ktownlowdown.com

In a recent article in the KNS, Josh Flory wrote about an area that has stirred up some local debate and hits close to home for the KTOWNLOWDOWN.  The debate is about who has the right to control the “scenic views” in and around the Knoxville area and should the government (or as it is often called…”concerned citizens” for such and such or “Save the” this or that) have the power to “be in the business of regulating personal taste.”

John Lutrell, a local developer and former Metropolitan Planning Commission member is quoted in the very informative article, and gives one of the best solutions to groups that often use the power of government to prevent those “greedy” developers from improving land, communities, and even lives in general.  From the article:

…Luttrell was asked to fill out a survey that asked if he thought design guidelines — regarding color, reflective glass or the shape of utility structures, for example — should exist for ridgetop buildings. The question rankled him.

“That’s the kind of thing that I’m strongly opposed to personally,” he said. “I don’t believe that the government should be in the business of regulating personal taste, and the market ought to decide.”

Now you may argue that citizens of any particular jurisdiction should be able to voice their concerns or dislikes for any given development, and I would agree…they should and have the right to be heard.  But it is up to the market to decide whether the public in general will make a development a success.  A common misconception is that real estate developers have all sorts of money to do whatever they want and often skirt around  regulations and public requirements to get what they want.  This is just not the case.

Of course there are always some bad apples in th e bunch (but that goes for just about any bunch…right…right???), but most developers are hard working, honest people, that incur a huge amount of risk in order to make a profit…and just like other products in the market, they have to be able to produce an attractive, safe, and affordable product that the public is willing to consume.  And they have to do all this while they have the local planning and zoning boards, inspectors, state and federal agencies telling them what they have to do and costing them obscene amounts of money to do it.

The best part of Luttrell’s comments are below:

Luttrell also is irritated by residents who are opposed to new developments arguing that they’ve lived in an area for 30 years and “have always been able to look out there and see those woods or those fields.”

A fair approach, he says, would be to outline the value of developing the property and offer neighbors the chance to pay that amount to make the developer go away. [emphasis added]

Acknowledging that’s unrealistic, Luttrell contends it’s fairer than forcing a developer to walk away from a project because someone with no ownership interest “is now controlling it without any risk to them, without any cost to them and without any value to me.”

Now some might say that offering money to a developer to go away is a form of blackmail, and that’s definitely true, but when it’s the government’s hand that is out saying, “Pay these fees, upgrade the sewer system at your cost, or you can’t put a water tower on top of a hill (where is make the most sense)”…then it is just called regulation.

To be fair, I am in the development business.  I am all for regulation, permits, planning and zoning boards, and the like and for making sure citizens have an outlet for their concerns, but once the rules are established, codes are enforced and committes have been elected and appointed, it’s a developer’s job to work within those (often quite restrictive) rules and make the most of his/her investment.  Another reason local elections are very important…but that’s a post for another time.

ALSO:  More real estate info and TIF’s….what are they???and are they good or bad????