Timbo... Timbo... Timbo... Can you share what exactly happened that is against the best interest of the people? Please enlighten me in how Randy Fairbanks is not a conservative and will not represent the views of District 1 residents?
I, along with many others, do not believe Rhonda would be a better choice by any means... the FACTS clearly show she is part of the GOP "Old Guard" establishment, many of which like to make decisions behind closed doors and without any public input or comment. On the other hand, Randy is a strong conservative (just like Fred and Rhonda) and will likely vote the same way on the key issues. What Randy will do is engage and listen to the community before making a decision on the key issues. This perspective is typically ignored by Fred and Rhonda.... it's their way or the highway!
Face it... the process does matter for our Party, and it should be respected rather than ignored for personal gain! The political reality is the D-1 community wanted a new conservative voice... plain and simple. Fred lost... it's time to move on!
Instead, Rhonda is now trying to rewrite history and change what the voters decided earlier this month. If she wants to hold this office, Rhonda should wait 4 years and run in the GOP Primary in 2018, just like anyone else could have done this year.
As for Gino... it now looks like he has realized a write-in candidate is not the best route to run for this office. Rhonda should do the same... stay focused on the public schools and wait to run in the next GOP primary.
@bushpilot07.... you may be correct in saying
"THE FUNDS THE "WRITER" SPEAKS OF COME FROM SALES OF AVIATION FUEL AND NOT THE GENERAL TAX PAYER. The fact is, if you're not one of these so called "rich" people he speaks of, you've never spent a penny towards the building of this facility."
But... the Airport Authority continues to lose money on the FBO (Wilson Air) that is taking local taxpayer money away from other, more important funding priorities at the airport. Case in point, the Airport Authority recently raised parking fees and rental rates to increase its budget to cover for these loses. So... YES, the general taxpayer is being affected by the Wilson Air decision.
It's time for local government to stop funding projects and initiatives that compete directly with private business, especially when these ventures are losing money year after year. I have yet to see how Wilson Air will become profitable unless TACAir decides to close its FPO operations. The ongoing losses at the Airport will only worsen in the coming years, especially when you consider the upcoming fee increases for Wilson Air to manage the FBO.
Me personally... I believe the Airport Authority should focus its resources on funding/supporting efforts that will make local travel more affordable or improving the airport so we have a better, more pleasant travel experience when flying out of Chattanooga. As it stands now, this standard is not being meet by any measure.
Last, if the Airport Authority continues down this path of competing with a private, taxpaying business... the taxpayer will lose again. Now, the Airport Authority wants to build a second hanger space that will use approximately $600,000 (possibly more) of local taxpayer funds to build something that the market does not support or need.
Data you say.... please show me the data as I want to know how an increase of 19% in property taxes, a 191% increase in stormwater fees and underfunding our essential city services (like Fire and Police as well as Public Works) make common sense given how every taxpayer is struggling to pay their own bills during this recession.
How is taking more of my money so government can spend more money on public arts, various Arts/Education initiatives, funding a road to nowhere on Aetna Mountain and to replace perfectly working street lights on Highway 153 follow my best interests?
Besides, what does Homeland Security and defense spending have to do with local government? We do agree on one thing.... tax exemptions for the ultra-wealthy, which by the way Pam Ladd voted for on several occasions.
jjmez and LibDem... Let's look at the voting record of Pam Ladd since taking office in 2009:
There are many more areas I could cite as why I'm encouraging people to vote for Ken. Our community needs someone that views government differently than how Pam Ladd has voted during the past four years. We need a strong voice at City Hall that understands the challenges we face every day and wants to be a strong advocate for what serves the best interests of the taxpayers, small businesses and local neighborhoods.
This is Ken Smith!
And, this is why the Chattanooga Firefighters, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the Fraternal Order of Police and several other organizations have chosen to endorse Ken Smith over Pam Ladd.
I laughed after reading your comment on how the 2010 tax increase was needed to fund a police academy (which did not happen until 2012... check the city records) and to fund the city's OPEB costs (which is not mandated by law as you say but only recommended for city and state governments).
Your editorial also says Pam worked to make cuts in the city budget, but she can offer no specific examples of where major cuts were made while asking taxpayers to cut their budgets so the City can do spend more. Then, you turn around and criticize Ken Smith for not being specific enough in what cuts he would make to fund city services. Better yet, the only minor cut the City Council made in 2010 was to the Office of Sustainability, which Pam wanted to sustain... now that makes sense. What Pam's voting record does show is a history of voting to sustain inflated budgets for non-essential services versus trying to make significant cuts so the city can better fund its essential city services or simply find enough money to restore the city's take home car policy for police officers or, better yet, give Firefighters and Police Officers the same pay raise she voted to give other city employees.
