-
Sidebar Ads
-
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Email
Print
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo!Member Opinions:
By: tncampers on 5/16/07
I agree with what you are saying BUT
I agree with what you are saying BUT
By: tncampers on 5/16/07
You have some valid points for exposure of religion which I am all for BUT not a Theme back in my backyard... We moved from a city of concrete to Murfreesboro/Blackman area because of the tranquil atmosphere. Now we have a rep from Shelbyville backing a Bible Park (not in his back yard) in a residential area. Comeon Blackman residence open your eyes, this will bring noise, traffic congestion, and who knows what else. I for one am against this being built in the Blackman area. A Concerned Blackman resident. (After thought: This is probably a done deal and we really have not say).
You have some valid points for exposure of religion which I am all for BUT not a Theme back in my backyard... We moved from a city of concrete to Murfreesboro/Blackman area because of the tranquil atmosphere. Now we have a rep from Shelbyville backing a Bible Park (not in his back yard) in a residential area. Comeon Blackman residence open your eyes, this will bring noise, traffic congestion, and who knows what else. I for one am against this being built in the Blackman area. A Concerned Blackman resident. (After thought: This is probably a done deal and we really have not say).
By: Boroite on 5/16/07
How does anyone know it brings noise, or for that matter congestion? How is this worse that adding 300 acres (or whatever they say this is taking up) worth of houses? That's at least a couple a thousand extra cars on the road every day. And residential just will not cover the cost of the services required, let alone that associate with the additional school(s) it would bring.
How does anyone know it brings noise, or for that matter congestion? How is this worse that adding 300 acres (or whatever they say this is taking up) worth of houses? That's at least a couple a thousand extra cars on the road every day. And residential just will not cover the cost of the services required, let alone that associate with the additional school(s) it would bring.
By: DMW37128 on 5/16/07
tncampers, the rep from Shelbyville is not backing the Bable Park ( or any theme park) but rather giving that choice of decision to the local government, where it should be.
As a resident of Blackman I am not in favor of any theme park - casino - race track in Blackman.
tncampers, the rep from Shelbyville is not backing the Bable Park ( or any theme park) but rather giving that choice of decision to the local government, where it should be.
As a resident of Blackman I am not in favor of any theme park - casino - race track in Blackman.
By: snook on 5/17/07
I went to a meeting of the county board of zoning appeals a few months back. One of the issues that was on the agenda was a request for permission to put a wholesale nursery out in the country near Eagleville. I didn't understand then and I still don't understand why the property owners had to get permission to grow plants on a farm and haul them off and sell them. Isn't that what you do on a famr, grow plants, harvest them and sell them? There was a little church near by that was opposed to the nursery citing theri concern about noise and traffic as a concern.
I was reminded of the old say "the more things change the more they stay the same".
It's always the same thing, traffic and noise. In most cases traffic and noise is irrelevent, and is simply an excuse to oppose something and the opponents can't coem up with any real reason to oppose whatever is being proposed. It seems nobody can come up with any real reasons to oppose so they use the same old tired reasons which are traffic and noise.
That having been said, I think with a theme park, amusement park, whatever you want to call it, traffic and noise concerns would be the 2 main concerns. Have you ever been to a theme park? All there is is traffic and noise.
I went to a meeting of the county board of zoning appeals a few months back. One of the issues that was on the agenda was a request for permission to put a wholesale nursery out in the country near Eagleville. I didn't understand then and I still don't understand why the property owners had to get permission to grow plants on a farm and haul them off and sell them. Isn't that what you do on a famr, grow plants, harvest them and sell them? There was a little church near by that was opposed to the nursery citing theri concern about noise and traffic as a concern.
I was reminded of the old say "the more things change the more they stay the same".
It's always the same thing, traffic and noise. In most cases traffic and noise is irrelevent, and is simply an excuse to oppose something and the opponents can't coem up with any real reason to oppose whatever is being proposed. It seems nobody can come up with any real reasons to oppose so they use the same old tired reasons which are traffic and noise.
