Property Owners Explain Concerns to Industrial Development Authority
By LYDIA BERGLAR
News Editor
The October 16 Industrial Development Authority meeting primarily focused on concerns brought to the board by residents. Nine property owners from across the county attended: Shan and Joni Anderson, Tracy Blevins, Will Dickerson, John Green, Ricky Miller, Jerry Brodie, Morris West, and Jason Dodd. Shan Anderson was the primary speaker, offering an extensive amount of information from research he has done.
See the August 30 issue of the Sentinel for a recap of a previous IDA meeting where some of these concerns were brought up by Dickerson and Melissa Faircloth.
Before public input, Executive Director Evan Stone gave a short report, noting that Project Caspian is still in progress. Stone said, “It’s going to be months; we don’t know how long. They basically went back to the drawing board to hone out some of the costs they’re going to have to incur to either build in Georgia or in Tennessee.”
He reported that he attended the Georgia Economic Development Conference where workforce housing was a key topic and that William Back is working with three developers in relation to the workforce housing grant (as previously discussed).
A state grant is also funding water expansion on Highway 299 and on Vanguard Drive. Stone said, “Not only does it help us on the industrial side, but it also gives the county redundant backup…so if something happens here, the whole north end of the county will still have water.”
He reported that while Trenton Pressing is working on their current expansion, the company decided to put down another pad for an additional 100,000 square feet.
Stone said that he was contacted by and will be meeting with a “gentleman who bought the 30,000 square-foot warehouse in Rising Fawn. The old Bargains Building. He wanted to market that.”
Anderson then spoke during public input. He referenced an email sent to the IDA and later to himself by James Cantrell (chairman) that seemed to stifle the meetings and conversations that Anderson had been having with board members. Because questions of communication were a significant part of this meeting and because the exact language used in such emails is significant, it is copied verbatim here:
Cantrell wrote, “The IDA’s recent acquisition of land for industrial use on Highway 11 has raised concerns in the community regarding our plans for the property and potential impact in the neighborhood.
“Issue No. 1 – Answering Questions from the Public
“We can expect to hear from members of the Trenton community who have questioned our commitment to ethics and are highly critical of our decision to buy the Price Farm.
“I want everyone to know in advance how I intend to manage public participation in our meetings.
“Our Bylaws, Article III (Meetings of members), Section (6)(D) (Public Participation) provide that, as Chair, I may call for public comment on any matter on the Agenda. I may choose whether public comment is permitted at the beginning of a meeting, end of a meeting, or otherwise and may limit any public comment to one individual for any given organization, and shall allow all who wish to speak to do so. I may restrict public comment to five minutes per speaker. I may terminate any speaker deemed to have violated norms of decency, conduct, and language.
“We are not required to respond to comments or questions from the public.
“Let’s don’t get pulled into arguments with the public. If someone asks us a question or makes a statement during the public comment section of an IDA meeting, I will direct the Recording Secretary to write it down, so that we may respond in writing only to the extent that it is appropriate to do so.
“Issue No. 2 – Speaking on Behalf of the IDA
“IDA Members are being asked to talk about IDA real estate. I urge all of us to avoid the temptation to ‘explain our position’ to those who may wish to exploit or distort our comments.
“Our Bylaws, Article X (‘IDA Spokesperson’) provide that the Executive Director and I shall serve as spokespersons for the IDA whenever comment is sought by the news media. We may refer any such matter to Robin Rogers.
“Although the Bylaws do not address the things we might say to individuals other than the news media, it is better that we speak as a group, rather than in private meetings, where our comments can be used in ways we don’t intend. As Members, we are certainly free to discuss our opinions with anyone we please, but let’s not put ourselves in situations where our comments can be misinterpreted or exploited.
“If you are invited to a conversation where the IDA’s plans are likely to be discussed, it is better to say, ‘I am not authorized to speak on behalf of the IDA. Come to the next IDA meeting or send Evan Stone an email, so that we can respond fully to your concerns.’”
Anderson began, “Evan, when I spoke with you last, you said that I was the only one who had anything negative to say about the integration of industrial and a residential neighborhood.” Anderson explained that he had acted like a spokesperson so that others could continue about work, life, and deal with other pressing matters. “If you look around the table here, these are a few people we invited just to show you that there are other concerns throughout the county. There are people in the county who do have concerns about what this board does in secrecy.”
Anderson noted that he and Dodd both took off work in order to attend the meeting. He asked the board to hold their meetings after work hours.
He continued, “[Evan] had told me and Ted Rumley had told me too that instead of expressing our concerns to you, bring them to the board. You’d also told me, ‘Hey, reach out to these board members. Email them. They’ll meet with you one-on-one to hear your concerns and questions.’ Now that we can’t do that, we’re limited to bringing them to the board.”
Of the five-minute time limit for citizens who wish to speak during public input, Anderson said, “To my knowledge, I’ve not been disrespectful in any meeting or any time we’ve met…Please allow us the timeframe we need to express our concerns.”
Anderson was respectful and calm throughout his presentation, and the IDA listened intently and politely, allowing him and the other citizens over half an hour of time.
Anderson said, “The concerns we’ve brought up in the past, over two months ago, we’ve not had any feedback or anything of any of those concerns being addressed in any way.”
He asked if anyone on the current board has been involved in integrating industry into residential neighborhoods. “If nobody’s going to comment, I’m going to assume that that’s a no…Do you start off with the question, would I want this done to me and my family? The times that we were able to speak, at least the majority of this board has either said, stated, or suggested that they would not want this happening to them. If that’s their belief, I would like to know what drives a person to have such desire to operate against their own beliefs and own convictions that they would do this to somebody else.”
