No WhiteWash!

The Kingsport, Tennessee area have gotten themselves more National attention with the recent Gallup-Healthways surveys.

WebMD article below gives (America’s Most Obese Metropolitan Areas) a summary of Gallup’s findings.

Please go to the Gallup link (What America’s Most Obese Metro Areas Have in Common) for more detail.

Do we need more restaurants in the Kingsport area?

America’s Most Obese Metropolitan Areas

March 3, 2010 — A ranking of No. 1 — or being in the Top 10 — isn’t always something to crow about.

The latest Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index lists the 10 most obese metropolitan areas in the U.S. and finds that adult obesity rates in each are significantly greater than the national average of 26.5%.

Here’s a list of the 10 most obese metro areas, with those ranking highest having the greatest obesity rates.

1. (tie) Montgomery, Ala., and Stockton, Calif.: 34.6%
2. Visalia/Porterville, Calif.: 34.1%
3. York/Hanover, Pa.: 34%
4. Flint, Mich.: 33.9%
5. McAllen/Edinburg/Mission, Texas: 33.7%
6. Bakersfield, Calif.: 33.6%
7. (tie) Lynchburg, Va., and Huntington/Ashland, West Va., Ky., Ohio: 33%
8. Kingsport/Bristol, Tenn., Va.: 32.9%

Eating Fruits and Veggies

The latest Well-Being Index also examines factors that are linked to obesity.

Here’s a look at how metro areas ranked according to the percentage eating fruits and vegetables frequently — listed from worst to best. The nationwide percentage is 56.8%.

1. McAllen/Edinburg/Mission, Texas:  45.7%
2. Montgomery, Ala.: 52.7%
3. Bakersfield, Calif.: 53.1%
4. Stockton, Calif.: 54.8%
5. Flint, Mich.: 56.4%
6. Visalia/Porterville, Calif.: 56.6%
7. Lynchburg, Va.: 56.8%
8. York/Hanover, Pa.: 59.0%
9. Huntington/Ashland/ West Va., Ky., Ohio 60.2 %
10. Kingsport/Bristol Tenn., Va.:  62.2%

Exercising Frequently

Here’s a look at the rankings — from worst to best — of the percentage of people exercising frequently. The percentage nationwide is 49.9%.

1. Montgomery, Ala.:  43.3%
2. Flint, Mich.:  44.5%
3. McAllen/Edinburg/Mission, Texas: 45.8%
4. Lynchburg, Va.: 46.1%
5. Huntington/Ashland, W. Va., Ky., Ohio:   47.7%
6. York/Hanover, Pa.: 47.8%
7. Bakersfield, Calif.:  48.4%
8. Kingsport/Bristol, Tenn., Va.: 48.5%
9. Visalia/Porterville, Calif.:  49.2%
10. Stockton, Calif.:  51%

Gallup-Healthways says in a news release that eight of the 10 most obese areas rank in the bottom two-thirds in terms of having easy access to fruits and vegetables and nine rank in the bottom two-thirds for having a safe place to exercise.

Seven of the 10 most obese metro areas rank among the bottom 25 places where residents say there have been times in the past year when they didn’t have enough money to buy food for themselves or family members.

Obesity’s Link to Health Problems

The researchers note that obesity often is a precursor to chronic health problems, including high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, and heart attack. These conditions were included in the Gallup-Healthways physical health index.

The report also finds that:

• Each of the 10 most obese metro areas are in the bottom two-thirds of all places in terms of diabetes.
• The Huntington/Ashland areas of West Va., Kentucky, and Ohio, with Montgomery, Ala., and the Kingsport/Bristol area on the Tennessee-Virginia line are in the bottom 10 among all metro areas surveyed in regard to blood pressure, with rates nearly 10 percentage points above the national average.
• Huntington and Kingsport, along with Lynchburg, are in the bottom 10 for high cholesterol.
• Huntington and Kingsport are among the bottom 10 for heart attacks, with rates almost twice the national average.
• Four of the 10 most obese areas are in the top third among all metro areas for not smoking, but the other six rank in the bottom two-thirds.