That having been said, I think with a theme park, amusement park, whatever you want to call it, traffic and noise concerns would be the 2 main concerns. Have you ever been to a theme park? All there is is traffic and noise.
By: DMW37128 on 5/17/07
snook, it might have been they were going to set up commercial sales on-premise, thus more traffic including tractor=trailers.
snook, it might have been they were going to set up commercial sales on-premise, thus more traffic including tractor=trailers.
By: MaryMoon on 5/17/07
There's over 300,000 sq/ft of retail space - over half the size of the expanded Stones River Mall - coming to Blackman about 2 miles from the proposed 'bible park.' I certainly don't hordes of people raising a stink about that project since it, too, will bring noise, traffic congestion, construction traffic, etc.
There's over 300,000 sq/ft of retail space - over half the size of the expanded Stones River Mall - coming to Blackman about 2 miles from the proposed 'bible park.' I certainly don't hordes of people raising a stink about that project since it, too, will bring noise, traffic congestion, construction traffic, etc.
By: MaggieMae on 5/17/07
On one hand, I am for anything that brings the teachings of our Lord to our neighborhood. But on the other hand, I am not convinced that this is the way to do it. There are just too many problems that I see with this concept.
We have all been raised with our own believes, and I can see how someone will be offended. The building of this park is not to spread the Word of God, it is solely a money making opportunity. I personally can not imagine a theme park about the Bible. I think it may turn into a mockery of the Bible. I do not live in Blackman, but I can sympathize with the community not wanting this in their backyard. I would not want it in mine. Hopefully, all of us in Rutherford County and Murfreesboro will be given the opportunity to vote on this.
On one hand, I am for anything that brings the teachings of our Lord to our neighborhood. But on the other hand, I am not convinced that this is the way to do it. There are just too many problems that I see with this concept.
We have all been raised with our own believes, and I can see how someone will be offended. The building of this park is not to spread the Word of God, it is solely a money making opportunity. I personally can not imagine a theme park about the Bible. I think it may turn into a mockery of the Bible. I do not live in Blackman, but I can sympathize with the community not wanting this in their backyard. I would not want it in mine. Hopefully, all of us in Rutherford County and Murfreesboro will be given the opportunity to vote on this.
By: JNDassaro on 5/17/07
According to the developer (his own words), this park is not about religion. Religion is not at issue in this case and to opine otherwise is just uninformed.
According to the developer (his own words), this park is not about religion. Religion is not at issue in this case and to opine otherwise is just uninformed.
By: ZNineLives on 5/18/07
How can it not be about religion if it is a bible theme park? My biggest concern is that this would do a dis-service to religion and to the perception of visitors about how we Tennesseans view and care for our religious beliefs. The idea that the same people who did the Hard Rock one are the overseeing/visionary developers (if memory serves, this was in an earlier Post article) seems evidence that this is a bizarre idea in my book. If we are interested in having a theme park in Rutherford County, why not a Six Flags or Paramount King's Dominion type of park?
How can it not be about religion if it is a bible theme park? My biggest concern is that this would do a dis-service to religion and to the perception of visitors about how we Tennesseans view and care for our religious beliefs. The idea that the same people who did the Hard Rock one are the overseeing/visionary developers (if memory serves, this was in an earlier Post article) seems evidence that this is a bizarre idea in my book. If we are interested in having a theme park in Rutherford County, why not a Six Flags or Paramount King's Dominion type of park?
By: MaggieMae on 5/18/07
I may be uninformed on what the developer has said (his own words), but if you have a park and it is called a "Bible" park, how can religion not be an issue. You can not separate religion from the Bible!
And by the way, I do have right to state my opinion. Maybe it is you, who is uninformed on what the Bible is. It is the Bible that we study when we go to church. We all go to different churches, and find different meanings to the Bible in accordance to where we worship. (Our religious beliefs) To try to satisfy all religions in one park, would be impossible.
