Place Ad
Contact Us

letters to the editor

Responce to Aldermen Rosseel and LaMarche, and more...

Responce to Aldermen Rosseel and LaMarche

During the meeting of the [Farragut] Board of Mayor and Aldermen, Mr. Rosseel presented his proposal, and for the first time revealed to the public the specific parcel of land he was proposing to buy.

Prior to that time, by his account, he had made it known around town that he wanted to have a school somewhere in the vicinity of McFee Road. That could have been anywhere, and such a general proposal does not by any means constitute a notification to the interested public of his intentions.

During the meeting of the FBMA, the mayor and the vice mayor both indicated they were unaware of the specific intent or of the parcel in question. Every member of the audience who addressed the issue was critical of the way the proposal was being presented, including former Mayor Bob Leonard and Mr. Bob Hill, chairman of the Farragut Municipal Planning Commission.

The one exception was School Board member Mr. [Thomas] Deakins, who publicly scolded my wife and me for being obstructionist.

The proposal was finally shelved after the strong audience criticisms and advice from Town Counsel. Only then did the three majority aldermen agree to hold a public hearing to allow interested citizens to comment on what should have been a very open discussion with advanced notice.

Of all the people with a vested interest, my wife and I should have been brought into the discussion before this proposal was made public, inasmuch as the proposal contained a provision to take part of our farm.

It should also be pointed out that the 42 homeowners in McFee Manor, one block up the road, were also unaware that such an action was even being contemplated.

So, Mr. Rosseel, a campaign “promise” does not constitute adequate notice for such momentous alteration of established public policy.

Alderman LaMarche stated in her letter of March 13, that the only knowledge she was aware of when we conversed the day before the meeting was that there was a proposal for the town of Farragut to consider the purchase of the Seal property and donate the land to Knox County for a school.

In fact, during that conservation Alderman LaMarche informed me that the proposal by Mr. Rosseel provided that “about an acre” would be reserved as a buffer between my property and the school, and that if the County rejected the idea of a school that she would press for the construction of a community center there.

If there had been no prior discussion, how would she have known these details about the proposal.There obviously was discussion about this proposal by the aldermen, and even awareness that there likely would be a less than favorable response from us. She did not, however, reveal to me that the plan included taking away part of our farm.

Was there violation of the “Open Meetings” law? Yes.

Our lawyer informed us that when two elected officials confer privately about an issue, with few exceptions it constitutes a violation. Mayor Ford expressed a concern that the actions prior to the meeting may have been such a violation, and Town counsel suggested that it would be wise to revisit the idea before continuing. You be the judge, considering not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the law as well.

Ralph Dimmick


People we elected to protect us and the constitution!

As your constituent, I’m writing to express my strong opposition to S. 2433 and H.R. 1302, the “Global Poverty Act.”

This terrible bill makes veryhigh levels of U.S. Foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations, and imposes a global tax on American citizens, Surrending our sovereignty to the United Nations.

This legislation would require the president “to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.”

Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.’s “Millennium Project, says that the U.N. Plan to force the United States to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased Foreign Aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the United States already spends.

Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the UN’s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the United States is expected to meet the “Millennium Development Goals,” this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a GLOBAL TAX, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil Fuels.

This is a terrible idea. Please, do not support S. 2433 and H.R. 1302, the “Global Poverty Act” that would commit the United States to spending 0.7 percent of Gross National Product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the United States already spends.

I’m counting on you to do the right thing, and I will be watching your actions on this matter closely.

Bob Lee



News | Opinion | Sports | Business | Community | Schools | Obituaries | Announcements
Classifieds | Place Ad | Advertising | Contact Us | Archives | Search

© 2004-2017 farragutpress