Car 64 Where Are You?
Why can't all taxpayers use this racetrack? Especially bikers who helped pay for it with the 11,400% increase in tickets on the Dragon? Perhaps a lawsuit is in order...
Otherwise it's back to the DIY racin schools:
Blount County Board of Zoning Appeals approves Sheriff's driving track expansion
September 04. 2010
The Board of Zoning Appeals on Thursday approved a request to expand the Blount County Sheriff's Office Driver Training Facility from a district to a regional training center. The property, located on Honeysuckle Road, is zoned suburbanizing.
Being granted the special exception ensures the Sheriff's Office can allow regional agencies to use the facility. Building Commissioner Roger Fields said. “The special exception allows the Driver Training Facility to be used by regional law enforcement agencies and operators of other emergency vehicles.”
The special exception was opposed by Raleigh and Judy Dixon, who live on an adjoining property. The Dixons are involved in a lawsuit against Blount County that claims the property is not properly zoned for the driving track.
“This is not a new development,” attorney Thomas Mabry said. “The zoning has been improperly used since 2006.”
Judy Dixon said the facility is a nuisance that prevents her and her husband from sleeping at night. “It's just unreal. I beg you, please don't let anybody else come back there. We've got enough.”
After the vote, Judy Dixon said, “I am disenheartened and very disappointed in the way the BZA voted. No one on the zoning board, including (Fields) and the Blount County lawyer ... could define district or regional zoning. Without the proper knowledge on the definition of the zoning, how could the whole BZA board vote yes?”
The BZA voted unanimously to approve the special exception with the condition that the Sheriff's Office improve the berm that buffers the Dixons' property from the facility.
Why BCSO built a racin school, to arrest bikers for exercising their First Amendment Constitutional right to give cops the Middle Finger
Another zoning fiasco
by Jim Folts, Blount County commissioner
At the Blount County Commission Agenda meeting, citizen Judy Dixon made an impassioned plea for some justice in her zoning dispute with the Sheriff. Dixon's home once backed on a pleasant open field, zoned "Surburbanizing", a residential zoning designation.
Then, out of nowhere, without obtaining the required building, zoning, grading or environmental approvals, the Blount County Sheriff build a "driving track" on the land. Before they knew what happened, the Dixons were being treated to flashing lights, squealing tires, sirens and grenades, sometimes late at night.
Then to maximize the disruption to the Dixons quiet retirement, the Sheriff invited 30 other agencies, from as far away as Kingston, to use the facility.
Now the Sheriff has applied for a rezoning of the land to "Regional", which apparently will enable the Sheriff to invite his friends from all over the state and region to come use the Blount County taxpayer-funded facility.
Meanwhile, the Dixons and their neighbors suffer. This is one of many cases where persons connected to the political machine have made a mockery of the county permitting and zoning regulations. If the 'connected few' can ignore our zoning and permit regualtions, what good are they?
Comments
Often the only recourse for highhandedness by the County Commission, Planning Commission, or BZA is to sue them. That takes money, nerve, persistence, patience, and "standing" to bring a suit at all. The Blount Excavation/Ridge Rd. travesty, the VJShore/Maple Lane FarmsBZA dispute, and now the Dixons, who as far as I know have not tried to sue. It is too bad that regular folks have to try to enforce the law since the officials will not.
"The Sheriff has done a lot. He has taken a small department and turned it into a large department." He has built a political machine and will bankrupt the county if he has his way.
"Maybe, the area was built without making everyone happy." The question is, was it built legally? If the Dixons don’t get their case dismissed on a “technicality”, a jury will likely find that it wasn’t. Because it wasn’t. "Try, if you will, pulling all support and see what happens the next time there is a break-in, robbery, assault, rape, murder, child abuse, fire, car wreck, etc." Same thing that would happen if the BCSO cut its spending 20%. Unless an officer was actually on the scene before the crime happened (and at that point you’re talking lottery style odds), everything you mention would wind up in the police coming out and writing a report.
I guess Mary3473 sees no reason for the sheriff's department to be bound by the law or for the BZA to follow it in cases where the sheriff's department wants to do something. It would seem appropriate for the law enforcement people to be especially interested in following the law and not to see how far they can push people and the BZA around.
No idea of the person's qualifications - Vote anyway
A Blount County Commission meeting was held on September 7 to nominate or confirm more than 40 candidates for the Commissions and Committees needed to make the government function. Unfortunately, aside from four appointments to the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Commissioners were not given any information about experience and qualifications of the nominees or appointees. No business would hire a person for a job, without such information.
Commissioner Jim Folts offered an amendment requesting a resume or similar document on each candidate.