The Gallup-Wellbeing report is based on telephone interviews with more than 353,000 adults 18 and over between Jan. 2, 2009, and Dec. 29, 2009. It has a margin of sampling error of 0.2 percentage points.

via America’s Most Obese Metropolitan Areas.

Copyright ©2009, WebMD, LLC. All rights reserved

A new survey from Gallup and Franklin-based Healthways Inc shows that the Kingsport area is ranked as the bottom ten cities for overall well being.  It appears that the physical, emotional, social and professional aspects of folks in the Kingsport area has helped drag the State of Tennessee to its low scores.

I wonder how our elected leaders will “spin” this study to make themselves look good.  Maybe, they might try even more to spend more money to help their cause.  So far the out of control spending for pet projects by our local elected officials has not seemed to work.

The Kingsport area has managed to get lots of national media attention with this study.

Nashville-area residents have the highest well-being among Tennesseans, although the state as a whole continues to rank near the bottom nationally when it comes to overall quality of life.

That’s the conclusion of two reports published today by Gallp and Franklin-based Healthways Inc. The reports are based on more than 350,000 surveys completed in 2009 that measure how respondents are faring in all aspects of their daily lives: physically, emotionally, socially and professionally.

Nashville ranks 63rd among 185 cities nationwide in the city-level report, up 22 spots from 2008. In report-card terms, that’s the equivalent of a B. Memphis and Knoxville scored Ds, while Chattanooga and Kingsport both graded an F.

In fact, Kingsport ranks among the bottom 10 cities nationwide in overall well-being, scoring dead last in the categories of life evaluation and physical health. Fort Smith, Ark., came in last overall, while Boulder, Colo. topped the list.

In the state-level report, Tennessee ranks 42nd, the same as in 2008. The bright spot was work environment, where the state ranks 12th. Hawaii had the highest well-being among states, while West Virginia had the lowest.

Gallup and Healthways published state and congressional district rankings for 2008. But this is the first time since polling began in January 2008 that city rankings have been announced.

“It’s our hope that these rankings are not treated as competition, but as a wake-up call,” said Anne Wilkins, Healthways’ chief strategy officer. “Even the highest-ranked cities and states have room for improvement, and hopefully communities can look at these rankings and figure out how to improve the lives of their citizens.”

Gallup and Healthways entered into a 25-year partnership in 2008 with the goal of creating an official statistic for the daily state of health and well-being in the United States.

Aggregating 1,000 calls a day, 350 days a year, the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index is the largest behavioral economic database ever created and is expected to generate more than 9 million individual responses over the next quarter-century.

Healthways provides specialized, comprehensive medical solutions for insurers and employers to help patients manage and improve their health and reduce health care costs.

The company ranks No. 16 on Nashville Business Journal’s list of largest public companies in Middle Tennessee with revenue of $789.5 million in 2008.

Best and worst

Top 10 Cities Overall 1. Boulder, Colo. 2. Holland, Mich. 3. Honolulu, Hawaii 4. Provo, Utah 5. Santa Rosa, Calif. 6. Santa Barbara, Calif. 7. San Jose, Calif. 8. Washington, D.C. 9. Ogden, Utah 10. Oxnard, Calif.

Bottom 10 Cities Overall 1. Fort Smith, Ark. 2. Huntington, W. Va. 3. Lake Havasu City, Ariz. 4. Johnstown, Penn. 5. Modesto, Calif. 6. Charleston, W.Va. 7. Flint, Mich. 8. Youngstown, Ohio 9. Kingsport, Tenn. 10. Shreveport, La.

Top 10 States Overall 1. Hawaii 2. Utah 3. Montana 4. Minnesota 5. Iowa 6. Vermont 7. Colorado 8. Alaska 9. North Dakota 10. Kansas

Bottom 10 States Overall 1. West Virginia 2. Kentucky 3. Arkansas 4. Ohio 5. Nevada 6. Alabama 7. Indiana 8. Mississippi 9. Tennessee 10. Louisiana

Source: Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index City and State Reports

via Healthways, Gallup: Tennesseans’ well-being lags, boosted by Nashville – Nashville Business Journal:.

