Platform & Positions

I will never promise that I will never vote to raise taxes, because I believe that would be an irresponsible promise to make without knowing what the town’s finances, inflation rate, revenues, and needs will look like in the future.

My goal is to keep taxes as low as responsibly possible. That starts with controlling spending, eliminating waste, and making sure taxpayers are getting value for the money we already collect. But “cut spending” is not always as simple as it sounds. Cybersecurity, emergency radios, fire equipment, police staffing, roads, and other necessary services cost real money—and those costs increase over time.

I believe local government has three priorities that must come first: police, fire, and roads. If we are neglecting those basic responsibilities while spending excessively elsewhere, then our priorities are wrong.

Property taxes also cannot be discussed without looking at sales-tax revenue. White Bluff has historically had a relatively limited commercial base, which places more pressure on property-tax revenue. My long-term goal is to change that balance by attracting and supporting the right kinds of businesses so more of the town’s revenue growth comes from commerce rather than continually asking homeowners to carry the load.

If sales-tax revenue is growing strongly enough to keep pace with legitimate expenses, I see little reason to raise the property-tax rate simply for the sake of raising it. If sales-tax revenue is flat or declining while inflation steadily erodes the town’s purchasing power, however, I would rather consider small, measured adjustments when necessary than ignore the problem for years and eventually hit residents with a major correction.

I experienced the consequences of that kind of deferred maintenance early in my first term. Departments had gone years without some of the resources and replacements they needed, requiring the Council to address accumulated needs rather than simply one year’s expenses. The town’s budget discussions during my term reflect significant debates over staffing, police resources, equipment, and other long-deferred needs. 

The better solution is long-term planning: control waste, invest town funds wisely, grow the commercial tax base, manage residential growth strategically, and keep our essential services properly funded before problems become emergencies.

I will not vote for a tax increase casually. But I also will not promise voters something that sounds good politically if the numbers eventually prove it irresponsible. I will let the facts, the town’s needs, and responsible stewardship guide my vote.

White Bluff is going to grow. The real question is whether that growth happens intentionally or whether we simply react to whatever comes our way.

I am open to growth because growth can bring things our community needs: more businesses, better shopping and grocery options, restaurants, jobs, recreation, a stronger sales-tax base, and more opportunities for residents. But I am not interested in growth at any cost. During my first term, I supported stronger development standards precisely because I believe the kind, location, design, and infrastructure demands of growth matter just as much as the number of new rooftops.

My goal is what I often call “unnoticed growth.” White Bluff should be able to grow and gain amenities without losing the small-town Tennessee character that makes people want to live here. That means preserving trees and open space, encouraging development that fits the land and our community, protecting the character of neighborhoods, and designing growth so additional traffic and density do not simply overwhelm the center of town.

I believe we need a healthy mix of residential and commercial growth. Businesses need customers, and that means population matters. At the same time, residential development must be accompanied by thoughtful planning for roads, utilities, public safety, and other services. Higher-density development can make sense in the right location and with the right design and infrastructure, but it should not simply be dropped wherever land happens to be available.

Developers should also be responsible for the direct impacts their projects create. If a development requires road improvements, traffic changes, turn lanes, connections, or other infrastructure because of that project, I believe those impacts should be addressed as part of the development process rather than simply handed to existing taxpayers whenever possible.

I also believe White Bluff must plan roads and connectivity years ahead of time. New neighborhoods should not all funnel onto the same few roads. Future connections, alternate routes, and mobility planning can allow people to reach where they are going without turning the heart of town into a traffic corridor.

And finally, I am willing to say no to a project—even one that promises growth—when the location is wrong, the infrastructure cannot support it, the design does not fit the community, or the proposal does not appear to serve White Bluff’s long-term interests.

I am not for growth or against growth in the abstract. I am for the right growth, in the right place, with the right planning.

I believe property rights should begin with a presumption of freedom. If you own your property, you should generally be free to use and enjoy it as you see fit. If government is going to tell you that you cannot do something with your own property, I believe the burden should be on government to have a legitimate reason for saying no—not on you to prove why you should be allowed to say yes.

At the same time, property rights do not exist in isolation. Your neighbor has property rights too. When the use of one property begins creating a substantial impact on another through things like drainage problems, excessive noise, public-safety concerns, crime, significant traffic problems, or materially diminishing someone else's ability to use and enjoy their own property, that is where government may have a legitimate role.

That balance is one reason I believe zoning is necessary. A town has to make reasonable decisions about where residential, commercial, and industrial uses belong and how infrastructure is planned around them. But zoning can also become excessive when government begins micromanaging ordinary life or regulating simply because officials personally dislike how someone uses their property.

My preference is to regulate the actual impact of a use, not merely the label attached to it. A home business operating quietly from a backyard workshop is very different from a business generating constant customer traffic through a residential street. Higher-density housing may work well in one location and poorly in another. Short-term rentals may create serious problems in one community and virtually none in another.

I also prefer clear, predictable rules when we are dealing with major development. Developers should know the standards before they invest, and residents should know what protections are in place. During my term, the Town adopted measures dealing with traffic impacts, woodland protection, landscaping, and access management—exactly the kinds of rules intended to address the effects development can have beyond the boundaries of the property being developed. 