Incredibly, the amendment was voted down. Burchfield, Carver, Caylor, Farmer, French, Greene, Harrison, Hasty, Helton, Kirby, Lail, Lambert, Melton, Moon, Samples and Wright voted NO. Only Commissioner Murrell and Commissioner Folts voted for it. Commissioners voting on important issues without any information, other than directions from the political machine, are the reason this County is in a mess. Hopefully, our Commissioners will begin to think for themselves, before it is too late.
Noise drives couple to sue BCSO
Pair says zoning bans use of land behind house for training
MARYVILLE - Raleigh C. Dixon and his wife, Judy, say sleep is hard to come by when the car tires are screeching like an action movie on the asphalt behind the Honeysuckle Road home they have occupied for three decades.
That's why they're suing the Blount County Sheriff's Office, using zoning regulations as justification for preventing the agency from conducting driving training there.
The suit was filed Thursday in Blount County Chancery Court and also seeks to enjoin the BCSO from conducting a Law Enforcement Training Academy on the site.
The facility is at the end of Honeysuckle Road off County Farm Road near William Blount High School. The area, the Dixons' suit says, is zoned R-1, a rural designation that allows agricultural uses and places fewer restrictions on it than more urban zone classifications.
The suit says that a driving track and law enforcement academy are not among the permitted uses for the property, but the Dixons make no pretense that the underlying reason for the court action is to do anything other than stop the noise that they say keeps them awake and causes "disruption of the quiet enjoyment" of their 7.5, bought-and-paid-for acres.
"We worked hard," Raleigh Dixon said, "and paid off the mortgage," doubling up on the payments to get it paid for before he retired from the Maryville Electrical Department.
"The very last thing we thought we would have to do," he said, is to file a lawsuit to fight what the suit calls increasing "traffic, loud noise and congestion" in "a peaceful neighborhood" during daylight hours and as late as 11:30 p.m.
Sheriff Jim Berrong declined comment on the pending litigation but has said he wants the facility to be a good neighbor to those living nearby.
The suit also seeks termination of the BCSO's Law Enforcement Training Academy on the site, saying it is a "commercial activity" prohibited by the R-1 zoning.
Berrong has said that the academy holds down costs to county taxpayers by making it unnecessary for his trainees to be sent out of town for training and even helps pay for itself by charging other police agencies for sending their officers to Blount County to be trained. But he says there is no profit in the venture and it is not a commercial activity.
A new academy session is due to begin Sept. 1 and last through Nov. 13, according to the suit.
Dixon has a recording he says he made on April 7 at 11:15 p.m. of the screeching tires at the driving track.
The mini-cassette recording was made, he said, on his porch, which is 100 yards from a 10-foot-high berm the county built as a sound deflector. And there is a sizable outbuilding between the house and the berm.
The county has planted hundreds of small trees atop the berm to help absorb the sound, but the trees are still less than knee-high.
In addition to the tire noise, Dixon says some of the cars the BCSO uses either have defective mufflers or no mufflers at all, making the activity on the driving course even more unbearable.
Dixon said Berrong has agreed to do everything in his power to be a good neighbor, but "he wouldn't want this next to his house."
And after the driving sessions, Dixon says, he can hear those at the track "hooting and hollering like kids at recess."
The suit asks the court to declare the activity at the site nonagricultural, make it subject to the county's zoning regulations, prohibit for-profit activity, halt the academy session planned for September and permanently enjoin the Sheriff's Office from using the site as such.
"We are not asking anything unreasonable," he said. "We just want our peace and quiet back."
Comments
I bet the area will be rezoned because of the lawsuit. If BCSO has spent there money they will not walk away. Anyway Dixon might win BUT they may want to move very far away. Most LEO's don't take challenge to there operations lightly.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
BCSO Training Division
Director of Training
Tom Spangler
The primary function of the Training Unit is to plan and coordinate all training that the Sheriff’s Office employees undertake each year. Certified and correction’s officers in Tennessee are required by law to complete 40 hours of training each year to maintain their certification. It is the duty of the training staff to assure that all POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training) certified, corrections, and civilian deputies receive this required professional development training.
Officers are trained in a variety of specialized subjects, including domestic violence, child sexual abuse, defensive tactics, officer survival, emergency vehicle operations (EVOC), DUI certification, simunition’s training, instructor development, TASER and chemical weapons certification, firearms qualification, and a variety of other classes related to law enforcement.
Beginning in 2006, the Sheriff’s Office began conducting inservice training for Maryville, Alcoa, and Townsend Police Departments.