Note the rankings below for Kingsport.  The number of cities studied in 185.  Kingsport came in dead last in “Life Evaluation” and “Physical Health”.  Kingsport’s overall score is 179 out of 185.  Click on the link below for more information on the Tennessee study.

2009 City, State & Congressional District Well-Being Report for Tennessee

I have previously written concerning the proposal that the City of Kingsport buy the old State Theater  See post Kingsport Developer gets in over his head, thinks old theater may be haunted and wants city to bail him out.

Now the completed study by the Cinema Preservation Group is out and can be read in its entirety in the link below.  Read and form your own conclusions.

Kingsport Economic Development Board recently voted to spend nearly $10,000 to fund a study to determine the economic impact of a restored theater in downtown Kingsport. The Cinema Preservation Group is now conducting the work.

KEDB Chairman Bob Feathers said he contacted Beatty about the possibility of the city purchasing or investing in the theater after learning that Beatty was considering nonprofit status for the facility.

Feathers said he believes some type of investment can occur to complete the theater project — regardless of what the economic development study shows.

Read more via City may consider buying State Theater building – Kingsport Times-News Online.

In the recent Kingsport Times-News article below, Mayor Dennis Phillips denies that the city plans to buy the State Theatre outright.  I wonder what Mayor Phillips has in mind when he stated “without an enormous expense to the taxpayers”?

Mayor Dennis Phillips said he hopes the study will encourage some individual or organization to invest in the State Theater, complete the renovations, and begin operating it for the benefit of the downtown district.

“I think if we can accomplish this without an enormous expense to the taxpayers, it certainly would be a service that is sorely needed,” Phillips said.

Asked about the Strand Theater, another Broad Street historic facility that has recently been used as a venue for live music and old movies, Phillips said the Cinema Preservation Group study could also be used by the Strand owners if they would want to market the facility one day. The Strand Theatre is owned by Restoration Church.

“I don’t know if the Strand Theater is available today. The Strand Theatre is a church,” he said.

But if the Strand were put on the market, “this report would apply … then it becomes a matter of economics of which one could be done at the least cost,” Phillips said.

He denied that the city plans to buy the State Theatre outright.

via Study envisions new future for State Theatre – Kingsport Times-News Online.

The report from the Cinema Preservation Group states that there are major problems when a non-profit theater is aligned too closely with city hall.  Below are two paragraphs from the study.  I would encourage you to read the entire report.

Non-profit theatres aligned too closely with city hall often fall prey to two particular problems. The first occurs when the theatre building comes to be perceived as a public facility. Various public entities feel that they should be allowed to use the facility for significantly discounted rates, or even for free. Though currently not an issue in the case of the State, this type of agreement is often adopted in order to ensure initial approval for restoration by the council and guarantee the allocation of funds for building renovations and/or other expenses. Severely discounted rates take revenue away from the theatre and occupy blocks of time that could be filled by other groups who would pay to use the building. The second problem arises when city residents perceive the theatre to be a municipal building. When this happens, it becomes extremely difficult to raise money from the community. Fundraising efforts are either simply ignored or opposed outright, and individual donors become wary of contributing to an entity they feel could and should be largely financed by tax dollars.

…….Though ticket and concession sales are the primary sources of revenue for a theatre, there are other means of earning revenue that must be explored. The vast majority of live theatres in America today will never be self-supporting, they can simply never make enough money on ticket sales and concessions to cover expenses. Even in good economic times many theatres are fortunate to earn 50% of their revenue from events. Two strategies for overcoming this revenue shortfall are fundraising and rental.

Read more via The Cinema Preservation Group Study

The survey that was used in the study is questionable because the Cinema Preservation Group chose to use the blog that is maintained by Kingsport’s Assistant Manager, Jeff Flemming.  The readership of Jeff Flemming’s blog in my opinion would show a bias for the city of Kingsport and would not reflect the majority views of the Kingsport citizens.  See Time Sensitive: How do you feel about State Theatre?  I am sure that the response would have been different if this blog posted the survey.

