Note: This letter was sent to Oak Ridge City Council members before the Monday evening vote on a property transfer resolution related to Main Street Oak Ridge and American Museum of Science and Energy.
Members of Oak Ridge City Council:
I have several questions regarding the proposed transfer of the American Museum of Science and Energy (AMSE) land and surrounding property to the newest mall developers. My questions arise from 45 years of tax-paying residency in Oak Ridge, and decades of hearing  many eventually broken promises about mall redevelopment.
(1) What will happen to the Museum? The AMSE has been a showcase (somewhat faded in recent years due to DOE neglect) for Oak Ridge’s proud history. With the advent of the Manhattan Project National Park, its significance would seem to be enhanced. It will take  years for the National Park Service to finalize its plans and perhaps develop a local headquarters for the park, and so the Museum would appear to be especially important now. If the mall developers do take possession, will the Museum simply be bulldozed, in the hope of attracting more retail establishments? Given the city’s previous experience with organized retail development, I can easily imagine a large pile of bare dirt sitting undisturbed for decades, perhaps with an abandoned rusty earthmover on top, where we once had a monument to our history and scientific leadership, and a resource for teachers and tourists.
(2) I have seen differing values placed on that property in local  publications and on the City web site. One said $200,000, another said $200,000 per acre. Given the 18-plus acres involved, that’s a huge difference. The former seems far too cheap for 18 acres of central city property located on major roadways; the latter seems expensive. What is the correct price that is being proposed?
(3) Perhaps most important—why is it necessary for the mall developers to take ownership of the Museum-related property anyway? Their letter seemed to imply that they want a non-compete agreement and/or a first option to buy the property, if it should ever become commercially available. Those possibilities do not seem to require transferring ownership to the developers; I believe that a few good lawyers could work out agreements that would satisfy those needs.
I ask Council to proceed with caution. I was astonished to see that the new developers, after months of schedule slippages, had the audacity to place a short timeline on the City. Please feel bound to your civic responsibilities and carefully consider the long-term implications of your actions. Loss of a functioning Museum and potential NPS headquarters site in exchange for vague promises of future tax monies may not be a good bargain.
Sincerely,
Rayford P. Hosker, Jr.
Oak Ridge
Don Connelly says
Beautifully spoken Mr. Hosker. Thanbk you.
Mike Mahathy says
Ray Evans corrected the misstated price of $200,000 at the city council meeting to be $200,000/acre which is the market value. Mr. Huotari also ran a correction here on this publication saying the say. It is $200,000/acre.
johnhuotari says
Rayford, the resolution that City Council adopted used a price of $200,000 per acre. That’s the rate we used in the original story. I think at least one of the other documents attached to the resolution used the $200,000 figure. I think I initially used that $200,000 (total) number in one of our other stories, but I later corrected it, as Mike Mahathy pointed out elsewhere in this thread.
Neil Wilson of RealtyLink confirmed at last week’s City Council meeting that $200,000 per acre is the correct number.
I hope that helps.
Thank you,
John