Clarksville, TN Online: News, Opinion, Arts & Entertainment.

To the Clarksville City Council: “You have the cart before the horse!”

 

clr-clrksvl-city-council-logoToday’s special call city council meeting is poised to consider a resolution approving a lease with a private entity and the city for development and operation of a city asset. The city will incur debt to finance, in part, this enterprise. Our City Charter has specific requirements for this type of enterprise, which, it would appear, are being ignored by our city leaders.

Some questions for the council before they vote on this measure, if you please.

1.) What are the terms of this lease agreement?

2.) How long will Mr. Batts be required to actually operate the marina?

3.) What is the projected time frame needed for the city to recoup the $32 million dollars of leveraged debt underwritten to pay for the creation of the marina and the redevelopment of Fairgrounds Park?

4.) Why areĀ  these details not listed in the published version of the council meeting’s agenda?

5. Where is the public referendum required by the city charter when the city enters into an enterprise where the city’s credit has been utilized?

City of Clarksville, Tennessee Mayor Johnny Piper

Clarksville, Tennessee Mayor Johnny Piper

This resolution may be about a lease agreement, but the city is extending its debt obligations, utilizing the city’s credit, to fund this project. In November, the mayor sought the council’s approval to taken on $32 million dollars of additional debt.

The Code of the City of Clarksville, Part I, Article VI, Section 8:

Section 8. Elections for giving or lending of city’s credit.

The credit of the city may be given or lent to or in aid of any person, company, association or corporation upon an election to be first held by the qualified voters of such city and the assent of three-fourths ( 3/4) of the votes cast at said election. The city may become a stockholder with others in any company, association or corporation, upon a like election and the assent of a like majority.

Thus, according to our charter, a public referendum, with approval of three-fourths of those voting, is required before this project, much less this lease can be approved. There was no referendum on the November ballot. Too many questions have not been addressed here.

moneyTransparency is key to public confidence and trust. Public view is very opaque right now. The City Council needs to apply a heavy dose of Windex to these proceedings and be the people’s advocate and guardian. The oath of office requires the council to consider and protect the welfare of the citizens of Clarksville, first and foremost. The referendum question should be addressed first. An opinion from the State Attorney General’s Office should be requested immediately to address this matter and preclude the appearance of undue local influence.

After all, $32 million dollars is serious money. Transparency and Public Confidence are dearer still. We can not afford to be foolish with either.

Share this article:

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Slashdot
  • Fark
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • Twitter

About Turner McCullough Jr.

    US Army retiree, Native of Charleston, SC; enjoys photography- especially B/W photo studies and portraits, printing photos; travel, the seacoast, jazz/good food/wine with friends. Believes active citizenship is the only true form of citizenship and the responsibility of every citizen. "Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive."

    Email: wanion69185@mypacks.net

Sections

Business, News, Politics

Topics

, , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “To the Clarksville City Council: “You have the cart before the horse!””

  1. Blayne Clements Says:
    December 24th, 2008 at 8:06 am

    Great Article Turner!

  2. David W. Shelton Says:
    December 25th, 2008 at 8:02 am

    Turner, with respect, I disagree.

    Point number 3, in particular, is off base. Since when are parks intended to generate revenue for a profit? The Fairgrounds has never been a revenue-generating effort. Why should the addition of a marina all of the sudden pay for the improvement and renovation of the entire park?

    Since around $9.1 Million of the total money allocated toward the Fairgrounds improvement is for the Marina site (and even only a portion of that will be used for the infrastructure – the rest would go to building free-access sites like a double-decker observation point and arboretum), there leaves more than 23 Million for the rest of the park, including extending the Riverwalk to the Fairgrounds.

    This effort is worthy indeed, and I look forward to seeing its completion.

Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Personal Controls

Archives