It is interesting that the Cinema Preservation Group is from Asheville, NC.  Prior to coming to Kingsport, Doug Beatty lived in the Asheville area.

Also, it is interesting that  Richard Rose, artistic director at the Barter Theatre in Abingdon, sent a letter of support for the State Theatre restoration to Kingsport City Manager, John Campbell.  Rose said he reviewed the Cinema Preservation study.  It is also interesting that Doug Beatty lives in the Abingdon, Virginia area

See also DKA to partner with Restoration Church on Strand Theater project,

Drama unfolds at DKA press conference on old Strand Theater

There is a petition that has been started by a local Kingsport citizen to protest the City of Kingsport spending $450,000 on ‘wayfinding’ signs.

Read the following article and the comments for more information on the out of control spending proposed by our elected leaders.  Kingsport to spend about $450,000 on ‘wayfinding’ signs

If the City of Kingsport has extra money to spend that comes from the hotel tax, then how about using it to pay for the money losing convention center and golf course at Meadowview.

Maybe it is the BMA that is lost and can’t find their way to make good sound decisions.  Maybe we should have a petition to recall the current BMA members?

Kingsport, TN’s Signs

---

View Current Signatures

---

To:  Kingsport TN Board of Mayor and Alderman

Kingsport has recently decided that we need more signs showing how to get to random places around Kingsport. I believe we need to work on fixing the roads that we travel on to get to these places. They are trying to spend $450,000 on these signs. The money is going to a Michigan based company, at that. If you have ever got a headache from the pot holes in Kingsport or waited in traffic downtown due to the lack of turn lanes, sign the dotted line and tell our BMA we don’t need their signs!

Sincerely,

 

The Undersigned

 

Click Here to Sign Petition

---

Comments are welcome

One thing that does bother me with photo enforcement is if someone borrowed my car tag and put it on another car which was just like mine.  Or take a picture of my car tag,  print a good quality digital reproduction and put it on a similar vehicle.  I can’t claim my car was reported stolen since they just borrowed my tag and returned it and I was not aware of it .  I can’t claim someone else was driving and it looks like I have no recourse.  I can just see the discussion now.  Is this your tag number?  Yes!  Do you drive a green 1951 Ford?  Yes!  Did anyone else drive your car on that day?  No, it was parked in my driveway all night!   Was your car stolen and did you file a police report?   No, when I went to sleep, it was in my driveway and it was there the next morning when I went to work!   In this case it you decide to take it to court and lose, then you get the points and higher insurance rates.

As the Kingsport BMA debates the future of red-light revenue cameras, I wonder how they would feel if the above happen to them.

See over 90 posts from this blog concerning Red-Light Cameras

Rates Increase in 39 Counties, Decrease in 42, Remain the Same in 15

NASHVILLE – Tennessee’s unemployment rate for October was 10.5 percent, unchanged from the September rate of 10.5 percent. The United States’ unemployment rate for the month of October was 10.2 percent.

County non-seasonally adjusted unemployment rates for October 2009, released today, show that the rate increased in 38 counties, decreased in 42, and remained the same in 15 counties.

Lincoln County registered the state’s lowest county unemployment rate at 6.9 percent, unchanged from its September rate. Lauderdale County had the state’s highest unemployment rate at 18.9 percent, up 0.1 from the September rate, followed by Hancock County at 18.0 percent, down from 18.4 percent in September.

Knox County had the state’s lowest major metropolitan rate of 7.8 percent, down 0.3 percentage point from the September rate. Hamilton County was at 8.8 percent, up 0.1 percentage point from the September rate. Davidson County was 8.9 percent, down 0.2 from the previous month, and Shelby County was 10.2 percent, up 0.1 from the September rate.

