The Hamilton County Commission has been able for years to rock along in virtual complacency about urban matters in the unincorporated regions of the county. Commissioners doled out the county’s share of school funds, stamped approval on the county mayor’s budget appropriations for the various constitutional and supported agencies under its funding domain, and generally let developers and businesses figure out where they wanted to build in the unincorporated areas of the county.
That era is ending. With the arrival of Volkswagen and a raft of related supplier plants, county government’s responsibility for guiding development and new infrastructure has become the county’s number one priority. Problem is, the County Commission and County Mayor Claude Ramsey so far haven’t taken that responsibility too seriously. With a looming wave of development and the current prospect of haphazard growth and needless congestion in the not too distant future, it’s time for the commission to wake up and gear up for more responsibility.
Election of county commissioners in the three contested races in August will be critical relative to that concern. All of the candidates in the contested races are fairly conservative by the general standards of fiscal prudence and minimal taxes. Yet one candidate in each of the three contested districts stands out to us as someone who will thoughtfully consider the county’s pending urban growth and promote comprehensive planning to see that roads and sewers, classrooms, parks and playgrounds are put in place in an orderly, cost-efficient fashion.
District 2, David Cantrell
Mr. Cantrell comes by orderly planning naturally. As a former military pilot, flight training officer, mission commander and, now, as a Delta captain piloting long international flights, planning and checklists are second nature. From job tenures in California, Texas and Atlanta, he says he also has seen enough haphazard sprawl to recognize the virtue of planning for growth. His business degree from Memphis State University in logistics and transportation go hand-in-hand with his planning orientation.
His advocacy of long-term planning springs from that background. It’s also been enhanced by his tenure on the Signal Mountain board of zoning appeals, and his review of the Regional Planning Offices 2030 growth plan.
Mr. Cantrell, a Delta pilot for 25 years, cites four other key areas among the concerns that drew him to become a candidate: education, financial management, economic development and jobs, particularly green jobs, and public safety and crime.
He rightly believes higher education achievement has become essential to economic opportunity and the community’s prosperity, and he wants to promote stronger schools and higher standards. As a fiscal conservative, he regards tax increases as “a last resort.” He had rather find efficiencies through consolidating services with the city where that is feasible.
He also wants to engage county employees in identifying ways to reduce costs and wasteful spending. He would consider further consolidation of city-county services if they are reasonable and would reduce costs. He also advocates employee awards for finding savings, and a hot-line to report internal waste, fraud and abuse in county operations.
Mr. Cantrell, an independent, says he is more interested in a non-partisan approach to public issues and the quality of leadership than politics.
His opponent, James Fields, an attorney who defeated incumbent Richard Casavant in the May Republican primary, is also a fiscal conservative, But in an editorial board interview with this newspaper, he expressed skepticism about zoning and gave both public education and growth planning little attention.
Mr. Cantrell’s positions on future planning and education, and the background that impel them, are easily more in line with the county’s needs. We recommend his election.
District 6, John Allen Brooks
John Brooks, the incumbent commissioner for District 6, has served well in the past term, and he offers a pointed agenda for the future that is more cogent, pertinent and fact-based than the positions of his opponent. By contrast, his challenger, Joe Graham, who last a race for the City Council, has diminished his campaign by tossing out inaccurate figures for schools, and slighting Mr. Brooks’ community efforts.
Mr. Brooks would continue his pursuit of the second slice of funding promised by state officials to correct the state’s Basic Education Program funding shortfall to Hamilton County. The revised formula promised to allot $25 million more a year to Hamilton County schools. $12 million was subsequently added to the school budget, but the falloff in state tax revenue has precluded the $13 million still needed to achieve parity in state funding.
He sees the need to develop a growth planning agenda, especially with regard to infrastructure, to accommodate growth related to VW and its supplier plants, and other new residential and commercial growth that is expected to follow. He would start with an expanded sewer plan, which predestines growth patterns.
Mr. Brooks also would continue to press for further consolidation, where cost-effective, of city-county services, possibly including sewers, water utilities and public works. As growth occurs, he believes many residents will also come to see the need for a metropolitan government system to handle urban issues countywide. That, he says, would entail a public referendum in all municipalities which also could address other tax equity issues, including a two-tier county tax for urban services in unincorporated areas.
Mr. Brooks advocates more transparency in county government, and is proud of the fiscal management which has given the county government a triple-A bond rating, a feat attained by only one other county.
We strongly endorse Mr. Brooks’ election to another term.
District 8, Kenny Smith
Kenny Smith is by background and by experience an excellent candidate for the commission. His long-time civic involvement, his service on the Hamilton County School Board, his familiarity with country government and its operations and systems, and his willingness to build coalitions and consensus on important issues rather than pursue strictly partisan goals make him the ideal choice to fill the District 8 seat. We endorse his election.
Mr. Smith, a Democrat, is one of four candidates in the race. Tim Boyd, a newcomer to politics who won the District 8 Republican primary, is a viable candidate, but lacks the broad experience and outlook of Mr. Smith. Terry Turner and Jim Winters, both independents, round out the field seeking the seat vacated by Curtis Adams.
Both Mr. Smith and Mr. Boyd are fiscal conservatives and both pledge to be wise stewards of taxpayer dollars. Both realize that community growth depends on new development and redevelopment of current infrastructure. Mr. Boyd’s view of how best to accomplish the latter is far more narrow than that of Mr. Smith. The former seems primarily interested in projects for the district. That might make for good politics, but it does not serve the interests of all county residents.
Mr. Smith, by contrast, prefers comprehensive planning and development for the county as a whole. That’s the wiser course, one that ultimately will provide benefits for both district and county.
Mr. Boyd makes much of an error in campaign fund reporting by Mr. Smith, but is less forthcoming about a similar mistake made by his own campaign. Mr. Smith candidly admits the mistake, says that it, like that made by Mr. Boyd, has been corrected and prefers to discuss matters of more importance to district and county residents. That is the better path.
Mr. Smith’s experience on the school board has prepared him for the larger stage of county government. He’s well versed in the county’s needs – he rightly puts jobs and education at the top of the list – and is prepared to work diligently to achieve them. He will bring new and useful perspective to the County Commission. We strongly recommend his election.