Simply put... Pam is just another tax and spend Democrat that does not represent the values of District 3. It's time for our community to elect someone that will work to make government more efficient and beneficial to the taxpayers. That day comes March 5.
I look forward to reading your editorial, but District 3 needs new representation.
What Pam Ladd says on the campaign trail and in various public meetings DOES NOT align with her voting record and DOES NOT reflect how this community views government -- smaller, more transparent and held accountable to the taxpayers.
Since taking office nearly four years, we have seen Pam vote to increase our property taxes and city fees, approve a special tax incentive for developers on Aetna Mountain, and silence taxpayer concerns about government waste and abuse. She also voted to use tax dollars to fund public art, River City and many other pet projects while the budgets for our Fire and Police Departments and Public Works go underfunded.
Yes, we need an open, more transparent and smaller city government, but unfortunately, this is not what we have seen from Pam Ladd.
As a Hixson resident, the whole process for the development concerns me. Our elected leader on the City Council has previously made positive comments about the developer and continues to say she wants to hear more the developer before voting on the issue. Unfortunately, I have yet to hear her say anything that would advocate on behalf of those she was elected to represent – the residents! This is strange seeing how she is now running a re-election campaign that promises to be a voice for the local neighborhood associations.
I cannot attest to what CBL is or is not doing in this debate, but I can attest to what Hixson residents think about this project and its viability. As someone who drives this area almost every day, it's pretty clear that the Chattanooga Village development will only add to the stormwater runoff and traffic issues that already plaque this area. Just look at how the recent rainstorms have flooded the proposed site, which happens all of the time when our area gets a prolonged period of rain. This is a FACT... not something that is being created by a PR firm to derail this project.
I do agree with your comment about the rights of the property owner. The property owner has the right to do what he wants with the property as long as he following the current zoning restrictions. But, that is not the issue being discussed here. If the developer was building residential homes, I don't think the surrounding areas would be opposed as they are with the Chattanooga Village project. If the landowner wants to build something different, then he must go through the rezoning process just like anyone else.
I'm not opposed to this area being developed, but I do oppose a process where a zoning change is rammed through the approval process (which the Mayor did in this case) while ignoring the key concerns and issues raised by local residents. From day one, the developer has mishandled this process and taken steps that only raise more questions rather than provide answers with any substance.
For example, we keep hearing that the developer has incorporated changes to the Chattanooga Village plan to address resident's concerns, but I have yet to see how they will address the stormwater and traffic issues once this project is built. All I keep hearing from the developer and our city leaders is how the city will not allow the project to open until these issues are addressed.
Can you tell me the last time you have actually trusted city government to upholds its commitments?
Well said Drew! How many times have we heard our government leaders say consolidating government will help streamline its services and make it more effective. Yet, after all is said and done, our government has grown in size and continues to be ineffective and waste taxpayer funds.
This is nothing but a smokescreen for Mayor Littlefield's true intention to condemn and takeover TN American Water. Then, the city will subsidize the costs to fix the sewer system with funds from the water utility.
You tout the benefits of city ownership, yet the city cannot even operate the waste water system without dumping raw sewage in our streets and in the Tennessee River every time we have a heavy rainstorm.
As for rates, my water bill is around $25-30 every month and a lot cheaper than my sewer bill, which comes from the city.
Where is your outcry about the city raising my sewer rates 2X every year for the same amount or more than what was just given to TN American Water? Despite these increases, the city has not managing the sewer system properly or made the necessary infrastructure improvement to prevent a correction action by the EPA despite.
Again... where is your outcry?
As for lavish pay.... you need to look no further than City Hall to find people being paid lavish salaries!!!
I'm not sure what you mean by favoring a bigger budget to cure what ails the city, but the city gaining control of the water system will not solve anything for the city or its residents.
The fact is, today, our tax dollars cannot fund our essential services, such as fire, police and roads. Why should we support the city spending millions upon millions of our tax dollars to forcibly take something that is privately owned?
Plus, the water is already owned and controlled by the public... Tennessee American Water owns the treatment plant and pipes that treat and deliver water to our homes or businesses. These assets are what we pay for in our water bills.
The EPA and state actively monitor and control what TN American Water can and cannot do with its water system and the water pulled from the Tennessee River.
I pose the same question to you.... who is watching the city? The answer... No one! This is why we have a sewer system that is broken and has a history of dumping raw sewage in the Tennessee River and our streets when it rains.
As I said earlier, the city needs to focus on providing essential services to its residents and leave the water business to Tennessee American Water.