Outcry against the possibility of more industrial development in the southern end of Kenton County, a comparatively rural part of the region, continued this week at the most recent meeting of the Kenton County Fiscal Court.
“We are not going away,” said county resident Rhonda Shank at Tuesday’s meeting, encouraging the fiscal court members to “keep the southern Kenton County rural.”
Shank was one of four speakers who came out to express opposition to what the county is calling its Site Readiness Initiative in two areas of south Kenton County. This was not the first time people have spoken out: Residents expressed opposition in March in front of the fiscal court, in February before the Kenton County Planning Commission and at two public meetings, also in February.
A joint venture of the Kenton County Fiscal Court, Northern Kentucky Port Authority and Kenton County Planning and Development Services, the site readiness initiative aims to catalog available land in the county ideal for industrial development.
The initiative is in a very early phase; it does not necessarily represent a set-in-stone plan of action. Rather, it establishes guideposts for county officials to assess the amount of developable industrial space in south Kenton County.
The initiative located two areas of focus in the southwest end of the county, which are relatively flat and undeveloped. They also have access to multimodal freight infrastructure due to their proximity to I-71/75, CSX railway and the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport.
Focus Area 1 is located in the southwest of Kenton County, close to the Boone County border, US-25, KY-536 and a CSX railway. The area has a total acreage of 2,180, with a potential building coverage of approximately 22.38% of the land.
Focus Area 2 is located in west central Kenton County along the Boone and Grant County borders. It has direct access to US-25. The southern portion of the identified land provides the best area for long-term industrial development.
The details of the land use within the focus areas have changed several times, but the most recent maps the county has provided, released on Feb. 10, are below.
Kimberly Clayton Code, another county resident, called attention to a presentation given at the public meeting at Piner Elementary School in February, arguing that figures presented in the presentation about purported support for industrial development among county residents was misleading as the 2016 survey question that gathered the information (which you can read here on Table 12, page 15) didn’t allow for people to say they were opposed to industrial development outright.
She was also worried about the prospect of using eminent domain to seize private property. Kenton County Judge/Executive Kris Knochelmann has stated several times that the county would not be using eminent domain to develop.
He could not, however, speak for state authorities, and Clayton-Code wanted the court to know that residents were “concerned about eminent domain from utility companies, the Transportation Cabinet or any other government sector.”
She called upon the fiscal court to pass a resolution opposing aiding other government sectors or utility providers in leveraging eminent domain for developmental purposes and retract its statements related to the survey.
She concluded her statement by calling for another resolution “that pauses the SRI with a specific designated timeline to reflect the statements in the letter issued by Judge Knochelmann on March 10.“
The other two speakers expressed similar sentiments. The fiscal court did not pass any resolutions related to the site readiness plan.
Still, the county commissioners took a few moments at the end of the meeting to respond to the public comment. Both Commissioners Joe Nienaber Jr. and Jon Draud (commissioner Beth Sewell did not attend the meeting) were complimentary of residents’ willingness to participate in the process, even if it meant exposing themselves to criticism.
“These are emotional issues…,” said Nienaber. “I assure you that what we’re doing, from our perspective, is studying. Ultimately, property owners control their own property rights and their own property decisions.”
“I had a farm, I certainly would not want any industry next to it,” Draud admitted, adding that the initiative was early on in its implementation.
“We can understand how you’re concerned about it,” Draud went on to say. “I know the judge and all of us are sensitive about that issue. It’s not predetermined that that’s going to happen.”
“This is an ongoing process that continues,” said Knochelmann, encouraging people to stay up to date on various announcements related to the initiative.
Residents can sign up for email updates about the initiative at kentoncounty.org/706/Site-Readiness-Initiative.