Erosion of Trust: Understanding the Gaps Between Promises and Reality
When we were first informed about the proposed roundabout project, we were assured that our concerns and ideas would be taken into account. However, over time, we encountered several roadblocks—each attributed to either local or federal regulations that were supposedly non-negotiable. We were told there were no alternatives, no adjustments that could be made, and that the design was essentially set in stone.
As engaged community members, we trusted that the information we were being given was accurate and that these constraints were unavoidable. But as we dug deeper into the details, it became increasingly clear that many of the reasons provided for dismissing our input were not as rigid as we were led to believe. In fact, many of the explanations seemed to be more a matter of choice than compliance.
What We Were Told vs. What We Have Learned
Design Flexibility
We were repeatedly informed that changes to the roundabout’s design were not possible due to strict local or federal regulations. However, upon reviewing both TDOT and FHWA guidelines, we discovered that roundabout designs are flexible by nature. These guidelines actually encourage context-sensitive solutions—designs that fit the unique needs of a specific location. The rigid approach we were told was necessary doesn’t align with these standards. It begs the question: why weren’t alternatives seriously considered?Property Acquisition
Early in the process, we were informed that the use of eminent domain was an unfortunate but required part of the project. Yet, state recommendations emphasize minimizing right-of-way acquisition and working with property owners to reduce impact wherever possible. In our case, this principle wasn’t applied, and more property than necessary seems to have been targeted for acquisition.Environmental Concerns
We were told the floodplain wouldn’t be affected by this roundabout’s construction. Yet we’ve since learned that adding significant hardscape in a FEMA-designated floodplain could have serious environmental consequences, increasing flood risks for nearby homes. These risks were never discussed openly with us during the planning process, despite federal and state guidelines stressing the importance of environmental assessments.Traffic Studies and Justification
It was implied that the current roundabout size and layout were non-negotiable due to pre-existing traffic studies. However, no specific warrant studies or location-specific data have been shared to justify the size and complexity of this roundabout. Why weren’t these studies made available to us, and why were our requests for smaller, more appropriate designs dismissed?
The Impact of Misinformation
These gaps between what we were told and what we’ve now discovered have unfortunately led to an erosion of trust in the decision-making process. We entered this process in good faith, expecting transparency and cooperation. Instead, we’ve encountered conflicting information, vague justifications, and a lack of open communication.
This project affects our homes, our families, and our community—and we deserve a clear understanding of the reasoning behind every decision. Trust is built on transparency, and transparency requires a commitment to openly sharing the facts, even when the answers may not be convenient or easy.
Moving Forward
We still believe in the possibility of finding a solution that works for both the City and its residents. But for that to happen, the lines of communication must remain open, honest, and respectful. Going forward, we ask for more transparency in the planning process, more accountability from decision-makers, and a genuine effort to work with the community rather than around it.
The erosion of trust can be repaired, but only with a commitment to clear, factual communication—and a willingness to admit when previous statements might need reevaluation.