The Sheriff’s Office and the Air National Guard continue to work together to upgrade and expand the firing range and training facility, located off County Farm Road in west Blount County. The facility encompasses 33.8 acres.
A five acre driving track was completed in December 2006, and is used for EVOC training.
The Air National Guard built a state-of-the-art ropes course at the training facility in 2003.
Basic Training Academy
The BCSO Basic Law Enforcement Academy began in September 2007 and graduated the inaugural class of 13 recruits in November. The POST approved 11 week academy academy instructs recruits in criminal justice, firearms, emergency vehicle operations, report writing, defensive tactics, basic police tactics, DUI, traffic accident reconstruction, as well as other law enforcement related courses. The academy is scheduled twice a year, and is held at Eagleton Middle School, as well as at the Sheriff’s Office Training Facility in west Blount County.
Training Classes
Below is a link to a list of training classes that are being offered at the Blount County Sheriff's office. If you would like more information about these classes please contact the Training Division, 865-273-5000.
Download 2010 Training Calendar PDF (41 KB)
Will Court decision mean more threats from the Sheriff?
by Jim Folts, Blount County commissioner
You have worked for an organization for years. One day your boss calls you in. He tells you he has a tape of a conversation where his wife, suspicious about his extracurricular activities, asked you to confirm her suspicions. He tells you that: “your ass is fired, you get out of here”. He then tells you: “I’ll burn your house down, set your dog on fire and there won’t be a member of your family left, do you understand me?” Then he adds “I won’t hire it done, I will do it myself! Do you understand me?” Would you feel that your rights have been violated?
This is the scary picture painted in a recent lawsuit ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of appeals. These threats were not made by some Mafia thug. They were allegedly made by Blount County Sheriff, James Berrong.
Incredibly, the Court of Appeals concluded Berrong’s threats did not rise to a constitutional violation because the threats did not “shock the conscience”. We do not know about the Appeals Court Judges, but these threats surely shock consciences of most of our citizens – especially when the come from the top law enforcement officer in Blount County.
The department is already facing multiple $1,000,000+ lawsuits alleging serious mistreatment of citizens – including a local physician [biker Dr "Doc" Wooten MD was nearly tortured to death by BCSO after his 173 mph speed ticket on the Dragon]. The lack of professionalism at the top of our Sheriff’s Department seems to have the county careening toward disaster.
Our greatest concern is that this court decision will encourage even more threats and intimidation of citizens by the Blount County Sheriff’s Department. Be careful out there – especially of the top dogs in our Sheriff’s department.
Sheriff threatens women, elderly, even Commissioners
by Jim Folts, Blount County commissioner
"I'll burn your house down, set your dog on fire and there won�t be a member of your family left, do you understand me? I won't hire it done, I will do it myself! Do you understand me?"
-Deals Gap Blount County sheriff James B. Wrong, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Nuchols v. Berrong, No. 04-5645, July 11, 2005
Dragonater Note: Sheriff Berrong's family allegedly has a long history of arson, and allegedly murder by arson. Tennessee sheriffs have a long history of arson of businesses that fail to pay the sheriffs' extortion rackets. Tennessee leads the nation in sheriffs arrested and convicted for dope dealing...
Recently, there have been disturbing reports of harassment and threats by some members the Blount County Sheriff’s department against citizens of the county who dare to criticize the department.
The latest example occurred at the January Commission meeting. Ron McTigue, 77 years old, found himself being waved out of the Commission room into the hall by Sheriff James Berrong. The Sheriff told McTigue that if he continued to ask questions about what happened to the 28 Sheriff’s vehicles missing from the recent inventory, that he would sue McTigue. Mr. McTigue, is seriously ill, partly from the lifelong effects from being a Marine fighting in Korea. The cost of drugs for he and his wife leave very little extra money. He was shaken by the Sheriff’s threat, particularly because, just a few months ago, in a similar encounter, the Sheriff ordered McTigue “to be in my office tomorrow at 10am”. McTigue declined the Sheriff’s order. Strangely, a black unmarked car followed McTigue home from the Commission meeting and parked in front of his house for more than four hours. In fear for his safety and the safety of his wife, McTigue sat for the entire time behind his door with a shotgun ready. But McTigue is not about to knuckle under to the Sheriff’s threats. Mr. McTigue says:”I did not get shot at in Korea only to be intimidated by a Sheriff who refuses to answer a simple taxpayer question.”
Sadly, this is not the first time the Sheriff and some members of his department have tried to harass or intimidate citizens. In 2005, the county paid $50,000 of taxpayer money to settle a sexual harassment suit filed by a county employee against the Sheriff.
