Redevelopment firestorm still going strong

By David W. Shelton | February 13, 2008 |

Mayor Johnny Piper’s letter to affected residents attempts to ease concerns

The Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan (CCRP) has been met with extreme opposition from residents in the affected area, who jokingly (or not) call their part of Clarksville “Blightville.” I’ve had the opportunity to attend a few of the meetings where the plan was discussed, and as a member of the Human Relations Commission, I’ve been on quite a few of the email lists where this topic has been the point of a lot of major contention. This has been so important that City Mayor Johnny Piper has distributed a letter to affected residents, which reads in part:

Recently, a group calling itself the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition has been distributing a flier that has false and misleading information about the redevelopment plan. I am particularly concerned with the allegation that the City desires to take property from business owners and residents and sell it to developers as part of eminent domain.

The flier states: “Your property can be condemned by a majority vote of the City Council and then resold to private developers.”

Please do not be frightened into believing what the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition is misrepresenting about the plan. The City of Clarksville has no intentions of taking your property. The redevelopment plan ordinance actually makes it harder for any government to exercise eminent domain. There are many layers of protection for property owners built into the ordinance that are not being revealed to you in these fliers distributed by the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition.

Note: the full text of the Mayor’s letter is provided at the end of this commentary.

While there are indeed many steps and protections in place for the use of eminent domain, the reality of the ordinance in its present form is that it removes one step by calling the entire area “blighted.” This is a valid concern, and I’ve said that on several occasions. It’s my understanding that the broad “blight” sweeping designation will be addressed in the forthcoming revised bill, as it should be. Mayor Piper’s letter also says:

The Clarksville Property Rights Coalition has been going door to door telling residents and business owners that the City of Clarksville is going to take your property and you will have 30 days to vacate the property. This scare tactic used by the CCRP is completely FALSE. This will not happen!

I’ve also been hearing (and reading) these claims of how “certain people” associated with the Property Rights Coalition are allegedly telling residents that they’ll be told to leave their homes in “30 days” if the plan goes into effect. This is simply not true and is a gross and distorted misrepresentation of everything that the Coalition is working for.

I don’t know if the claim is just a way to demonize the CPRC leaders, or if a few misinformed individuals are voicing their own fears about the plan. Either way, it’s important that false information be dismissed as such. I urge anyone who is making these claims to better understand the ordinance. The reality is that the Mayor is quite correct. The claim that residents will be given thirty days to vacate their homes is completely false. However, I don’t know if these tactics are being spread by members of the CPRC. If this is true, then it should stop.

I’ve been wanting to read just what points of the ordinance were “misrepresented,” and with the distribution of the Mayor’s letter, we have exactly that. I would love to know, however, who has been spreading the idea that people would be given 30 days to vacate their homes. I’m not aware of any of this being said at any of the CPRC meetings. We’ve covered a lot of what WAS said, and I’ve yet to see any rebuttals to those points. The most that we have seen up until the Mayor’s letter was a constant dressing-down of John Summers. Alas, I’ve not read anything about what those “misrepresentations” were aside from two major points:

• Summers said that specific projects were required to be attached to any redevelopment plans. This is apparently in question, according to Mayor Piper and the Knoxville redevelopment group. Any information on this point would be especially helpful in understanding how this can be properly implemented.
• Summers said that this is, to his knowledge, the largest area that has ever been targeted for redevelopment. Words like “audacious” were used. However, the Council and Mayor have claimed that Knoxville and Nashville both have targeted similar-sized areas for redevelopment. What would really help in this point is some exact cases where this has been done effectively.

In short, could we get some information that would really help bolster these points WITHOUT attacking Mr. Summers, as we have seen from previous emails and quotes from various City officials and supporters? I know it’s great politics to attack a figurehead, but this is a group of several hundred residents whom you feel are being misled. We need facts, not attacks.

Mr. Summers was indeed a part of a project that was highly criticized by people in his ward when he was a councilman in Nashville. However, he was very popular for quite some time before that, since he had a track record of working with the public and preventing power abuses. No one is perfect, and it’s unfair for anyone to attack the messenger when there are some very specific points of the message that are valid:

• Affected Residents were not notified properly.
• The ordinance and redevelopment plan is entirely too broad and open-ended.
• There are too many questions of legality regarding the ordinance in its current form.
• The area designated as “blighted” is too large.

The above four points have been made by the Mayor in earlier statements and in this letter, and are reasons why it’s being revisited. There was a lot of sabre-rattling before the Mayor put the whole thing on hold, and in my opinion, these are the points that were paramount. I’m glad that the Council is going through this thorough research to build an ordinance which will beautify Clarksville and prevent existing residents from being driven from their homes. The last point is of particular interest and was addressed specifically in the Mayor’s letter:

I also believe that some of the language in the ordinance was inappropriate and should be changed.

For Example: The ordinance says, “it is a blighted area.”

To label the entire area as blighted was improper and this will be addressed in any future ordinance that is put forth. I will not support an ordinance which designates an entire area as blighted under any circumstances. In addition, the city council will be looking at the size of the redevelopment district. I plan to make a recommendation that the size of the district be reduced.