Aesthetics are a harder line. I do believe a town can reasonably protect its overall character, trees, landscaping, historic areas, and basic development quality. But those standards should be applied with a light hand. We should not make it so expensive or complicated to build that businesses and property owners are effectively regulated out of town.

My guiding principle is simple:

Your freedom to use your property should be broad until that use begins imposing substantial harm or cost on your neighbors or the community. And when government restricts that freedom, it should be able to clearly explain why.

I believe local government has three core responsibilities that have to come first: police, fire, and roads.

I do not rank one of those above the others. If any one of them is failing, the town has a serious problem. Public safety, emergency response, and reliable transportation infrastructure are foundational. If we cannot provide those basic services well, then everything else becomes secondary.

That does not mean parks, trash service, codes, sidewalks, community events, or other quality-of-life services do not matter. They absolutely do. Parks and events, in particular, contribute greatly to the social fabric of a community. But those services should be built on top of a stable foundation—not funded while the essentials are neglected.

For roads, I mean more than simply filling potholes. Roads include paving, drainage, traffic flow, future road connections, and long-term planning. A town can have beautifully paved streets and still fail its residents if growth leaves everyone sitting in traffic for forty-five minutes just trying to get out of town. That is why I believe mobility planning and future connections must be considered before congestion becomes permanent.

With police, one of our major goals during my first term was reaching the point where two officers are available at any given time, particularly for officer safety and backup. We have now reached that goal. Moving forward, I believe additional staffing should be tied to demonstrated needs such as population growth, crime trends, or increased territory rather than simply adding positions automatically.

Fire protection deserves the same scrutiny. I support properly equipping our fire department and improving response capability, but expensive purchases should produce a meaningful benefit. If a major piece of equipment costs taxpayers a million dollars but does not improve response time or capability compared with available mutual aid, I am going to ask why we should buy it. At the same time, I believe White Bluff should continue working toward stronger response times and a department capable of meeting the needs of a growing community.

I also strongly believe in preventive planning rather than crisis spending. Fire hoses, police vehicles, paving, equipment, and many other major expenses have predictable life cycles. We should know when they are approaching replacement, budget for them over time, and avoid allowing years of deferred maintenance to pile up into one enormous bill.

The same principle applies to vehicles. Rather than replacing an entire aging fleet at once and financing it through debt, I prefer a systematic replacement plan—such as replacing the oldest vehicle on a regular schedule and paying cash when feasible. That keeps equipment dependable while reducing the need for large loans and unnecessary interest expense.

Every department should be thinking several years ahead about major capital needs so the Council is not constantly being surprised by expenses that could have been anticipated.

My philosophy is simple:

Fund the essentials first. Maintain them responsibly. Plan ahead. Then build the amenities and quality-of-life services that make White Bluff an even better place to live.

I believe the town’s first job is to create an environment where businesses actually want to come: clear rules, reasonable development standards, responsive staff, good infrastructure, enough rooftops to support commerce, and a town government that understands the connection between economic growth and the tax burden on residents.

I am not opposed to actively recruiting businesses, especially when the mayor has built strong relationships and understands what the community needs. If we know a particular area is suited for commercial growth, or we see an opportunity that would clearly benefit White Bluff, I believe town leadership should use its relationships and networking to help move that opportunity forward.

I am also open to carefully structured incentives when the benefit is substantial and the reasoning is transparent. I do not believe taxpayers should simply hand money to private businesses. But if a major employer is considering White Bluff and an abatement or similar incentive could bring significant jobs and long-term tax revenue to the town, I am willing to consider it.

The same is true for infrastructure. My first instinct is that a developer or business should pay for the improvements their project directly requires. But there can be exceptions where a public infrastructure investment creates a clear long-term benefit for the entire town. In those cases, the numbers should make sense, the benefit should be defensible, and the community should be able to understand why the investment is being made.

I also believe White Bluff should continue improving the speed and predictability of its permitting and zoning processes. Businesses should be able to understand the rules before they invest. We should not require someone to appear before multiple boards for minor issues that qualified staff can objectively verify. Clear ordinances and efficient administration make it easier to do business without lowering our standards.

As far as the kinds of businesses I want to see, White Bluff needs more options across the board: grocery, restaurants, retail, recreation, entertainment, and appropriate industry. I support both local businesses and national chains, but I also believe different parts of town can serve different purposes. Our downtown and historic areas should preserve more of White Bluff’s local character, while larger commercial corridors can accommodate businesses that would not fit as naturally in the town center.

I would also like to see us make better use of the assets we already have. Our parks, festivals, outdoor recreation, proximity to natural attractions, and future opportunities can bring people into White Bluff who spend money at local businesses. Baseball tournaments, community events, outdoor recreation, and similar activities strengthen the social fabric of the town while also generating sales-tax revenue.

The goal is not growth for growth’s sake.

The goal is to create an environment where good businesses can succeed, residents have more options close to home, jobs are created, and a stronger sales-tax base helps reduce the pressure on property owners.

