As a landowner Hamilton County’s A-1 zone, I feel compelled to speak out against the so-called “compromise” plan being advanced by Commissioner Lee Helton and the Home Builders Association. On paper, this proposal is framed as balanced growth management. In reality, it is a plan that devalues private property, benefits builders and raises serious ethical concerns.
Under current zoning, A1 property allows for two homes per acre. Commissioner Helton’s proposal reduces this to 1.5 homes per acre. That might sound small, but for landowners like me, this represents a substantial loss in property value. For example, a 100-acre tract under current zoning could potentially support 200 homes. Under the proposed rules, that number drops to 150 or even less with the revised selectively imposed setback rules. This is at least a 25 percent cut in development rights — and in land value — imposed without compensation. Courts call this kind of action a “regulatory taking.” Landowners call it unfair.
We’re told that R1 zoning is being “reduced” from seven homes per acre to five. But let’s be honest: there are virtually no subdivisions in Hamilton County built at seven homes per acre. That number is an inflated mirage, offered up only to create the illusion of compromise. In reality, most R1 developments in this county fall between three and five homes per acre already.
The real effect of this change is minimal for builders and developers. Meanwhile, A1 landowners see their property rights slashed, their property values diminished, and their ability to plan for the future restricted.
Commissioner Helton is a homebuilder. Commissioner Sharpe shared today he is pursuing a license in real estate.
Both professions directly benefit from the policies being pushed in Plan Hamilton. How can landowners trust that this proposal was crafted for the good of the community rather than for private gain?
Tennessee law and Hamilton County ethics rules are clear: elected officials should recuse themselves from decisions where they have a financial interest. To this point, that hasn’t happened. If commissioners who stand to gain financially are voting on this plan, that is a conflict of interest that undermines public trust in the entire process.
The proposal even names specific roads that will be exempt from increased setbacks. Not surprisingly, these are the very areas where builders are actively developing. This is selective rulemaking — a way of applying one set of restrictions to most landowners while carving out loopholes for favored areas. Zoning should be about fairness, consistency and the public good. Instead, what we see here looks like spot zoning and favoritism.
Hamilton County Commissioners have allowed housing development to outgrow infrastructure. Where are the plans to manage the impacts of the impending population growth?
We have been good stewards of the land, paid our taxes and supported growth responsibly. Now, we are told our property is worth less — all while builders are handed favorable terms.
This isn’t a plan for “balanced growth.” It’s a plan that picks winners and losers. And unfortunately, many A-1 landowners are being asked to lose so that developers can win.
I urge other A-1 landowners, neighbors, and citizens to take a close look at this plan. Ask hard questions about conflicts of interest. Demand accountability from commissioners who should be serving all of Hamilton County, not their own businesses. Let’s insist that no landowner should see their property rights stripped away under the guise of planning.
Aubie Smith