NOTE: To see other Tennessee cities and counties, click on following link. http://www.tennessee.gov/labor-wfd/labor_figures/september2009county.pdf  

Data is from the following links –  Oct 2008, Nov 2008, Dec 2008, Jan 2009, Feb 2009, Mar 2009, April 2009, May, 2009, June 2009, July 2008, August 2009, Sept 2009, Oct 2008

A reader of this blog has submitted information below on the series of events that certain Kingsport city officials took to help out their friends.  In my view, the City of Kingsport should keep it’s nose out of other organizations business.  See previous post on Kingsport’s downtown turf battle.  Mayor Phillips photo is on the above left and Vice Mayor Mallicote is on the above right.

Summary: The recent numerous public accounts of continuing disputes in downtown Kingsport are unfortunately the result of extraordinary biased “leadership” by the Mayor and Vice-Mayor of Kingsport, that have emboldened and enabled bully tactics by the very small group of businesses that call themselves the downtown business alliance (dba).

The dba has been grossly misrepresented publicly as having over seventy members; while in reality it is led by two important downtown businesses (Adaptcore and Urban Synergy). The dba only has a handful of strong supporters, none paying membership dues while the Downtown Kingsport Association (DKA) has 160 dues paying members and represents a broad range of downtown interests and has been doing so successfully for 70 years. The leaders of the dba have been key campaign supporters of city leadership preferred political candidates while the DKA board has been perceived as political opponents of city “leadership” The DKA has taken extraordinary measures to accommodate the legitimate interests of the dba; the DKA has met 100% of its contract deliverables to the City of Kingsport, which has not been disputed; yet demands for extraordinarily detailed and unfortunately increasingly stringent organizational changes have been placed upon the DKA by the Mayor and Vice-Mayor accompanied by unwarranted public attacks and bias by them.

The dba has failed to meet its few minor commitments to the DKA, but the city “leadership” has never requested the dba to comply. These actions by city “leadership” have harmed downtown Kingsport and are apparently driven by personal vendettas and agendas by them and not by any desire to improve Kingsport This is the second effort by city leadership to destroy the DKA as the Mayor attempted to force a “merger” with the Chamber of Commerce last year that made no sense.

