Project River is being presented as an $11 billion economic opportunity for Cleveland and Bradley County, and there is no question that a project of that size deserves serious consideration. But I believe we may be asking the wrong question. The question should not simply be, “How much money is being invested?” The better question is, “Is this the best possible use of this land?”

Project River would use roughly 850 acres for a massive energy and data-center development that could include natural-gas generation, biomass generation and a large data center.

That is a major industrial development, but this is also land near the Hiwassee River. Once property like this is committed to heavy industrial use, it becomes extremely difficult to ever use it for something else.

Before Cleveland and Bradley County make that kind of long-term decision, I believe we should seriously compare Project River with other possibilities for the same area.

Imagine a portion of this property developed around the river with homes, condominiums, a hotel or resort, restaurants, a marina, cabins, walking and biking trails, fishing and boating access, retail shops, an entertainment attraction and public river access. That type of development could generate property taxes, sales taxes, hotel taxes, utility revenue, tourism spending and jobs. It could also bring people into Cleveland who would spend money at local restaurants, stores, gas stations and other businesses.

Most importantly, those types of developments actually benefit from being close to the river. A data center does not need a scenic river location in order to operate. A marina does. A waterfront restaurant does. A resort does. River-oriented housing does.

Bradley County's own planning documents have recognized the Hiwassee River as an important economic and recreational asset and have encouraged greater economic use and public access to the river. If that has been part of our long-term planning, then it is fair to ask whether turning hundreds of acres near the river into heavy industrial use is the best way to accomplish that goal.

I am not suggesting Project River would bring no economic benefit. It could generate a very large amount of property-tax revenue. But the public deserves to see the actual numbers rather than simply hearing that this is an $11 billion investment.

An $11 billion investment does not automatically mean $11 billion of taxable property. Residents deserve to know exactly how much Cleveland will receive each year, how much Bradley County will receive, whether there will be a PILOT agreement or other tax incentives, what exemptions may apply, and what those payments are expected to look like 10, 20 and 30 years from now.

Those numbers should then be compared with what other uses of this land could generate over the same period.

That comparison should include property taxes, sales taxes, hotel taxes, utility revenue, jobs, tourism spending, infrastructure costs, schools, roads, emergency services, environmental impacts and the effect on surrounding property values. It should also include something that is harder to put on a spreadsheet - the value of preserving a limited natural resource for future generations.

Bradley County already has industrial parks and areas intended for industrial development. I understand that a project as large as Project River has very specific requirements involving acreage, electricity, natural gas, fiber and other infrastructure, and not every industrial property would be capable of supporting it. But that makes another question even more important: Why does this project need this particular location?

If another location could accommodate the project on land with far less residential, recreational or tourism potential, shouldn't that possibility be seriously examined before we give up land near the river?

This is not an argument against technology, business or data centers. An $11 billion investment should absolutely get our attention. But large developments should be placed where they make the most long-term sense for the entire community.

Before Cleveland makes a decision that could permanently change this area, I would like to see an independent study comparing Project River with residential, tourism, recreational and mixed-use alternatives for the property. Then make those findings public.

If Project River clearly produces the greatest long-term benefit for Cleveland and Bradley County, that study would strengthen the argument for approving it. But if another type of development could generate substantial tax revenue while also creating tourism, recreation, public river access, housing and additional local businesses, then the community deserves to know that before the decision is made.

Once this land becomes a massive industrial campus, we will not get another opportunity to decide what these 850 acres could have become.

Before we make that decision, we should at least make sure we have considered every reasonable alternative.

Brent West