This is why I fear that a park like this, called a Bible Park, could turn into a mockery of the Bible.
FYI-the developer will say what ever it takes to build his park. $$$$$$
Why not just call this park "JNDassaro Park" If religion plays no part of the name, we shouldn't give it a name that is assiciated with regilion!
I may be uninformed on what the developer has said (his own words), but if you have a park and it is called a "Bible" park, how can religion not be an issue. You can not separate religion from the Bible!
And by the way, I do have right to state my opinion. Maybe it is you, who is uninformed on what the Bible is. It is the Bible that we study when we go to church. We all go to different churches, and find different meanings to the Bible in accordance to where we worship. (Our religious beliefs) To try to satisfy all religions in one park, would be impossible.
This is why I fear that a park like this, called a Bible Park, could turn into a mockery of the Bible.
FYI-the developer will say what ever it takes to build his park. $$$$$$
Why not just call this park "JNDassaro Park" If religion plays no part of the name, we shouldn't give it a name that is assiciated with regilion!
By: WWSD on 5/18/07
Bororite.... Your statements are right on the money (no pun intended). I dare say 300 houses will cause as much or more congestion than a theme park, not to mention the education and service burdens it puts on the county. What it really boils down to (which is backed up by Snooks post), people will bitch and moan about anything and everything if "THEY" don't stand to profit from it. I have past experience of getting burned by a bunch of lazy, worthless neighbors on a piece of property I was trying to have re-zoned in Rutherford County. My use would not have affected ANY of the neighbors, except that it would have cleaned up the area and would have most likley increased their property values. Anyway.... most people are idiots, have no ability to be analytical, and can't see the forrest for the trees. Some people are just "Professional Complainers"
Bororite.... Your statements are right on the money (no pun intended). I dare say 300 houses will cause as much or more congestion than a theme park, not to mention the education and service burdens it puts on the county. What it really boils down to (which is backed up by Snooks post), people will bitch and moan about anything and everything if "THEY" don't stand to profit from it. I have past experience of getting burned by a bunch of lazy, worthless neighbors on a piece of property I was trying to have re-zoned in Rutherford County. My use would not have affected ANY of the neighbors, except that it would have cleaned up the area and would have most likley increased their property values. Anyway.... most people are idiots, have no ability to be analytical, and can't see the forrest for the trees. Some people are just "Professional Complainers"
By: MaryMoon on 5/18/07
::Some people are just "Professional Complainers"::
That's pretty evident concerning this particular issue.
::Some people are just "Professional Complainers"::
That's pretty evident concerning this particular issue.
By: JNDassaro on 5/18/07
Why not just call this park "JNDassaro Park"
Sounds good to me. I am willing to finance 25% of the cost. I need to float a bond for the rest.
JNDassaro
Why not just call this park "JNDassaro Park"
Sounds good to me. I am willing to finance 25% of the cost. I need to float a bond for the rest.
JNDassaro
By: MaggieMae on 5/18/07
I sort of thought, from reading your comments, that you may be associated with the developers of this Bible park. By making the comment, even in jest, that you were willing to finance 25% of the cost if named after you (JND...), I take it I was right. I am not against a park, just one of this nature. From talking to MANY people, they feel the same as I. Change the concept and I do believe that more people would get on board with this. But this is just my opinion.
I sort of thought, from reading your comments, that you may be associated with the developers of this Bible park. By making the comment, even in jest, that you were willing to finance 25% of the cost if named after you (JND...), I take it I was right. I am not against a park, just one of this nature. From talking to MANY people, they feel the same as I. Change the concept and I do believe that more people would get on board with this. But this is just my opinion.
By: peri_winkle on 5/18/07
Same letter was published in the DNJ, and it drew concerns about Dow Smith being a major construction company in the area and speculation about how likely he was to get a cut of this little action. Relevant questions to which I certainly don't know the answer, but if that's the case, I'm offended by his attempt to use religion to cover his tracks--not saying he has; just saying what would concern me if it turned out that he has.
