Mountain top homes (Knoxville, Chattanooga: for sale, real estate, foreclosures)

[Dave_n_Tenn]

Should there be a ban on building homes on mountain tops?

Blount county is looking at enacting restrictions that would limit building homes (dwellings) where the roads can not meet current DOT rules.

Of course, rich folks are normally the ones who can afford these locations. Is this "doable"? and will it reduce property tax income for the state?

[alleycat]

One comment to clarify, property tax here goes to the indvidual city or county, not to the state (unless you mean "state" as "government").

[Beretta]

Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn

Should there be a ban on building homes on mountain tops?

Blount county is looking at enacting restrictions that would limit building homes (dwellings) where the roads can not meet current DOT rules.

Of course, rich folks are normally the ones who can afford these locations. Is this "doable"? and will it reduce property tax income for the state?

You do know why this is being looked at right? You do know about the house fires where people perished and homes were burned and then acres and acres were burned and then other homes and people were at risk? And, in all of that, the roads didn't meet minimum standards and fire fighting equipment couldn't reach the area.

"Rich folks" have nothing to do with this argument at all. It is usually what some people consider "rich folks" that build these mountain top homes and rent them out. It's the "poor folks" that are proposing this. The firefighters and local officials that are in no way trying to limit anyone; they are just looking out for the safety of both people and our land.

To answer your property tax question; right now there isn't a lot of building going on anywhere, anyhow. I think a few mountain top homes are not going to make or break Blount County. Since it is the same government proposing the regulations I think that they are ok without that new revenue. By the way, you mention the state, property tax goes to the local government, not the state of TN.

[LauraC]

Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn

Should there be a ban on building homes on mountain tops?

Blount county is looking at enacting restrictions that would limit building homes (dwellings) where the roads can not meet current DOT rules.

Of course, rich folks are normally the ones who can afford these locations. Is this "doable"? and will it reduce property tax income for the state?

I'm for no new home building unless you demolish a pre-standing home and put another in its place or you put it on a lot that doesn't need tree clearing but I don't live in Blount County so who cares what I think.

Maybe the county should take a vote of its residents.

[Suzanne45]

Originally Posted by SmokyMtnGal

You do know why this is being looked at right? You do know about the house fires where people perished and homes were burned and then acres and acres were burned and then other homes and people were at risk? And, in all of that, the roads didn't meet minimum standards and fire fighting equipment couldn't reach the area.

"Rich folks" have nothing to do with this argument at all. It is usually what some people consider "rich folks" that build these mountain top homes and rent them out. It's the "poor folks" that are proposing this. The firefighters and local officials that are in no way trying to limit anyone; they are just looking out for the safety of both people and our land.

To answer your property tax question; right now there isn't a lot of building going on anywhere, anyhow. I think a few mountain top homes are not going to make or break Blount County. Since it is the same government proposing the regulations I think that they are ok without that new revenue. By the way, you mention the state, property tax goes to the local government, not the state of TN.

Thanks for posting this easy-to-grasp explanation of the 'why' regarding the concern protectiive services for everyone.

[Beretta]

Laura,

I wanted to go off topic but didn't dare but since you opened the door I have to comment. I totally agree with you on the new building limitations. There are SO MANY homes on the mountain tops for sale right now that it isn't funny! I don't have real estate figures but the newspaper is full of foreclosures. There is no need for anything new to be built. Plus, there is a huge movement in this area for preserving the mountains. I totally support the Save the Mountains initiatives. Some of the homes and developments that have been built have just scalped the beautiful mountains. It is horrid and awful and despicable what has been done.

<off soapbox, at least temporarily >

[lochmoigh]

Look at wears valley, it looks horrible anymore. Slap dashed all over the ridge tops are homes. the whole reason for moving into a valley like that is the view, now all you see is hmes nad the roads leading to them. i like commerce and home building does not bother me too much, but ridge top building is unattractive. my two cents.

[leonard]

Originally Posted by lochmoigh

Look at wears valley, it looks horrible anymore. Slap dashed all over the ridge tops are homes. the whole reason for moving into a valley like that is the view, now all you see is hmes nad the roads leading to them. i like commerce and home building does not bother me too much, but ridge top building is unattractive. my two cents.

Here is the problem. The property taxes go to local governments. They need that money. For years now services have been paid for by growth. No growth, no taxes coming in for future growth in expenses. The expenses keep growing so they either raise taxes on existing homes or get new ones built. Do YOU want to pay more in property taxes?

Cities want NEW revenue so they are going to permit new building and can't lean on the builders too hard or they go elsewhere. Then no new taxes come in. It is a viscous circle that the cities are now in. In the past it was not necessary, but with all the programs that the Local, State and federal Gov'ts have mandated there is no going back to the good ol days. Pay more or grow, that is the choice.

Today the only real way around it is growth in technology companies rather than homes. Businesses that offer more than just low wages. However that takes time and infrastructure. Most smaller cities, where the growth is occurring, are bedroom communities for bigger cities and cannot make the shift. That makes the best lots the first to sell and there goes the neighborhood. Where I am now the passed and ordinance that prohibits any structure from breaking the ridge line view. However the hill sides are still being covered by homes.

[Beretta]

Originally Posted by leonard

Here is the problem. The property taxes go to local governments. They need that money. For years now services have been paid for by growth. No growth, no taxes coming in for future growth in expenses. The expenses keep growing so they either raise taxes on existing homes or get new ones built. Do YOU want to pay more in property taxes?

Cities want NEW revenue so they are going to permit new building and can't lean on the builders too hard or they go elsewhere. Then no new taxes come in. It is a viscous circle that the cities are now in. In the past it was not necessary, but with all the programs that the Local, State and federal Gov'ts have mandated there is no going back to the good ol days. Pay more or grow, that is the choice.

Today the only real way around it is growth in technology companies rather than homes. Businesses that offer more than just low wages. However that takes time and infrastructure. Most smaller cities, where the growth is occurring, are bedroom communities for bigger cities and cannot make the shift. That makes the best lots the first to sell and there goes the neighborhood. Where I am now the passed and ordinance that prohibits any structure from breaking the ridge line view. However the hill sides are still being covered by homes.

Back on the OP's topic; how do you think all of this plays out in regards to Blount County?

[leonard]

Originally Posted by SmokyMtnGal

Back on the OP's topic; how do you think all of this plays out in regards to Blount County?

It simply means that it will continue to grow and the best land will be built on with minimal restrictions as the county and city need revenue. Blount county is handy to Knoxville, etc and will be a popular place to settle for many. Unfortunately unless you have a real good group, and I might add a courageous group, of city and county commissioners (or whatever term is sued in TN), growth will outstrip infrastructure and the environment and the natural beauty of an area will be in second place to growth.

I have seen it happen before and where I live now is a prime example. There is a reason why the area around Knoxville (Nashville, Chattanooga, etc) is growing and unless the economy falls into a depression and an absolute devastating economic decline (a real possibility) it will continue to happen. People have kids, they grow up and want a home increasing the demand for housing and the land for it, their parents want to retire somewhere nice and they move to .... Blount County or similar and do the same thing to land there.