posted November 4, 2006
Karlette Baker’s lecture on manners in Wednesday’s paper regarding the Signal Mountain recall election was itself rich in irony. After all, it was only a little more than two months ago that Ms. Baker strode into Pruett’s arrogantly demanding that the store stop citizens from utilizing an unused portion of its parking lot to exercise basic first amendment rights by collecting more than 1,200 signatures from registered voters in support of the recall election. Ms. Baker’s actions, while certainly within her right, seem unlikely candidates for classification as an object lesson in either good manners or civic virtue.
But yesterday’s report in the Chattanoogan on Richard Casavant’s smack-mouth attack on the 1,200 Signal Mountain citizens who thought it was worth voting upon whether we wish to preserve our small town character and values — provisions specifically built into our town’s existing land use plan, or embrace the high density growth plan forced upon our town as part of the developers’ “wish list” enacted by our council simply leaves Ms. Baker far in his wake. Let’s examine the underpinnings of Mr. Casavant’s shrill attack before we determine whether Mr. Casavant should issue a public apology.
Elections are about issues. In democracies, and especially in this country where so many have given their lives to protect our basic freedoms, people decide issues. The recall election is the result of a petition of the people - a lot of people. If ever there was a grass roots effort to challenge political arrogance, it would be hard to find a better local example. The question Mr. Casavant needs to answer is how and why he can charge the electorate with having engaged in “smack-mouth” politics when they wish only to vote?
Many citizens believe it was wrong for our town not to protect Olde Town. Many more believe it was wrong for our town to reject citizen pleas for at least minimal written requirements to protect Signal Point from visual encroachment and the steady whine of heat pumps and air conditioners from a councilman’s development. Perhaps Mr. Casavasnt believes Signal Point is just another dine-a-dozen spot unworthy of even minimal protection. That citizens might disagree with Mr. Casavant, particularly when it involves a sitting councilman’s development, and want to vote for new leadership seems an unlikely basis for his odious smack-down charge.
Many people recognize that it was wrong for town officials to conduct off-the-record meetings with private development interests to implement their self-described “wish list.” Few, if any, fail to understand that it is an inexcusable embarrassment for town officials asking for continued public trust to even now continue to withhold documents from those meetings that were requested more than three months ago under the state’s open records act. Perhaps Mr. Cassavant believes public officials should hide public records, lest the public disclosure required by state law prove embarrassing or damage political prospects. That many people would disagree with Mr. Casavant’s political morality, and want to vote for new leadership, again seems unlikely an unlikely foundation upon which to charge the people with engaging in smack-down politics.
Many people now understand that there is not so much as even a traffic study to support the high density plan. It is why I suspect Ms. Baker and other proponents of high density growth now prefer to lecture us about “good manners” while Mr. Casavant attacks the people for engaging in smack-mouth politics. That many people recognize that state law, our town charter and common sense require planning to precede zoning in the 21st century strikes me as an impressively silly and irresponsible basis upon which to assert the smack-mouth charge against the citizens of our town. It may have been arrogant in the extreme, but at least our town council, when asked, simply professed themselves to be unembarrassed by the failure to take into consideration rudimentary planning questions. Perhaps this now qualifies them to step up in the political world by running for county commissioner.
Mr. Casavant may believe you zone first and figure it out later. It’s his right, and one only has to look around Hamilton County to see the results of the “development at any cost” policy to understand that it is a policy that has predominated local politics for years. But it hardly seems that the people are engaging in smack-down politics when they want to vote on a different way and require elected leadership to follow state law, our town charter and common sense on issues affecting our everyday qualities of life.
