Building Commissioner's authority unchallenged

Dear Editor:

The following is what I had planned to say to the Blount County Planning Commission Thursday, May 22, until they tabled discussion of "Consideration to add definition of agritainment to the zoning regulations." Thus, I hope to state my plea in a letter to the editor.

I am an advocate of individual property rights. I believe a property owner has the right to develop and/or use his/her land as they desire -- so long as any use or development meets community standards, does not violate the rights of others and conforms to lawful regulations. We are a nation of laws. We need to operate under sets of rules for the common good.

In the question of agritainment, I urge caution. In our orderly community there is a place for commerce, places for residential development, thankfully we still have places for farms and we also have places for entertainment. Used properly, agritainment is a wonderful tool to help farmers retain their land. But be careful about agritainment unless you want Blount County to look like Pigeon Forge. Be sure to include logical limitations and not provide free-for-all activities that would devalue the land around a farm. As yourselves: how do we want our beautiful, scenic county to look? What is our vision for Blount County?

Concerning the Schmidt Farm controversy, I ask you whether zoning regulations are being respected. What is the law? And why were the normal steps not followed in enforcement of the law? Ask the building commissioner on what legal basis Mr. Schmidt was granted seemingly arbitrary approval for four concerts a year, when the wording in the law indicates the use should be only "incidental?" Roger Fields' deal with Schmidt Farms was inconsistent with the county attorney's own written opinion on this matter (see his October letter), forcing a neighbor to have to appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals when it was really Mr. Schmidt's obligation to do so after receipt of a stop work order from Mr. Fields.

Where does Roger Fields gain his authority to adjust our zoning laws apart from the Board of Zoning Appeals? In this case, it forced the very person who brought the inconsistencies forth to be the object of a good old-fashioned public flogging. The next citizen who notices something amiss in a neighboring property will be much too afraid of public retribution to point out anything they feel is unlawful. And in many of those cases, as with this one, they may be right.

Finally, Mrs. V. J. Shore is an elderly woman in failing health. All she did was ask a question which begat a Board of Zoning Appeals ruling, a ruling which has caused this frail woman to pay a steep price. She has been victimized by reprehensible treatment; vilified in letters to the editor; telephone harassment and other forms of personal ridicule. This conduct, in my opinion, is un-Christian and probably illegal. It has caused Mrs. Shore, who happens to be an involved citizen with a long list of public service achievements, to be fearful of her personal safety.

I ask those who seek agritainment privileges to pursue your goals through moral and legal channels provided by Blount County and the state of Tennessee and to respect the rights of your neighbors to disagree.

Thank you,

Joe Gallagher

3151 Hardy Blvd.

Louisville, TN 37777