Letters to the Editor
To the Editor,
To Doug Horne, Tony Cox, Alan Sloan, Kathy Hartman, Tammy Cheek and everyone else at the paper:
A big congratulations of the well-deserved many awards the farragutpress received from the Tennessee Press Association. I look forward to reading your newspaper every week. As a retired journalist I still look forward to reading a printed newspaper. All the best and many more years to serving the public.
Harry Moskos
(Retired editor,
News Sentinel)
To the Editor,
I recently read the article in the Farragut Press about a new access road plan for the Sugarwood subdivision. It seemed to me that there was more discussion on that issue in the BOMA meeting than has ever been made on the Evans Road project. Interestingly, the Sugarwood road plan is a recent idea whereas the Evans Road project has been going on for about 5 years.
The town has tried to say that those of us that live along Evans Road spread disinformation. So here are some facts from that article:
Sugarwood: one alderman said “I would like to meet with these residents first before I vote for something like this [preliminary design contract].
Evans Road: that alderman has never offered to meet with me to discuss the impact to my property.
Sugarwood: one alderman said “I know people who live and work there but I haven’t talked to anyone about it.”
Evans Road: I doubt he is personally acquainted with anyone in my neighborhood so I guess it’s who you know.
Sugarwood: another alderman said “I’d like to hear a lot of input first from residents...” Evans Road: that alderman has not approached me either.
Sugarwood: the vice-mayor said “I sit in that traffic every day...and it’s chaos.”
Evans Road: the vice-mayor has not called me either. Can he only understand problems that personally affect him? Sugarwood: the mayor said “I see the chaos as well because I live there.”
Evans Road: Obviously he does not live on Evans Road so cannot understand the issues. Sugarwood: the town administrator said he has talked with the CVS pharmacy owner. Evans Road: the town administrator has never contacted me.
My mother and I have appeared before the BOMA and pleaded our case with little to show for it. So I hope that the everyone can understand my frustration that there appears to be a double standard when it comes to how the town deals with the residents. Just once I wish that they would hit the pause button on their Evans Road plans, start the process all over again with full engagement and transparency, and treat me now like they treat their own friends and neighbors.
Tegwyn Pryse
Farragut
Dear Farragut Residents,
After serving over a year as Alderman for the North Ward, I am concerned about practices in our town government that appear inconsistent with the Farragut Town Charter.
When I took the oath of office, I swore to uphold the Charter and ordinances. That oath did not include interpreting or redefining the law
to suit convenience. Yet, on several occasions, Town staff have indicated they hold a
“different interpretation” of the law. I will address
this publicly at the next
Board of Mayor and Aldermen meeting.
One example is Ordinance 25-13: Customary Home Occupations, originally scheduled for a first reading at the October 23 BOMA meeting. The meeting was cancelled.
Public Input: This ordinance should include a staff-led BOMA workshop and an opportunity for residents to
comment before any vote.
The Farragut Planning Commission should also have
held a public workshop prior to its approval.
Committee Process: The subcommittee met three times but did not reach consensus on a final draft. No final version was approved by the subcommittee before staff advanced it for consideration. Advancing the ordinance without subcommittee agreement was procedurally improper.
Legal Concerns: The recent appellate decision in Elijah Shaw et al. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville requires that home-based business ordinances treat all business types equally. The Town’s proposed two-tiered structure may conflict with this ruling.
https://law.justia.com/cases/tennessee/supreme-court/2022/m2019-01926-sc-r11-cv.html
Farragut residents deserve a transparent, accountable local government that operates within the law. I remain committed to ensuring our processes reflect integrity, fairness, and respect for the law.
Respectfully,
Alderman Alex Cain
North Ward, Town of Farragut
To the Editor,
I formally and publicly object to Ordinance 25-13(25-13), the proposed amendment regulating customary home occupations within the Town of Farragut. 25-13 does not correct past overreach, it compounds it. When combined with the Town’s existing code, it creates one of the most intrusive regulatory frameworks for homebased businesses anywhere in Tennessee.
-Existing Ordinance Already Grants Broad Inspection Authority
Appendix A, Chapter 4, Section II(A) of the current Farragut Code defines the Town’s Administrative Officer and states that “the provisions of this ordinance shall be administered and enforced by the Town Building Official who shall be the town administrator or his designated representative who shall additionally:” “(4) conduct inspections as prescribed by this ordinance and such other inspections as are necessary to ensure compliance with the various provisions of this ordinance generally.”
That may sound routine, but the definition section of the same code explicitly states that “shall” is always mandatory. Once a resident signs a Home Occupation Agreement, they effectively agree that Town officials shall inspect their property whenever it’s deemed “necessary.”
