The work session at the Civic Center Social Room was well-attended by citizens.  Steve Byrd and Gary Cinder of the public works department put togther the drawings illutrating the original TDOT plan and the changes TDOT has agreed can be made.  Mr. Byrd explained the drawings to the five Council members and the citizens.  In an unusual move for a work session, the Mayor, Tom Behan, opened the meeting to comments and questions from the citizens.

So here is where I have come to so far in this process.  I still believe the city needs to create a process for insuring that residential buyers are made aware, before closing, of all the restrictions and easements on the property.  I do not believe that this is interference in developers' rights to sell their property.  (I would like it to include commercial properties as well.)  This is a matter of existing citizens looking out for potential neighbors. 

As for the options on widening SR 95, I was at last persuaded that there is a legitimate reason for not postponing the road any further - absolutely provided that the proposed changes are put into place to protect, as much as possible, the existing residences.  I am not convinced that 4-laning 95 will magically attract industry to Horizon and Heritage Centers that they have not attracted heretofore.  There are, however, additional residents on the westernmost end of the city whose connection to those of us at the center of town will remain tenuous at best so long as the road is the uncompleted bottleneck it has been.  I am hoping that the changes to TDOT's design will be accepted by the residents of Sweet Gum and Southwood as a best compromise outcome for the city residents as a whole.

I still regret that some people have been caught in what amounts to a "caveat emptor" dilemma.  I expect the city to take very seriously the need for plainer disclosure for all our potential neighbors.  This is a quality of life issue on many fronts.

Among the issues which will be addressed at the June 22 council meeting will be lowering the speed limit on the remaining 2-lane section of SR-95(the state highway which is also the Oak Ridge Turnpike through the city) from 55 to 45 miles per hour.  This section includes the part of the road which passes Southwood, an area which will be significantly affected by the ultimate widening of that section of road.  The residents of the subdivision have circulated a petition asking that the state be requested to redesign that final section to reduce the impact on their neighborhood.

If I understood him correctly, CIty Manager Jim O'Connor tells me that what the state is offering to do is:

    - reduce the amount of clearing required along that section by installing a guardrail, and thereby

    - leave more trees and shrubs uncut.

He also says that the possibility of erecting a sound barrier wall along that section can be considered, though the state would expect Oak Ridge to pick up some part of the tab for that.  On the other hand, his inquiries into how effective sound barrier walls are have indicated that many people who find themselves on the other side of one are less than delighted with the prospect from their windows and yards.

The contention Mr; O'Connor endorses is that Oak Ridge needs the 4-laning to complete the access to our industrial parks within the federal reservation.  He also says that the state's position is that if they are caused to redesign this section, the project will go away for the immediate future.  This may in part be because another environmental impact study would have to be done replacing the one done 9 years ago before Southwood was built.  The implication is that it could take another 10 years for this to be reconsidered.. 

I do not doubt that 4-laning the rest of SR-95 would contribute to the attractiveness of the Horizon Center for business location.  I wonder, however, what part, if any, the lack of 4-lane access to I-75 without circling through Knoxville has played in the failure of Horizon Center to attract businesses.

One of the down-sides is that the state route through Oak Ridge is already a truck by-pass of Knoxville and has been for over 40 years.  No measuring that I have heard about has been done to determine whether that truck traffic increased during the closure of I-40 through Knoxville.  Mr. O'Connor asserts that this traffic is only going to increase more and that we need the 4-lane to handle it.  (The speed and red light cameras will have an as yet undetermined effect on the truckers.) 4-laning SR-95 may be the state's way of not expending the funds to do the Blue/Orange/Magenta Route.

Maybe we could persuade the state to install a weigh station on SR-95 somewhere before the Kingston/Lenoir City cut-off.  Since Oak Ridge has been used as a by-pass to avoid the weigh station on I-40 west of Knoxville, that might reduce the by-pass truck traffic

At any rate, what this feels like to me is the state of Tennessee using a form of blackmail to get Oak Ridge to agree to what the state designed based on the situation 9 years ago.  What I wonder is, how are we responsible for the state's slow movement on route 95 and what would the state be doing instead of finishing the project it designed? And is this how we want to relate to TDOT now and forever?  Are there not some better win-win solutions that support citizens' expectations?  If Oak Ridge has failed to cause the developer to advise buyers of the nature of planned impacts on their properties and doesn't extend itself to mitigate that impact after the fact, how will this increase our attractiveness as a place to buy a home for all those new employees on the reservation whom the Chamber is so eager to gather in?

If we want to be an attractive place to live, we have to behave as though people are our most important concern.  As though quality of life is as important as profit.  It isn't simple.  The concerns and effects of these issues are complex and difficult.