The Castle Coalition is the Institute for Justice’s nationwide grassroots property rights activism project. The Castle Coalition teaches home and small business owners how to protect themselves and stand up to the greedy governments and developers who seek to use eminent domain to take private property for their own gain. And thanks to the gracious generosity of our donors, we’re able to do this for free.

We provide the tool and resources necessary to fight the threat of eminent domain abuse in the court of public opinion, since many times, that is just as important as the court of law.

If you would like to learn more, visit our website: http://www.castlecoalition.org. Our main resource for property owners, the Eminent Domain Abuse Survival Guide is available to either read online or download from the site. The Survival Guide contains strategies and tactics property owners have used successfully over the years to halt the threat of eminent domain, including how to organize a citizens’ group and communicate effectively with the media.

Finally, if you have questions, don’t hesitate to contact me. And if there are others you know of who would benefit from our resources, let us know.

Thanks very much,
Chris Grodecki
Castle Coalition

I tried to address it as follows:
________________________________________
“The issue is not a black or white issue. The issue is should governement be permitted to take your property, your HOME, and turn it over to a private group.

Sec 7 states the following:

“…the Plan for the project area will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the locality as a whole, for redevelopment of the area by private enterprise.”

Please note — “private enterprise”. This is not what eminent domain is all about. Also they have included all of downtown and the outlaying area:

Emerald Hill, Dog Hill, Red River Area, the River District (business along Riverside Drive) and other areas.

If you do not have a copy of the odinance, go to:

http://www.ddpclarksville.org/redevelopment_ordinance.pdf

http://www.ddpclarksville.org/landusemasterplan.pdf

Download these documents and others to get a better understanding.

I do agree, however, that there are areas that needs some work but not to the extent that is listed in the document.

As for it being a minority issue, this far from the truth: it will effect everybody. (go to: http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2007/12/15/residents-enraged-at-blight-designation-seek-repeal-of-redevelopment-plan/) Take a good look at the photos and who said what. Please get a better understanding.

This may not effect you directly so put yourself in the shoes of others that are effected and think about how you would feel and react.

The right to own property was of concern to the founding of this country, should we not also be concerned?”
________________________________________

However the following comment was offered, not so much about race but as “misinterpreting”:

“Mike, you’re misinterpreting the phrase “private enterprise” as used here. It just means “as opposed to development by a government entity”. There’s no need to get all paranoid and interpret it to mean that the City plans to take all the land by eminent domain and then sell it to private developers.

The Friends of Clarksville ads have disappointed me greatly. The people I see listed as members seem far too intelligent in general to succumb to these sorts of paranoid delusions.”
_________________________________________

In turn I offered the following:

“I have not read the ads from FOC so I can not reply to/about them, however, how can there be any other understanding of “private enterprise” (of which I did not interpret but wanted people to “note” it) other than what most people understand it to be (as you have done) given the following from the ordinance itself:

“WHEREAS, the Plan for the area prescribes certain land uses and controls and authorizes the acquisition by negotiation, condemnation or otherwise of certain properties for public use OR for resale by a redeveloper or redevelopers…” (Page one, 6th “Whereas”, Ord. 73-2005-06)

The “public use” section is not a problem in and of itself IF it is execute correctly and within the Rule of Law and the Principles of Property Rights, it is the “OR” section that causes a problem, not just for me but also for others. It could be stated, and rightly so, that if the government does not use the acquired (read “taken”) land for public use then it could be sold to (re)developers (private enterprise) for their own use. In other words, there are those that would gain at the loss of another.

If the “private enterprise” is to mean what you said it means, “as opposed to development by a government entity”, then it should state as such, for the benefit of public use, but it does not. And since it does not there can only be one understanding: private enterprise equates redevelopers and the possible sale for nonpublic use.

This ord. as written would violate the rights of property owners, rights that the founding generation understood, and that it needed to be protected:

“A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings.” –Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816

“By nature’s law, every man has a right to seize and retake by force his own property taken from him by another by force or fraud.” –Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812

“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.” James Madison

The founding generation understood this, why don’t we?

What this ordinance is offering violates the basic principles of property rights: the possibility of the taking of property by the government not for the good of the general public, but for the good of a private few. It opens the door for the loss of property rights to those that it affects and that is a slippery slope that is best left not traveled.

People are not there for the benefit of the government, it is government that is established for benefit of all the people and the protection of their natural rights.

And that is something that we have forgotten.”
_____________________________________________

And like David above, once one digs deeper the truth will out.