• In 2008 the Mayor demanded that the DKA enter into “merger” discussions with the Kingsport Chamber of Commerce or receive no funding with no explanation of why this was appropriate This was a bad idea by the Mayor, and after brief discussions between the Chamber and the DKA both parties agreed If the Mayor had been successful, it would have meant the end of the DKA.
• The DKA negotiated a detailed list of 8 pages of deliverables with the city for the fiscal year ending June 30; and every single deliverable was met successfully. which has not been disputed.
• Late 2008 an informal alliance of a few downtown businesses (dba) approached the city regarding what that they perceived as problems within the DKA. The Mayor apparently saw this as second opportunity to destroy the DKA. Despite the dba refusing to be members of the DKA and work from within for improvements, the city “leadership” encouraged and emboldened the dba to compete with the DKA, to demand board seats and to further demand a long list of detailed organizational changes still without even joining the organization. The city “leadership” should have advised the “dba” to join the DKA and work from within instead of encouraging the bullying tactics employed by the dba.  If city “leadership” had acted appropriately at this point all the competition and disputes between downtown organizations would have been avoided.
• In February at a joint meeting attended by the Mayor, the dba and the DKA, the Mayor unfortunately showed his bias by opening the meeting prior to any discussions of the parties by advising the DKA to provide 6 board seats to the dba. He did not advise the dba to join nor make any suggestions to them on how to better work together.
• Also in February the DKA submitted a funding request with a detailed set of deliverables and at a proposed funding level to address increased downtown marketing as targeted by the dba. The city “leadership” provided no feedback on the proposal and the proposal was not even provided to the rest of the BMA for consideration. No opportunity was provided for the DKA to discuss this proposal with the BMA.
• Instead the city “leadership” scheduled a BMA work session in May regarding funding for downtown activities; they provided substantial advance notice to the dba who were given an opportunity to make a formal presentation while the DKA was given only one hours notice. This was a blatantly unfair by the city “leadership” The BMA tentatively split funding, which led to further competition between the groups and ultimately to formal mediation. This was a serious mistake as the dba was not a qualified non-profit organization legally able to accept city funding. In fact the dba were not even a legal entity, but only an informal alliance, which is still true today.
• City “leadership” is well aware that the dba has been grossly exaggerated in public descriptions of its size. In fact it is led by AdaptCore (owners of Bonefire Smokehouse, The Bus Pit, Kingsport Grocery and the apparent failed attempt to renovate the State theater) and Urban Synergy (developers of numerous lofts and business building renovations downtown) and a very small group of other moderate supporters. While these two companies are important to downtown, they do not represent broad interests downtown such as manufacturing, professional services, medical, banking, churches, etc. as the DKA does.
• Despite its funding cut, the DKA led an effort to have Kingsport’s greatest July 4th concert and fireworks display ever.
• At the first mediation meeting in July the Mayor and Vice Mayor were not neutral parties, they completely advocated on behalf of the dba; and made extraordinarily disparaging remarks about specific DKA board members. The dba had three pages of specific organizational demands and the DKA placed no demands upon the dba. The mediator stated that certain key corporate sponsorships were threatened unless the DKA met the demands of the dba and city “leadership” This meeting with two BMA members attending may have been a violation of State sunshine laws, which should be investigated.
• On September 28 at a BMA work session the Vice Mayor presented a completely one sided proposal to the BMA and falsely portrayed it as a “middle of the road” proposal. In fact if it had been accepted that evening by the BMA (which it was not), the DKA would have been required to meet 100% of every onerous demand by the dba, including a ridiculous demand for twelve Board seats or the DKA would receive no funding; and the dba would not have been required to do anything!
• At a DKA press conference on Oct 2, an extraordinary positive announcement was explained about downtown Kingsport. A joint arrangement had been reached between DKA and the Restoration Church located in the previous Strand Theater to lead to immediate and regular stage performances focused on family based dramas in this currently fully functioning state of the art performing arts facility. Instead of city “leadership” attending the press conference to praise these efforts, the Vice-Mayor attended, had no positive statements to make, and focused all his statements on creating false charges about timing concerns related to these actions. In the Kingsport paper the next day a great positive story for downtown Kingsport should have been the focus, but instead because of the Vice-Mayor’s almost unbelievable anti Kingsport actions another negative story was the focus.
• Alderman Munsey agreed to work over next two weeks (from Sept 28) to attempt resolution. During that period much real progress was made and only four detailed issues remained to be resolved by the next BMA work session on Oct 5, at which the BMA had targeted for final resolution. Note that while the DKA continued to make concessions in good faith the dba reduced its commitment to bring in new members to 15-20 from the 50-70 they first made in July and from the 30-40 new members promised just two weeks earlier.
• Well in advance of the Oct 5 BMA work session, the DKA prepared and submitted to the city manager’s office an 11-page presentation to be reviewed with the BMA that clearly laid out the case for the value of DKA and its rationale for funding. Unfortunately the Mayor advised the DKA ten minutes before the meeting that the DKA would be given no opportunity during the alderman discussion of potential DKA funding to discuss or review the presentation. Again this was grossly unfair.
• At the same meeting Larry Munsey covered the progress he made as described in his Oct 2 report and the four remaining issues were identified (number of board seats, term limits, election procedures this year and nominating committee). One alderman suggested the dba and the DKA representatives go outside the room and see if agreement between the parties could be reached. After a brief meeting, full agreement was reached, and it was explained orally to the BMA. The DKA, the dba and the DKA thought all of the BMA understood final agreement was reached that evening between the dba and the DKA, and that funding would be released right away to the DKA so that a completely unified downtown would be put into place immediately.
• Unfortunately the next evening the Vice Mayor continued his vendetta and convinced the BMA to impose additional requirements upon the DKA before funding would be released that had not been agreed to the previous night. The vice-mayor publicly criticized the DKA and funding was to be further withheld until the city attorney certified DKA had met its obligations. This was a serious mistake, and the BMA was advised of such as city “leadership” had previously demonstrated on numerous occasions they could not be trusted as described herein.
• Nevertheless the DKA continued to work in good faith to meet its commitments. Its Board met and made all the bylaw changes that it had agreed to. It added two representatives to the dba to the Board nominating committee and worked in good faith to pick six Board candidates from their list of 12 suggested (as was agreed to). The dba had agreed at the last BMA work session to have all of its board candidates join the DKA, generally for small business at the relatively small cost of $150, but unfortunately the dba did not comply.
• On Oct 28 a meeting of DKA, dba and city representatives was held. The dba admitted they still had not met their requirement for any of their Board nominees to join, but the dba now pushed ahead attempting to negotiate additional concessions from the DKA. On one issue the city attorney clarified that what the DKA had changed in its bylaws was consistent with the agreement previously reached and the dba position was wrong. On another issue the dba was again wrong as they were citing a preliminary report from Alderman Munsey not the final report. The DKA clarified such that evening to all parties. Despite the fact the dba had not met its meager commitments and the DKA had met 100% of its very demanding commitments, the Vice Mayor requested nothing from the dba, but insisted that the DKA make concessions beyond the agreement previously reached. The dba again agreed they would bring in the promised membership checks by the end of the day.
• By an Oct 29 called BMA work session, the dba still had not brought in any memberships as repeatedly promised and the DKA had met all its requirements that it agreed to on Oct 5. In fact the dba now was demanding several additional new concessions mostly of a technical nature. Instead of allowing the city attorney to discuss how the DKA had complied with its requirements and allow his certification for funding as the BMA had previously voted, the Vice Mayor convinced the BMA to support (subject to a final vote on Nov 3) funding for downtown through the KCVB, which already receives nearly a million dollars in city funding. There is no logical reason to take away DKA funding for additional funding to KCVB.
• At the November 3 BMA meeting the BMA voted by 5-2 to fund the KCVB. The two aldermen that voted on principle were Ken Marsh and Larry Munsey.
• The DKA has fully met all its commitments. The dba has not. The city “leadership” is continuing to deny funding to the DKA despite this, and has demonstrated that the Mayor and Vice-Mayor never intended to negotiate in good faith.
• It is now clear to the DKA that the Kingsport Mayor and Vice-Mayor are biased regarding the DKA.

