DO NOT SEND MONEY!

Owning land represents not just a piece of property, but the freedom to decide what we can and cannot do with it, so long as it is within legal bounds. The land on Shackleford Ridge is already zoned for residential development, yet there are voices in the community opposing the subdivision, claiming issues that do not exist.

First and foremost, it is a dangerous precedent to allow others to dictate what an individual can do with their property, without purchasing it. Private property rights are a cornerstone of individual rights and freedom. By restricting these rights based on public opinion or those seeking the free benefit of others' undeveloped property, we risk heading down a slippery slope where individual rights are overridden by vocal opinions. 

We urge the community and local authorities to respect and support private property rights on Shackleford Ridge. 

Second, the alleged basis for opposition is unfounded. Specifically, to address false claims in the opposition's petition:

"Polluted Waterways"- The petition creator alleges "polluted waterways" with no factual basis.  Please view the TDEC report (available at the City), created in response to request by the City of Signal Mountain, which provides that the water acidity levels on the property are safe.  This issue was initially a concern, but inspection by TDEC proved this concern unfounded.

"Increased Traffic and Strain on Roadway Infrastructure" - Traffic concerns are fair and always a point of discussion with any development.  Many believe traffic is currently an issue; however that issue is not created by the development. It already exists. Further, the City required the developer to obtain a traffic study by a third-party traffic engineer, which the developer did. The traffic study indicates only a miniscule increase in traffic based on this development-- and that is only after the neighborhood is fully constructed (several years away).  Individuals without engineering background or any other professional credentials to opine on traffic may have differing opinions; however, we should weigh reliance on various opinions consistently with the credibility (or lack thereof) of those opining.

"Overcrowded Schools"- We would also urge individuals to legitimately review school district data, rather than only listening to rumor.  There are several elements at play here, and we all agree school capacity should be reviewed closely and regularly. However, much of the discussion on this topic leaves out important data.  For example, there are currently 33 students at Nolan who live outside of the Nolan and Thrasher zones (there are an additional 14 kids zoned for Thrasher who attend Nolan). A logical option for addressing capacity would be to cease allowing out of district kids (after the kids currently in those schools age out). Further, based on district data, Nolan is projected to decrease in capacity to below 95% next year.  Finally, census data for Signal Mountain, Walden, and Fairmount provide that only 37% of households in those areas contain children (and that includes ages 0 to 18). This is too large an issue to address in one paragraph, but the take-away is that there is much more information that is relevant to the question and has not yet been addressed. Much more must be reviewed before determining any changes to our schools, and that is a job for the elected individuals on the school board (who should review ALL information and make choices in the best interest of our kids). The school board and school district are called to address needs of the community, including when growth occurs.  The planning commission's task is determining whether this plat complies with law, regardless of where students who live there would go to school (and keeping in mind the subdivision would serve others, without children, as well). 

"Low Transparency of Current Conditions" and "Abandoned Coal Mines" - Remember that this vote relates to review of a preliminary plat, which is a process set forth in the Subdivision Regulations of the City and the State.  The developers complied with the requirement of those regulations in submitting the plat for review.  There is (always) much more information about any given property than only the list of items requested in the subdivision regulations.  The developers did not hide information. The development process has many steps after preliminary plat review, when the developers would learn much more about the property.  That is the normal process. Developers now know there are some mines on the property.  This is not rare. In fact, much of the mountain is covered in old mines- including the Town Fire Station and many other residential developments.  In this particular subdivision, the developers have obtained testing to review the location of these mines and ensure the homesites stay away from any such areas.  If the plat is approved, more testing will occur to better inform the best manner for development to occur and what mitigation may be necessary.

"Single Access for 60+ homes"  A single access point for the development is compliant with the subdivision regulations.  Further, the proposed plat did include a second ingress and egress point after the initial request from the fire marshal.  The comment made by the fire marshal related to the location of the second access point because it did not provide the access hoped for based on the terrain of the property. therefore, they removed the secondary access. The terrain with this development makes it difficult to add another access in a location that would achieve what the fire marshal noted would have been ideal.  Many neighborhoods on Signal Mountain have only one point of access.

"Limited Housing Choices" We can only imagine what the petition creator's point is here; as no one yet knows what types of homes will be built here.  The application relates only to the creation of lots, and that is the only thing the Planning Commission is called to review. Nothing in the subdivision regulations relates to the type of home built on a lot.

Finally, an element of reality that may not be apparent to all is that this proposed development will take YEARS- houses will be built over time as consumers come along to buy them. The start of construction of the first home will likely be two years from now; it could be a decade before there are 100 homes here. Discussions about traffic and school capacity omit that detail.