We must remember — like all powers given to government, eminent domain can be abused if good people do not question and hold government accountable. And with this ordinance and issue of property rights, questions must asked and intentions questioned.

Mike

I’ve read about this issue in the Chronicle over the past few months, but never quite understood the severity of the problem until I started talking to effected and concerned residents, attending this meeting, and reading the articles posted on this website by well informed people.

The Chronicle has not acted to inform and educate the public on this issue, and you dont have to look any further than Jamie Dexter’s article in today’s paper and the racist, uninformed comments posted on their website about the article.

Thanks again to all that have been so active to get information about this issue out.

I entered the discussion with skepticism. I could see some *possible* benefit for the ordinance, but the more I read, and the more I listened, I quickly realized just how horrible it really is.

I’m not an alarmist by any means, but this is at the very least alarming! It’s time for this atrocity to be immediately removed from our city code.

We as a family want to thank you for putting this together. It was informative and identified the entire issue. The meeting stayed with facts….and the one thing that it did show is that those that voted for this package……. didn’t attend. Perhaps they feel that fifty are “over exaggerating their significance.”

The reading of this ordnance definitely showed that what comments were or have been made by elected officials prior to this meeting that they either didn’t know just how much of an impact on the area in question; the means with not much justification to implement such a measure (which is not surprising), and if they read it they never had any argument or questions regarding the ordnance. The lack of attendance by elected officials sends a clear message to this community and frankly I’m pleased they have sent the message. It possibly identifies who they are really working for.

I was extremely impressed by the group of people that did attend. They are educated, knowledgeable, and a group that intends to press this measure to be repealed and not amended. In addition, as I’ve stated at the meeting “this is not just 1300 home owners, over 350 businesses, and historical sights, almost 1800 will be impacted, however, even my family and the entire community. In context we are being set for a giant “Flea Market Sale” by government under the cloak of “you just don’t understand homeowners and taxpayers.” This is exactly the point…..we do understand that low and middle income families will be impacted now; civil rights history will be destroyed, as well as the family history for too many that have devoted their lives to this community. I ask for the definition of the word “progress? ” Is it actually the 53d card in the deck of cards which is dealt by politicians to push a measure through, when in reality it can be identified as “alleged legal rustling” under the cloak of an approved government ordnance.

If there are five phases, and this is just phase 1 of 5… what is 2 through 5? Is my area next or are you next ladies and gentlemen? Why is there fear to identify phases 2-5 now or is this another story that we have no plan or is the plan clouded in cloak and dagger? Speculation, however, we as citizens have the same right to speculate as government does. Maybe this is why government, including County Commissioners and the Planning Commission did not attend last night.

Clarity may provide some unhappiness about an issue, however, it opens something to debate, with the facts, and allows one to know and make an educated decision on any issue, and especially if someone elected is working in the citizens interest. It would be a public service by politicians for the Mayor’s, City Council, County Commissioners, and the Planners to attend Monday’s meeting. They can clarify what we possibly just don’t really understand about this ordnance and justify their position.

We are excited about Monday’s meeting. I read with interest the Friends of Clarksville question. As private citizens I feel they can help tremendously in whatever the plan is going to be to repeal this ordnance, be it debate, petitioning, or leg work to make the community understand the real ramifications of this Trilogy. See you Monday at 6PM. Thanks. Ron R.

Editor’s note: A small change in wording was made to prevent possible confusion.

Thanks for putting together a great panel to discuss this issue. I truly believe a difference can be made if the people of Clarksville-Montgomery County would come out of their shells. As discussed at the forum, by the very knowledgeable panelist, this issue has the potential to become a national example of how a local governmental body can take properties from local residents in the name of progress.

Taking properties from the weak and the elderly is not an example of “government of the people, by the people and for the people”. It is simply a reversal of the Robin-hood theory. Under this scenario, our local officials are planning during additional phase of the plan to take properties from the poor and give them to the rich and powerful.

I am looking forward to the meeting on Monday. I do hope it is as rewarding as tonight’s.

13-20-201. Blighted areas and dilapidation defined. —

(a) “Blighted areas” are areas, including slum areas, with buildings or improvements that, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, deleterious land use, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community. “Welfare of the community” does not include solely a loss of property value to surrounding properties, nor does it include the need for increased tax revenues. Under no circumstance shall land used predominantly in the production of agriculture, as defined by § 1-3-105, be considered a blighted area.

Especially when they plan take it, and then basically give it to private developers a move sure to increase their tax revenues, which is in clear violation of state law. I think it’s time the state took another look at the ability of municipal corporations to take privately owned land.