Anyway, since he's repeated his DNJ letter verbatim here, I'll repeat what I posted on the DNJ site:
"What hasn't been talked about so much is the project's potential for deferring property tax increases for all the residents of Rutherford County, not to mention generating a huge influx of more sales tax dollars to fund education (without the accompanying additional children to educate that more homes built on the same site would bring)."
How amusing that the entire premise of Mr. Smith's letter is completely wrong. He goes on and on about how this boondoggle will generate 'clean' money to support our schools and improve our children's education. But the whole deal hinges entirely on a piece of legislation specifically designed to prevent that! How funny. Not only will no taxes from this property go to fund schools, the property taxes now being collected from the land will go poof if this deal comes off.
Not one red cent of this 'clean' money would go to fund schools. In fact, the sole reason for the legislation discussed in the paper almost daily is to prevent the money going to schools by making an end run around the general law that requires at least half of all local sales taxes to be spent on schools. If the county [or city] meant to spend this 'clean' money on schools, there'd be no talk of legislation.
If this development were entirely privately funded, the only problem would be the total destruction of a well established residential community, which probably would not be enough to kill it.
But it isn't entirely privately funded, and news article after news article has made that plain. If it were entirely privately funded, there would be no discussion of a special bill to authorize the county to establish a special zone in which the taxes raised would be earmarked to pay off the government debt issued to buy the land. And when the government buys the land, something essential to making this whole deal work, it will come off the property tax rolls and the property taxes now being collected will disappear, which means this boondoggle will be a net tax loss, not a gain.
Here's the deal w/the legislation: The county already has the authority to buy the land; so does the city. That's not what the bill is for. The county already has the authority to allow a theme park on the land; the city could, too, if they annexed it. That's not what the bill is for. The county already has all of the authority it needs to provide infrastructure or other services to the park; so does the city. That's not what the bill is for.
Without the bill, half of all sales tax generated by any kind of development of the land would have to be spent on schools; the other half can be used however the city or county that collects it wants to. That's the law.
The sole purpose of the bill is to remove that earmark so that all of the sales tax--all of this 'clean' money--could go to pay the debit issued to buy the land and provide government services and infrastructure to it. Without that deal--government picking up the cost of the land and so forth--the developer won't build the park. That's what makes it a boondoggle.
And, oh, by the way, there will be no property taxes from this, not if the government owns the land. That's how the whole deal works . . . and why it won't work if this legislation doesn't pass. In fact, the property taxes now paid by the Shelton family will be gone when the government buys the land.
So, what's the bottom line? Zero funding for schools. In fact, I'm left wondering how the county will backfill for the loss of the property tax revenue it will no longer be collecting once it buys the land.
Same letter was published in the DNJ, and it drew concerns about Dow Smith being a major construction company in the area and speculation about how likely he was to get a cut of this little action. Relevant questions to which I certainly don't know the answer, but if that's the case, I'm offended by his attempt to use religion to cover his tracks--not saying he has; just saying what would concern me if it turned out that he has.
Anyway, since he's repeated his DNJ letter verbatim here, I'll repeat what I posted on the DNJ site:
"What hasn't been talked about so much is the project's potential for deferring property tax increases for all the residents of Rutherford County, not to mention generating a huge influx of more sales tax dollars to fund education (without the accompanying additional children to educate that more homes built on the same site would bring)."
How amusing that the entire premise of Mr. Smith's letter is completely wrong. He goes on and on about how this boondoggle will generate 'clean' money to support our schools and improve our children's education. But the whole deal hinges entirely on a piece of legislation specifically designed to prevent that! How funny. Not only will no taxes from this property go to fund schools, the property taxes now being collected from the land will go poof if this deal comes off.