Comments are welcome on this blog.

Last night the Kingsport, Tennessee Board of Mayor and Alderman voted to borrow $41.1 million for various projects.  According to the Kingsport Times-News quote below, the total debt has doubled in the last five years.  I might add that this has occurred during Mayor Dennis Phillips terms as mayor and John Campbell as city manager.

With this bond issuance, Kingsport’s total debt has doubled in the past five years, from $110 million in fiscal year 2006 to $218 million in fiscal year 2010, according to city records. Kingsport’s general fund debt will increase from the current amount of $92.6 million to $103.4 million for fiscal year 2010, while total city debt will go from $173.5 million to slightly more than $218 million.

Read more via Kingsport BMA approves $41.1 M in bonds – Kingsport Times-News Online.

Things must really be in bad shape for the city because they are borrowing $200k to replace a roof on the Renaissance Center and financing it for 20 years.  Borrowing money to replace a roof should be a maintenance item that is planned for and funded from within a yearly budget.

It would not surprise me that Kingsport will be the subject of many discussions by other cities on Kingsport’s management practices or lack thereof. 

Mayor Phillips, when can we expect the property tax increase?

Below is the spending that was approved

Below is data that was obtained form the website NeighborhoodScout which gives some interesting data concerning the high crime rate in Kingsport, Tennessee.  Kingsport is ranked as having a high crime rank by NeighborhoodScout and states that  Kingsport’s crime rate is higher than the average for the State of Tennessee and  United States.

Are our city officials more concerned about putting in a new swimming pool, expanding the convention center, building more hotels, annexing more property, getting more restaurants, etc. than reducing the high crime rate in Kingsport?

Kingsport, TN Elected Officials – Board of Mayor and Alderman

Mayor Dennis Phillips	Vice Mayor Ben Mallicote	Alderman Larry Munsey	Alderman Jantry Shupe	Alderman C. Ken Marsh, Jr.	Alderman Tom Parham	Alderwoman Valerie Joh

NeighborhoodScout

With a crime rate of 89 per one thousand residents, Kingsport has one of the highest crime rates in America compared to all communities of all sizes – from the smallest towns to the very largest cities. One’s chance of becoming a victim of either violent or property crime here is one in 11. Within Tennessee, more than 90% of the communities have a lower crime rate than Kingsport.