In a final thought, I’m told that there have allegedly been statements been made by some officials that we (Clarksville Online writers and the CPRC) are “uneducated” in the matters of the redevelopment plan. This is especially puzzling since we have not only read and reprinted the ordinance in its entirety, but also the DDP’s redevelopment plan itself. On this point, I need to be clear: if a matter affects a major group of people in Clarksville, we MUST be informed. Simply saying that we’re “uneducated” is unacceptable, and the only correct response is to educate the public as to why such action or ordinance is necessary, and the effect of those actions.

The most important thing, in my opinion, is for officials to avoid the impression of saying, “because we’re the experts.” Whether it’s true or not isn’t relevant, it’s the impression that has to be avoided. The reality is that such attitudes are neither appropriate nor acceptable. We’re all neighbors here, and we have a right to know what is going on, and city officials have the responsibility of disclosing the fine print about any ordinance.

Clearly, there’s a lot that needs to be done, and I believe that Clarksville will benefit from the discussions. Let’s keep everyone informed, and make sure that any redevelopment is appropriate for the city as a whole. No one is opposed to progress, and I have long been a supporter of earlier projects that were later abandoned. I look forward to seeing the CCRP presented in a manner that will benefit everyone, especially residents in and near the downtown area.

Affected Residents

The full text of the Mayor’s letter

February 4, 2008

John Q. Public
1234 First Street
Clarksville, TN 37040

Dear Property Owner,

Recently there has been much controversy surrounding the Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan Ordinance that the City Council passed in October. I believe the controversy stems from misinformation about the plan that has been circulated by several groups over the past few weeks.

As you may or may not be aware, the Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan is an initiative developed by the Downtown District Partnership and has been under review for the past three years. Newspaper articles from the Leaf Chronicle about this redevelopment plan date as far back as 2005.

I first became involved with the plan in February 2007 when the Downtown District Partnership leaders asked me to put it on the City Council agenda for a second reading. It was passed by the City Council on first reading in March of 2006, prior to me becoming Mayor. The City Council postponed the second reading so that the DDP and the property owners could meet to discuss some concerns that were raised by those that would be affected by the plan. Several meetings were held to reach an agreement by all parties involved on the details of the ordinance. When the leadership of the DDP approached the City Council about bringing the redevelopment plan before the city council for second reading again, we were assured by them that this plan had the full support of the property owners and any concerns they may have had were resolved.

Recently, a group calling itself the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition has been distributing a flier that has false and misleading information about the redevelopment plan. I am particularly concerned with the allegation that the City desires to take property from business owners and residents and sell it to developers as part of eminent domain.

The flier states: “Your property can be condemned by a majority vote of the City Council and then resold to private developers.”

Please do not be frightened into believing what the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition is misrepresenting about the plan. The City of Clarksville has no intentions of taking your property. The redevelopment plan ordinance actually makes it harder for any government to exercise eminent domain. There are many layers of protection for property owners built into the ordinance that are not being revealed to you in these fliers distributed by the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition.

The Clarksville Property Rights Coalition has been going door to door telling residents and business owners that the City of Clarksville is going to take your property and you will have 30 days to vacate the property. This scare tactic used by the CCRP is completely FALSE. This will not happen!

I want you to know that I am concerned about the controversy that has overshadowed the good intentions of the plan, but equally concerned that there were some procedures that were not followed properly in accordance with Tennessee law when developing the plan.

For Example: Tennessee law is very clear in stating that a public hearing should have been held and every property owner in the affected area should have been notified of the public hearing.

This did not happen and I can assure you that as we move forward with this issue a public hearing will be held and you will be notified in writing as to the date and location that the public hearing will be take place. I want to give you, the property owners in the affected area, the opportunity to hear about the plan and the opportunity to make comments and ask questions about it. I also believe that some of the language in the ordinance was inappropriate and should be changed.

For Example: The ordinance says, “it is a blighted area.”

To label the entire area as blighted was improper and this will be addressed in any future ordinance that is put forth. I will not support an ordinance which designates an entire area as blighted under any circumstances. In addition, the city council will be looking at the size of the redevelopment district. I plan to make a recommendation that the size of the district be reduced.

Over the next month, you will see a lot of action by the City Council and myself in regards to the Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan. I will propose to the City Council at the February City Council meeting that we establish a whole new ordinance that addresses this issue. Additionally, a group of community leaders and representatives from the affected neighborhoods will be traveling to Knoxville on February 6th to meet with representatives from the Knoxville Redevelopment Corporation (a group that has extensive experience with similar redevelopment plans) to discuss how their redevelopment plans were created.

Please visit the City of Clarksville website at www.cityofclarksville.com to get more information about the Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan. I will be seeking your input as we move forward with this initiative and I hope you will participate in the process.

Sincerely,

John E. Piper

About David W. Shelton

Sections

Topics

© 2009 Clarksville, TN Online is owned and operated by residents of Clarksville Tennessee.
» We are Hosted by Compu-Net Enterprises; In Partnership with Discover Clarksville and Discover Paris