Many people also believe it was wrong for our council to arrogantly refuse to listen to the public, including an unprecedented petition signed by more than 1,300 residents asking for nothing more than a six month “time out” to allow basic land-use studies to be ordered and completed. Many people also know that our council refused to entertain a time-out after publicly conceding before a packed town hall that action on the proposed high density ordinances could be deferred until next year, well after this month’s election and well within a timeframe to complete basic studies without adversely impacting anything other than the council’s ability to ensure that it could deliver the developers’ “wish list,” signed, sealed and wrapped in a bow, no matter what the future might hold. Even Mayor Leonard admitted it “couldn’t hurt” to actually do the planning first, though he was unwilling to do so. That people would need to be in interstellar orbit to believe these actions irresponsible and evidence of a council unworthy of continued public trust seems more than a stretch. Then again, Mr. Casavant may believe that all public officials, once elected, have an inherent and unrestricted right to ignore the public interest and deliver the prize to private development interests without interference from the electorate.
Many people believe that the land-use planning studies were not ordered because of (a) fear of an intervening election and an open debate on the issues, and (b) the practical reality that, if ordered, the studies would (i) show that the high density development plan was untenable for a mountain with limited access up and down and only one main arterial route across it, (ii) overwhelm existing infrastructure and schools , and (iii) require open-ended taxpayer subsidies that could explode town budgets when it came time to pay the bill for the resulting infrastructure costs required by the high density development. That people might wish to vote on whether the town would be best served by maintaining the officials in office responsible for these actions seems, once more, an embarrassing basis upon which to charge the people with smack down politics.
Mr. Casavant is wrong to declare that the people are engaged in smack-down politics when they stand aghast at the unseemly rush to exploit the new high school and put personal profit from high density development ahead of existing town values. We have a town worthy of protection, and worthy of a vote. Faced with a choice between an irresponsible county commissioner making shrill charges and the right to vote, I’ll take the right to vote every time. While I hope our town’s citizens decide to pass on the world of high density development undertaken without a single study, at least we will have determined the issue in a democratic manner. In the meantime, perhaps a little humility on the part of Ms. Baker on public etiquette would not hurt either.
David R. Evans
Signal Mountain
David.Evans@Husch.com
* * *
Mr. Evans, the Signal Mountain recall effort is “smash-mouth” politics and does not fit the “small town character and values” you want preserved.
Mr. Evans, I attacked no one, but I do regret the recall process being implemented. To recall four council members, including two who are not running again, is negative politics.
The best approach is the one taken by those running for the Town Council. State what you will do and commit to the time and effort to do it if elected.
You took that approach when you unsuccessfully ran in 2000 for our state representative. Your ideas were presented in a political discourse and considered by the voters.
I will say that your one-page ad in the “Signal Mountain Post” (July 27, 2000) which among other things projected that the now-improved Signal Mountain Road between Dayton Boulevard and the bottom of the mountain would be a “7 lane tarmac” that would only “compound the problem” and “impede rush hour traffic” does not enhance your reputation as a futurist.
When you say that “perhaps Mr. Casavant believes” or “Mr. Casavant may believe” and then criticize me for what you say I may believe you are just setting me up. Innuendo is not a small town value.
I have voted no to the recall. I voted for three candidates who can take Signal Mountain forward. I encourage everyone to vote, even Mr. Evans who disagrees with things I have said and things he says I might say.
Richard Casavant
River Point Road
Signal Mountain
Richard-Casavant@utc.edu
* * *
Enough, David. We all have the right to our opinion but for you to come after my wife is beyond decency. You cite her actions as making her an unlikely candidate in either good manners or civic virtue. You go on to say that perhaps a little humility on the part of Ms. Baker on public etiquette would not hurt either. Are you truly serious, David?
My wife, as do I, consider the recall election wrong and thus have already voted NO. You have your own opinion and will vote your conscience. That is your right.
However, for you to chastise my wife in the area of good manners, etiquette or especially civic virtue, you have sunk to a new low.
Karlette has tirelessly worked to better our mountain. Be it as the president of the Nolan PTA, the president of the Mountain Education Fund, working tirelessly for the new Signal Mountain Middle and High School, working with Signal Mountain Presbyterian Church, having to deal with me, and all the while working and raising four children, she is the epitome of a wonderful wife, mother, friend, and civic supporter. And that’s just what she does on Signal!
Face it, David, if you and I combined had half the energy, virtue, and manners that she has, we would be extremely successful people.
