property, to ante up with some cash to a fourth person who doesn't own the property yet.
Isn't that freedom of speech deal wonderful? With no personal property rights there is no freedom.
But as long as it's someone else's ox that's being gored everything is just peachy, at least in some folks' minds.
I need chocolate.
Royce E. Burrage, Jr.
Royce@OfficiallyChapped.org
| Dining Out | Business | Movies | Focus | About Us |
| Church | Living Well | Memories | Outdoors | Real Estate | Student Scene | Travel |