Not one red cent of this 'clean' money would go to fund schools. In fact, the sole reason for the legislation discussed in the paper almost daily is to prevent the money going to schools by making an end run around the general law that requires at least half of all local sales taxes to be spent on schools. If the county [or city] meant to spend this 'clean' money on schools, there'd be no talk of legislation.
If this development were entirely privately funded, the only problem would be the total destruction of a well established residential community, which probably would not be enough to kill it.
But it isn't entirely privately funded, and news article after news article has made that plain. If it were entirely privately funded, there would be no discussion of a special bill to authorize the county to establish a special zone in which the taxes raised would be earmarked to pay off the government debt issued to buy the land. And when the government buys the land, something essential to making this whole deal work, it will come off the property tax rolls and the property taxes now being collected will disappear, which means this boondoggle will be a net tax loss, not a gain.
Here's the deal w/the legislation: The county already has the authority to buy the land; so does the city. That's not what the bill is for. The county already has the authority to allow a theme park on the land; the city could, too, if they annexed it. That's not what the bill is for. The county already has all of the authority it needs to provide infrastructure or other services to the park; so does the city. That's not what the bill is for.
Without the bill, half of all sales tax generated by any kind of development of the land would have to be spent on schools; the other half can be used however the city or county that collects it wants to. That's the law.
The sole purpose of the bill is to remove that earmark so that all of the sales tax--all of this 'clean' money--could go to pay the debit issued to buy the land and provide government services and infrastructure to it. Without that deal--government picking up the cost of the land and so forth--the developer won't build the park. That's what makes it a boondoggle.
And, oh, by the way, there will be no property taxes from this, not if the government owns the land. That's how the whole deal works . . . and why it won't work if this legislation doesn't pass. In fact, the property taxes now paid by the Shelton family will be gone when the government buys the land.
So, what's the bottom line? Zero funding for schools. In fact, I'm left wondering how the county will backfill for the loss of the property tax revenue it will no longer be collecting once it buys the land.
By: Boroite on 5/18/07
Peri Winkle makes some interest points but I find them hard to accept. First of all, who said the city would "buy the land?" I don't think these things work that way. Who found that in the legislation. Seems a wild claim. Secondly, does anyone know how much property tax is being paid now? Its farm land, right? I doubt it makes enough difference when the county runs the numbers to be an issue. The schools are already underfunded, bringing back the earlier point - residential doesn't pay its own way. More houses will just add more schools it (residential) can't pay for already. and more cars to be sure. The author calls for an informed look and he is dead on. The county has to run the numbers and decide if this thing will pay for itself. Same as any other industrial incentive, be it a bible park, a Toyota factory, or a Nelson's Bible printing plant (by the way Nelson makes alot of money selling those things).
Peri Winkle makes some interest points but I find them hard to accept. First of all, who said the city would "buy the land?" I don't think these things work that way. Who found that in the legislation. Seems a wild claim. Secondly, does anyone know how much property tax is being paid now? Its farm land, right? I doubt it makes enough difference when the county runs the numbers to be an issue. The schools are already underfunded, bringing back the earlier point - residential doesn't pay its own way. More houses will just add more schools it (residential) can't pay for already. and more cars to be sure. The author calls for an informed look and he is dead on. The county has to run the numbers and decide if this thing will pay for itself. Same as any other industrial incentive, be it a bible park, a Toyota factory, or a Nelson's Bible printing plant (by the way Nelson makes alot of money selling those things).
By: Slavar on 5/19/07
Peri Winkle - you hit the target. If the land is set up as some sort of "enterprise zone", (or whatever current euphemism is )taxes more than likely will go back to the good of the zone. What we need are (again) facts about what will be generated and how it will benefit taxpayers. The fact that the developers, media, and politicians side step this issue, is troublesome.
"beware of Trojans...."
Peri Winkle - you hit the target. If the land is set up as some sort of "enterprise zone", (or whatever current euphemism is )taxes more than likely will go back to the good of the zone. What we need are (again) facts about what will be generated and how it will benefit taxpayers. The fact that the developers, media, and politicians side step this issue, is troublesome.