He proceeded to ask many questions about studies: “Was there a study performed that indicates the current need for more industry in the county, knowing that the county is right now at or less than three percent unemployment rate? Also taking into account that there’s industries that are currently operating in the county that’s expanding, as you stated a while ago, and they’re also hiring more people. There’s businesses and fast food places in the county that are out there asking for people coming to work…There’s an opportunity that some of these funds that the IDA is using could be spent to help these current industries gain employment rather than expanding more industry and causing distribution in our neighborhoods.”
He asked, “Did anyone do a study of any kind showing that this is the most suitable and desirable place to establish another industrial park?…I’ve asked this question before if anyone from this current board even walked the property prior to this purchase. The answer was no…Is there a study that looks at both the layout and the soil composition?…You can’t put a shovel in the ground more than an inch before you hit rock. To develop that property would require blasting that rock.”
Anderson said (and Blevins later confirmed) that the Blevins had a test done to see if they could put in an inground pool on their property. Blevins was told that “blasting the rock would affect her foundation and cripple her house.”
Anderson is also concerned that development and blasting on the land would disrupt the run-off and water flow.
Stone said that Back had walked the property, but Anderson said that happened years ago.
Anderson said, “I want to know if there was a study done showing the impact to adjacent property owners…Mr. Cantrell, you even told us in a meeting that if this was happening to you, you would likely be sitting right where we’re at right now…I also want to ask who was responsible for contacting the adjacent homeowners…I was told by an individual on this board that he believed that someone on this board was responsible for contacting the individual homeowners. That never took place.”
He asked, “Have you told any of the companies that they’re going to need a special use permit from the special use permit board?”
He then noted the IDA’s need to negotiate deals with relative secrecy, but Anderson said that there are ways to work around that in order to talk with homeowners.
Anderson paraphrased a previous response from the IDA, saying, “We can’t sell any of this property unless it’s to industry, unless the market deems the property not usable for industry.” He reported that he then learned from Robin Rogers (attorney) that this is coming from an amendment. Anderson reported, “If you read that amendment, there’s nothing in there that says that you cannot stop what you’re doing and sell to an individual. There’s nothing in there that says you have to sell to industry. I didn’t see anything in there that defines the market determining if the property was usable for industry or not. However, there is a statement in there that says ‘this amendment shall be liberally construed.’”
Anderson gave four reasons why this property could be declared unsuitable for industry. One: “It’s a disruption of quality of life and a potential financial loss to the adjacent citizens. If there’s no other reason, that right there should be enough.”
He reported that he requested studies from a realtor in North Carolina and one in Chattanooga who he does not know personally and who have no skin in the game. “I wanted to keep those studies impartial…Both of them said that good industry next to your home will likely increase your property value…However, if the industry is sightful in a non-desirable way, makes sounds in a non-desirable way, smells or anything like that that disrupts your quality of life and you choose to sell, your home becomes less desirable for a residential sale.”
Two: “Primary soil content, extremely rocky ground, and shallow-rooted tree growth.” Anderson said that the IDA’s covenants mention trees and plants to help separate industry from homes, but he explained that the trees that grow on the rocky ground are easily uprooted
Three: This land does not currently have access to sewer. Anderson said that the IDA made the purchase without having plans for sewer in place.
Four: Power easements will carry on for the life of the property no matter who purchases the land or what is built on it. Anderson said, “There was a contract signed by the previous homeowner that gives easement to Southern Company…Inside that contract, it says ‘vegetation and other obstructions.’” Anderson reported that he talked to the easement supervisor with Southern Company who explained that “other obstructions” could mean anything. Anderson believes the IDA must tell incoming companies about these details of the property.
Cantrell told Anderson that he sincerely appreciated Anderson’s time. He said, “You may not think I do, but I do.”
Blevins then reported that she owns four acres adjacent to the Price farm. She agreed with Anderson’s presentation, vouched for the rockiness of the soil, and added that she doesn’t think the current industrial park is full.
Blevins said, “I’m a lifelong resident of this county…We love this community, and we want to have our grandchildren grow up in this community. Putting something behind our home will greatly affect what I leave to my children, and it’s all I have.”
She pleaded, “Please protect my investment, their investment, in this county that we love and want to continue to live in. I don’t want to live in any other place.”
Dickerson thanked Anderson for speaking, reiterated that the current industrial park isn’t full, and asked the IDA to either not build behind his and his daughter’s property or give them the chance to purchase the property (as he previously asked at the August meeting).
Anderson spoke again, recapping a case study he found about a city that purchased 68 acres in a residential area. He said that the homeowners brought their concerns to the city and the city addressed the concerns by building twelve-foot berms, an eight-foot fence with lights turned inward, and a 28-foot wool encapsulated wall as a sound barrier. Anderson does not think that Dade County can afford such solutions or that incoming companies will want to pay for such solutions if they were put into the covenants.
Jerry Brodie (who owns property in Rising Fawn) then explained that he loves the beauty and peace and quiet of Dade County. He noted that property (not owned by the IDA) on Highway 11 south just before the Alabama state line looks like a dump. He recognized that there is no zoning in the county, but he said, “I don’t want the whole county looking like that.”
The IDA then entered executive session, later reporting that they voted to pay a portion of water and sewer expenses (not to exceed $120,000) that will serve Trenton Pressing. Stone said he will request SPLOST expenditure from the Dade County Board of Commissioners.
The Sentinel plans to complete further interviews with property owners and the IDA about industry in Dade County. The IDA reported that a response to the citizens’ questions and concerns would be sent to the citizens and the Sentinel.