I agree with Dr. Casavant, smash-mouth politics does not fit the small town character and values we all want preserved.
Go Vols!
Chip Baker
Dunsinane Road
Signal Mountain
* * *
I have never seen so many adults act like children as I have since moving to Signal Mountain. I'm not speaking of the residents - I'm talking about the elected officials or public figures.
Some of the citizens are intimidated or afraid they will offend the power people and suffer for it if they speak up. The regular townspeople are folks who really desire a warm, friendly place to live. However, if you go against the power, you pay.
I've spoken at public meetings twice and had problems on both occasions. The first time I spoke I was told abrubtly by my county commisioner the only way my problem would be solved was if he took the money out of his own bank account and paid it for me and he wasn't about to do that. Then he walked away. (problem....$8,700 fee for city water meter). Great response.
The second time was even worse. On standing up to speak, a town council member moaned, "Oh, my God," as I stood up. After the meeting when asked why, he actually clenched his fists, squared off and started yelling WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT? Another great response.
Commisioner, Town Council member say it ain't so! The truth is the truth. Could it possibly have been my overalls, t-shirt and cap?
Both times I spoke out, after the meetings several townspeople privately told me thay were supportive and were glad I had done so. They needed it.
There are some really great people living on Signal Mountain. It is unfortunate the arrogant power brokers and their wannabes try to spoil it. It's incredible. Although I can't fault the mayor's wife for taking up for her husband, I can't beleive there are people saying the recall is wrong BECAUSE IT MAY HURT THE COUNCIL'S FEELINGS. Please, it's alright for them to rush to destroy the land, but let's be careful and not hurt the council members feelings?
Simple civics lesson.....If the people who voted you into your office say no, overwhelmingly say no, it means no. All the pamplets you mail out telling us we just don't understand, we understand. We also wonder and speculate why the rush? No pamplets have been mailed out to answer that question. Nobody actually does seems to understand that.
I'm voting YES TO THE RECALL and hope it goes further.
Blake Daniel
Signal Mountain
thunderoad40@comcast.net
* * *
"Smash-mouth politics is a term that is used to describe a political campaign in which every effort is made to destroy the reputations, careers and lives of political opponents. (Source Wikipedia.org)
Mr. Casavant and Mr. Baker, I think you really need to analyze the meaning of the words you're throwing around.
Do you honestly believe, and expect the readers of this article to believe, that Mr. Evans and the recall supporters are after the reputations, careers, and lives of the council members? If so, I believe you're giving the councilmen far too much credit. The extent of their worth to Signal Mountain residents stops strictly at the extent of their appointed positions. I, and I'm sure other town residents, could honestly care less about damaging their reputations and lives. We simply want a vote for a change in council that will HEAR the voices of the people.
In a political system such as Signal Mountain, there are council members elected by the people for the people. Though there were repeated outcries from the residents of Signal Mountain to slow down the already hastened rezoning process, it was in vain as the Town Council turned a deaf ear.
Failure to comply to the requests of the people who put you in the offices you serve is an outright dereliction of duty. The people of Signal were put in a position where they had no other options to protect what they believe to be the best interests of the Mountain. They were forced to ask for a VOTE for the recall of the councilmembers who did not perform the responsibilites of their positions as seen by the residents.
Now this may come as a shock to the council members who only until the recent recall petition believed that the town's best interests lay solely in their hands.
I sympathize for the council members. They feel threatened. They have an honest belief that their jobs are in danger. Why else would they so suddenly begin to listen to the voices they had so adamantly ignored?
"I agree with Dr. Casavant, smash-mouth politics does not fit the small town character and values we all want preserved."
Actions speak louder than words. And although these words sound wonderful. Although they make us sleep better at night knowing Signal Mountain is still a small town with pure values and a down home character. The actions of the council members reflect a desire to preserve only one thing: Themselves.
Ian Morrow
Cookeville
immorrow21@tntech.edu
| Dining Out | Business | Movies | Focus | About Us |
| Church | Living Well | Memories | Outdoors | Real Estate | Student Scene | Travel |