Separately, it is always interesting and important to compare a city’s crime rate with those of similarly sized communities – a fair comparison as larger cities tend to have more crime. NeighborhoodScout has done just that. With a population of 44,560, Kingsport has a combined rate of violent and property crime that is very high compared to other places of similar population size. Regardless of whether Kingsport does well or poorly compared to all other cities and towns in the US of all sizes, compared to places with a similar population, it fares badly. Few other communities of this size have a crime rate as high as Kingsport.

The crime data that NeighborhoodScout used for this analysis are the seven offenses from the uniform crime reports, collected by the FBI from 17,000 local law enforcement agencies, and include both violent and property crimes, combined.

Now let us turn to take a look at how Kingsport does for violent crimes specifically, and then how it does for property crimes. This is important because the overall crime rate can be further illuminated by understanding if violent crime or property crimes (or both) are the major contributors to the general rate of crime in Kingsport.

For Kingsport, we found that the violent crime rate is one of the highest in the nation, across communities of all sizes (both large and small). Violent offenses tracked included forcible rape, murder and non-negligent manslaughter, armed robbery, and aggravated assault, including assault with a deadly weapon. According to NeighborhoodScout’s analysis of FBI reported crime data, your chance of becoming a victim of one of these crimes in Kingsport is one in 107.

In addition, NeighborhoodScout found that a lot of the crime that takes place in Kingsport is property crime. Property crimes that are tracked for this analysis are burglary, larceny over fifty dollars, motor vehicle theft, and arson. In Kingsport, your chance of becoming a victim of a property crime is one in 13, which is a rate of 80 per one thousand population.

Click here to see the data below as well as a map showing where the safest places are in Kingsport.  At the top of the page you can get data for a different city.

I have done many posts concerning the median age and population in Sullivan County, Tennessee and  Sullivan County has one of the oldest populations in the state (click here to view the data).

The data below is from the state and I hope will help illustrate exactly what will happen if Sullivan County continues as it has in the past.

Below in the graph is a breakdown on the population for the different age groups in Sullivan County for the census year 2000 and projections for year 2025.  Sullivan County population in year 2000 was 153,048 and is projected to be 161,262 in year 2025.

Note that in the graph below that the 2025 population for all age groups are less for age groups that are under the 55 to 59 age group.  The year 2025 graph shows that the population numbers shows the population growing for for ages group 55 and up.  The largest single age group with the largest population is the age group 75 and up and the larger part of them are females.

Is Sullivan County equipped to handle the aging population?  There should great demand for those businesses offering services to the elderly.  But, if you are a pediatric physician, you might want to start your practice elsewhere because of the low birth rate in Sullivan County.

The table below gives the actual population numbers for the different age groups.  I have added the year 2010 which is not plotted in the above graph so you can see what is projected for 2010.  The data from the state is given as number of males and females for each age group and I have added the male and female population numbers together in the table below and the graph.

Population Projections for Sullivan County, TN

You can view the data for other Tennessee Counties which includes projections for every five years up to year 2025.  Click on the link below to go to the Tennessee webpage

Demographic Information on Age-Gender Composition

In addition to the population projections for each Tennessee city and county contained in the report above, you may access more detailed cohort-component data for a city or county below. (Please note that updated demographic projections will be forthcoming.)

Please either click a county on the Tennessee state map or click a county name in the alphabetical list below the map to access the cohort-component data. Note the Word of Caution following table listed below.

Click here to view state data for Tennessee Counties

---

I am one of the older population and am concerned about the future of Sullivan County.   No, you can’t move us out of the county, but you should be concerned about the future of the county when we have left this world.  There must be something in place to keep young people in Sullivan County.  A good start would be get companies that have good paying jobs to locate here.   If you too are concerned, talk to your elected officials.  You can email them at the following links.

Comments are welcome.