In an even more serious case, Sheriff James Berrong and the County are being sued for more than a million dollars by an elderly lady, because the Sheriff allegedly told the woman that he would burn her house down, set her dog on fire, and kill everyone in her family.
The Sheriff’s department has also attacked leaders of citizens groups who question the actions of the department. In a recent letter to the editor, the Assistant Deputy Chief for Internal Affairs and Training, (ironically the guy within the department responsible for maintaining standards of professionalism) called the leader of a leading citizens group a “vampire”. His choice of words tells us everything we need to know about his professionalism.
More Sheriff’s harassment was directed at another citizens group when the group placed flyers critical of the Sheriff, but supporting the working-level deputies, on a table designated by the Commission for such materials. One of the Sheriff’s deputies grabbed the flyers off the table, saying “this material don’t need to be here” and threw the flyers in a garbage can. When a member of the citizens group questioned why the deputy did such a thing, the deputy replied: “because I wanted to, and because I can”. The deputy continued, telling the elderly man “you can get it out of the trash can if you want one”. An immediate public complaint was made to the Mayor, who was chairing the meeting. The Mayor said such conduct was unacceptable and promised to deal with the matter like a “Marine drill sergeant”. Weeks later, when questioned about what disciplinary action had been taken, the Mayor said it was “the Sheriff’s problem”. Now, months later, there is no sign that any disciplinary action was taken by Sheriff Berrong.
Even County Commissioners are victims of harassment by the Sheriff and his minions. In one recent case, a Commissioner requested copies of certain expenditures made by the Sheriff’s department. His request was greeted by a letter, from the Assistant Deputy Chief of Internal Affairs and Training, which accused the Commissioner of having “stupid tendencies” and being a “coward”. The Sheriff’s Assistant Deputy Chief went on to say: “You are absolutely scared to death to come to the Sheriff’s Office and meet”. While the Commissioner is not a coward, who could blame him for being reluctant to come to the Sheriff’s office, in view of the harassment and threats recounted here.
There are many good, professional, deputies who work at the Sheriff’s department. They understand that their job is to uphold and enforce the law. Unfortunately, there are also a few people at the department (who are often in senior positions) who don’t seem to take professionalism seriously. They seem to think they are the law. Those people are no better than the thugs they are supposed to be chasing.
Auditors Arrive - 48 cars missing
by Jim Folts, Blount County commissioner
You, our members, do have an impact.
Back in January we asked the Commissioners why, according to the State Audit Report, the Sheriff needed 263 vehicles when he only had 268 employees. Since this total employee number included more than 100 jail guards, cafeteria workers, clerical and other workers who have no need for a county vehicle, we observed that the number of vehicles seemed extraordinarily high. We also pointed out that Sullivan county does essentially the same law enforcement job with 130 vehicles.
Our confusion, turned to serious concern when the Sheriff told the News Sentinel, in a January 20th article, that: “the department has a maximum of about 180 vehicles”. Repeated requests to the County Finance Department for an explanation of the difference in Audit Report number and the Sheriff’s number went unanswered. In March, the Mayor joined the fray to “set the record straight”, but only added to the confusion.
At the end of February, we wrote a letter to the State Comptroller requesting help from the state auditors in getting to the bottom of this problem. At our subsequent meetings, we requested that our members also write to the Comptroller requesting his help. Your letters worked.
The state auditor arrived in the County a few weeks ago. That is the good news.
The bad news, according to our sources, is the auditor found that the Sheriff has 239 vehicles, including 24 additional cars he bought last January. The county books said he had 263 plus 24, or a total of 287 vehicles. The auditor was able to find only 239. What happened to the other 48 vehicles? We have called the county Finance Director, David Bennett, several times seeking a detailed reconciliation of the disposition of every one of these 48 missing vehicles. Mr. Bennett has not returned our calls.
Our sources tell us the political “spin” that will be put on this problem is that paperwork problems are to blame. That is a lot of spin. Yes, a paperwork problem might explain one or two missing vehicles – but not a whole parking lot full of vehicles. That takes a major breakdown of the Sheriff’s office and county financial control systems. That also may be one reason why law enforcement in Blount county costs 39% more per person than in Sullivan county.
So where are we now? The Audit report said the Sheriff should have 287 vehicles (263 plus the 24 new ones). The Sheriff said we have no more than 180. The latest auditor says the Sheriff has 239. And, no one is answering questions about the missing 48 vehicles.
But the Sheriff wants the taxpayers to support a tax increase, so that he can have even more money to spend next year. Does this make sense to you?
No comments:
Post a Comment