"beware of Trojans...."
By: bonita on 5/19/07
Just my opinion:
Monies that would be generated would come on the front end of this project. Construction, suppliers, initial job force, etc... Then when it goes out of business, you've got a white elephant sitting there.
I really don't think this will fly - not even here in the Bible Belt. It's NOT a long term, solid business decision. Just because someone proposed the idea with their pie-in-sky ideas on how profitable it will be ..... doesn't mean we have to go for it. Our government should not be putting money in religious business ventures. Does our gov't back the building of churches? What about religions other than Protestant?
No, no, no. Please no.
bonita
Just my opinion:
Monies that would be generated would come on the front end of this project. Construction, suppliers, initial job force, etc... Then when it goes out of business, you've got a white elephant sitting there.
I really don't think this will fly - not even here in the Bible Belt. It's NOT a long term, solid business decision. Just because someone proposed the idea with their pie-in-sky ideas on how profitable it will be ..... doesn't mean we have to go for it. Our government should not be putting money in religious business ventures. Does our gov't back the building of churches? What about religions other than Protestant?
No, no, no. Please no.
bonita
By: nightwingoracle on 5/19/07
Maggie Mae - the main problem is not that it is a Bible-themed park....the main problem is that it is an amusement park in general, and that won't bring in the tax revenue it claims. All those taxes will be returned to the park developers/owners in city/county services, etc... And while all this happens, we'll see an increase in traffic and the area will look like the Briley Parkway area looked around Opryland - ugly and cheap. Don't fall for the developers' hype. We do not need this amusement park here, whatever it's theme. Keep it out of Murfreesboro and it's environs - let Nashville have it, let Franklin have it, let Hendersonville have - let Mt. Juliet have it - but keep it out of Murfreesboro.
Maggie Mae - the main problem is not that it is a Bible-themed park....the main problem is that it is an amusement park in general, and that won't bring in the tax revenue it claims. All those taxes will be returned to the park developers/owners in city/county services, etc... And while all this happens, we'll see an increase in traffic and the area will look like the Briley Parkway area looked around Opryland - ugly and cheap. Don't fall for the developers' hype. We do not need this amusement park here, whatever it's theme. Keep it out of Murfreesboro and it's environs - let Nashville have it, let Franklin have it, let Hendersonville have - let Mt. Juliet have it - but keep it out of Murfreesboro.
By: mebj on 5/19/07
I just want to know why a notice wasn't sent out to neighborhoods neighboring this proposed theme park. I am a Christian and all for advancing the faith - but I am not sure that this has anything to do with that. This is an amusement park. We bought in this area because of the good Blackman school system and so that our home value would go up. I am quite sure that we will just about be bankrupt and never able to move if this park goes through. For a community that has been working hard to get upper middle class and higher paid jobs to our area, I am absolutely shocked that they would consider a project like this! I drove by the proposed site today and could see the roofs of my neighborhood from this proposed site.
I just want to know why a notice wasn't sent out to neighborhoods neighboring this proposed theme park. I am a Christian and all for advancing the faith - but I am not sure that this has anything to do with that. This is an amusement park. We bought in this area because of the good Blackman school system and so that our home value would go up. I am quite sure that we will just about be bankrupt and never able to move if this park goes through. For a community that has been working hard to get upper middle class and higher paid jobs to our area, I am absolutely shocked that they would consider a project like this! I drove by the proposed site today and could see the roofs of my neighborhood from this proposed site.
By: DMW37128 on 5/19/07
How are they going to drive traffic ( customers ) to the theme park < what kind of advertising will they be using >?
How are they going to drive traffic ( customers ) to the theme park < what kind of advertising will they be using >?
By: mebj on 5/20/07
how do we find out the details to this, since I am new to this topic?
how do we find out the details to this, since I am new to this topic?
Login and voice your opinion!