There are no limits on what can be inspected, when or under what conditions. The ordinance is silent on notice, scope and consent. Essentially, residents are signing away their right to privacy on their own property simply to operate a lawful business from home.
-Expands, Rather Than Fixes
Instead of clarifying or limiting this outdated inspection authority, 25-13 adds a second layer of vague, open-ended . It imposes new restrictions on client visits, deliveries and “business-activity,” but still offers no measurable definitions of key terms such as noise, client or traffic volume.
Preserving the same inspection clause while adding new compliance requirements, the Town is effectively giving itself greater reason and broader justification, to enter or investigate private homes. This mirrors the same type of overreach recently struck down by the Tennessee Court of Appeals in Shaw & Raynor v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County (August 2025).
In that case, the Court ruled that all home businesses must be treated equally and that municipalities cannot impose arbitrary or unequal restrictions without a rational connection to public health or safety. 25-13 fails that test. It singles out certain lawful occupations and applies harsher standards without any datadriven justification.
-Legal Consequences Are Severe
If adopted, 25-13 would place every home business, including tutors, stylists, musicians, bakers and consultants, under potential inspection without cause, covering personal deliveries or guests. It would be impossible to distinguish between private and business activity once the Town inserts itself into a person’s home. That uncertainty invites selective enforcement, neighbor surveillance and unnecessary intrusion into private residences.
The consequences extend beyond home offices. Under the Town’s zoning rules, home
occupations are referenced within the Agricultural District. This raises questions about whether agricultural-based enterprises, such as riding stables or smallscale farming, would be restricted to “inside the dwelling” or prohibited altogether because they generate “odor” or involve buildings like barns. This ordinance could unintentionally outlaw long-standing rural activities that define Farragut’s heritage.
A Call for Responsible Governance
• Rather than expand enforcement powers, the Town should review and modernize its existing ordinance.
• Remove the inspection requirement tied to the contract agreement.
• Establish clear, measurable standards for legitimate public concerns such as traffic or parking, based on facts, not fear.
• Ensure any enforcement is carried out with notice, consent and respect for residents’ constitutional protections.
Farragut can protect neighborhoods without sacrificing privacy, entrepreneurship or trust in local government. Small-businesses and family enterprises that make
this community vibrant deserve clarity, fairness and the right to work from home without signing away their civil liberties.
Kimberlie Parks
Owner, Sojourney
To the Editor,
Committee member concerns go unheard by Town staff.
Home business occupations have become a big issue in recent years due to advances in technology, Covid and an acceptance by society. The Town of Farragut is attempting to not only re-specify tiers for types of businesses but also set stricter limitations and restrictions. I was a part of the Home Occupation Committee and feel Town Staff had their own agenda to make the Town one big Home Owner’s Association.
Multiple meetings had been held in 2025 to bring together Town staff and citizens. I thought the idea was to bring a consensus regarding what ordinances would work within Town limits because a small amount of residents were causing problems. Looking at my notes, every meeting continued to progressively get worse to put limitations on businesses. Regardless of the push back from myself and some other members of the committee, Town staff pushed forward.
In early Summer, a presentation was made to BOMA and I spoke against the terms and report. After, the BOMA meeting, nothing was said further and the meetings stopped. However, now you will see the Town staff is bringing back the ordinance for approval. At no time, did the citizen committee take a vote, or agree on the ordinance, nor was the committee told there would be a BOMA vote. Town staff has taken it upon themselves to push for the ordinance.
Here is what I argued: If the town passes the ordinance, who will enforce the ordinance? Will the Sheriff’s office come investigate why you got one more package than your weekly allotment? Will Deputies be sent out to question how many vehicles you have parked in your driveway? The accuser in any situation will remain anonymous and the business owner will have to prove they are not guilty instead of the presumption of Innocence.
The fees paid to the Town so you can operate your business will go into the General Fund of the Town. In no way will the fees help you or your business. I was also told passing this ordinance will help to ‘build a case’ against people in the Town for multiple violations. However, if you break the rules or do not pay your fee, nothing conclusive could be done to you.
I did not move to Farragut to have the government regulate me, I wanted to move to a free state and a business friendly town. I choose not to live in an HOA, but now the Town wants me to sign a form to allow them to search my mail, question the cars in my driveway and enter my home to make sure I don’t have more than 25 percent of my gross floor area devoted to my business.
If this Ordinance passes, people won’t be allowed to park their work vehicles in their driveway. No Plumbing trucks, no HVAC, not even the Deputy Sheriff on my street will be able to bring his vehicle home because it is work related. This is the same for trailers being used for business.
If you are friendly to your neighbors and they don’t complain, you should be good; but someone can drive down your street, complain to the Town and an investigation will be opened on you. Farragut should stay out of people’s business by staying out of people’s businesses.
Brian Walker
Kings Gate