To me, transparency means more than technically complying with open-meetings laws or posting a stack of documents online. Residents—and the elected officials representing them—should be able to understand what their town is doing, what it is spending, why decisions are being made, and who is responsible for making them.

That starts with the budget.

I believe the Council should see what our department heads are actually requesting, not simply receive a finished budget from the mayor and be expected to assume it reflects every department’s needs. Department heads should have direct access to the Council, and council members should be able to hear honestly from the people responsible for police, fire, public works, parks, codes, and other departments before deciding how taxpayer dollars are allocated.

The same principle applies after the budget is adopted. Residents and council members should be able to determine what money was actually spent on, not merely see that an expense disappeared somewhere inside a broad departmental budget line. When thousands of taxpayer dollars are spent on a particular purchase, there should be enough documentation to understand what was bought and why.

I also believe elected officials should explain their votes. A simple “yes” or “no” may satisfy the legal requirement, but particularly on controversial or consequential issues, residents deserve to understand the reasoning behind the decision. That also protects the town. If an action is ever challenged, there should be a legitimate, defensible reason in the public record for why it was taken.

That does not mean every government decision needs a press conference. It does mean elected officials should be willing to say:

“Here is what I voted. Here is why I voted that way. And here are the facts I relied upon.”

Accessibility matters too. I choose to make myself unusually accessible—I communicate publicly, participate in community discussions, and even make my personal phone number available. I do not believe every elected official has to go that far, but residents should at minimum have a reliable way to contact their representatives and reasonably expect a response.

I would also like town information to become easier for ordinary residents to understand. Posting agendas, minutes, ordinances, budgets, and recordings is important, but simply dumping information online does not necessarily create understanding. Government documents are often written in technical language and lack the context behind a decision. Where practical, I would like to see public information presented more clearly and accessibly.

At the same time, transparency has to be balanced with fiscal responsibility. I would love better audio, video, and online access to meetings, but spending thousands of taxpayer dollars improving a livestream that only a handful of people watch may not be the best use of limited resources when police, fire, roads, or other needs remain.

Transparency also does not mean that everything should be public. Personnel matters, active criminal investigations, legitimate legal strategy, and other information protected for good reason should remain confidential when necessary. The goal is not reckless disclosure.

The goal is accountable government.

Residents should be able to know what their government is doing, understand why it is doing it, follow how their money is being spent, and hold their elected officials accountable for the decisions they make.

My Christian faith is not something I separate from the rest of my life. It shapes how I understand truth, morality, justice, stewardship, human dignity, responsibility, liberty, and the proper role of government.

I believe Jesus Christ is the ultimate source of truth, and Scripture provides the moral framework through which I understand right and wrong. That inevitably affects the way I govern, just as every elected official’s worldview affects the decisions they make.

Government is never completely morally neutral. Laws and policies necessarily reflect judgments about what is right, what is wrong, what should be protected, and what should be prohibited. The important question is not whether morality influences government, but where that morality comes from.

For me, that foundation is Christ and Scripture.

At the same time, I do not believe government should establish a religion or use the power of the state to force religious belief upon anyone. There is an important difference between government establishing religion and religious people bringing their convictions with them into public service.

I do not believe elected officials should be required to hide their faith, silence their convictions, or pretend that their worldview has no bearing on their decisions. I will never hide the fact that I am a Christian or where my principles come from.

But I also represent residents who do not share my faith or my political views.

That means listening carefully, treating people fairly, looking for common ground wherever possible, and applying the law equally. I can strongly disagree with someone and still represent them honestly and respectfully.

To me, conservative government begins with the idea of conserving what is good while correcting what is broken.

I want to preserve the character, values, freedoms, traditions, and way of life that make White Bluff and Tennessee worth calling home. But conserving what is good does not mean refusing to change. When something is inefficient, unjust, wasteful, outdated, or simply not working, we should fix it.

At the local level, conservative government also means limited government, fiscal responsibility, protection of property rights, personal responsibility, strong public safety, respect for individual liberty, and decisions being made as close to the people as reasonably possible.

I generally do not believe local government should spend its time inserting itself into every social or cultural controversy. Government has already grown far beyond its proper role in many areas of American life. My preference is for government to do its legitimate jobs well and leave people as free as possible.

There will, however, be times when local government is forced to make decisions involving moral questions—particularly when children, public property, equal access, public events, or community standards are involved. In those situations, I will make those decisions according to the same moral framework I use everywhere else: what I believe is true, just, natural, responsible, and consistent with my faith.

That does not mean forcing Christianity upon anyone.

Christianity itself recognizes that faith cannot be coerced. People are free to accept or reject what I believe. I will openly state my convictions, defend them, and when appropriate advocate for them, but that is fundamentally different from using government power to compel belief.

I believe America’s constitutional system was built upon assumptions about morality, ordered liberty, individual responsibility, and a people capable of governing themselves. Those principles remain important today.

So I make no apology for being a Christian in public office.

My faith tells me where truth comes from. Conservative principles help define the proper limits of government. And my responsibility as an elected official is to govern faithfully, fairly, transparently, and within the law for every resident of White Bluff—including those who disagree with me.