A slew of last minute negative media from the incumbent begs the question- Whatever happened to taking the high ground? Is the incumbent so fearful of her challenger’s appeal? After all, as the incumbent, shouldn’t your record speak for itself?

August 2nd was the close of early voting in Tennessee for the State and County primary ballot. The election Commission saw brisk and fairly steady traffic for most of the day. Many citizens are dismayed by tactics that have been attributed to the incumbent, Senator Rosalind Kurita. Phone canvassing is said to have been conducted among Black voters, urging them to get out on August 7th and vote for Senator Barack Obama and Senator Kurita. Since the presidential candidates are not listed on the August ballot whatsoever, this seems a deceptive ploy to solicit the Black vote.

Senator Kurita has not made much of a show in the Clarksville arena. Personal appearances have been low on the general public’s radar. She has, however, bombarded voters’ mailboxes with printed material, including glossy supersized postcards with unauthorized pictures of herself with Governor Bredesen, inferring a nonexistent endorsement. There’s that TV spot that berates her challenger for effectively seeking to collect judgments for his wronged clients.

Her campaign mailings proclaim dedication to helping lower high fuel and energy cost. Having just been appointed to the Governor’s Study Committee on Alternative Energy Technology and Production this Spring however, is not going to impact gasoline prices anytime soon or in the near future. The committee won’t even submit its preliminary organizing report until December.

She rejected the State Democratic Party stance on preserving HOPE Lottery Scholarship funds for only scholarships in favor of the Republican stance to set up a commission to dole out $99 million from the fund for K-12 school construction, focusing mainly on adoption of geothermal heating and cooling systems. There are 95 counties in this state. Recall that our own county commission, just this spring, rejected this alternative system as being too costly, despite its admitted environmental advantages.

Challenger Tim Barnes reminds voters that while she hails the senior citizen home nursing care reform legislation that passed this past legislative session, she, herself, did not vote for its passage. Financial disclosure reports show that Senator Kurita has received large donations from the nursing home industry lobby. They are her largest contributor.

While the senator’s party affiliation is officially Democratic, she did cast the lone vote to deny John Wilder continued tenure as Speaker of the Senate and as Lt. Governor. With that switched vote, the agenda and priorities of her party were placed on the back-burner of the state’s Republican Party bandwagon. Overnight, committee chairmanships were dramatically reassigned. Legislation favored by her own party has been repeatedly buried in committee or rejected on the senate floor. She voted with the Republicans to pass legislation which seriously cut some injured workers benefits under the state’s meager Workers Compensation Program. ( SB 3424- 5-20-04) The good senator has so faithfully supported the Republican Party cause that Knoxville and Memphis political pundits hail her as the GOP’s best asset. State Republican fundraisers have been directed by the new Lt. Governor to support her re-election campaign. One pundit has even intimated that, no matter what the outcome of this election, her party affiliation switch was practically written on the proverbial wall.

Kurita also voted with the Republicans to deny Senator John Wilder’s attempt to save the Tennessee Plan, the state’s method for selecting Supreme Court and appellate court judges. Wilder had heralded the plan as a sound method to shut out partisan politics in selecting judges. Kurita said she considered her vote, ‘procedural,’ not indicative of her stance on th Tennessee Plan. She wouldn’t declare her position on the plan, instead saying, “she’s a nurse and not an attorney.” In summing up the past legislative session, The Knoxville Sentinel has recognized her with its “Best Republican Democrat” award.

Challenger Tim Barnes, a Clarksville attorney with no nursing home industry lobbyist ties, has pledged to remain true to the Democratic Party priorities and issues. He has received the endorsement of many professional, collegiate groups and private citizens. The APSU College Democrats declared their support for Attorney Barnes and a punitive phonecall was placed to the TBR about the group’s action. The Tennessee Federation of College Democrats, TFCD, have also come out for Barnes. Will another phonecall follow their action as well? TFCD President Leah Kirk said, “College Students across the state are tired of the degrading acts of Senator Kurita to the Democratic party’s values and ideals in Tennessee,” Kirk said. “We are standing up for our issues. We need someone in the State Senate willing to vote with and for Legislators who care about minimum wage, HOPE Scholarship funding, as well as funding to allow more Tennesseans the opportunity to attend college,”

Barnes has received the support of the Tennessee AFL-CIO and Clarksville’s Labor Organizations United Together (CLOUT). CLOUT includes the Clarksville Montgomery County Education Association, the National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 364, the American Federation of Government Employees, the International Association of Machinists Union Local 1296, the Plumbers and Pipe Fitters, the Central Labor Council and the Clarksville Firefighters. Barnes benefits from having the support of the most prominent labor union in the state, which is heralded for their ability to mobilize voters in favor of their candidates.

Barnes’ campaign also has the endorsement of the United Auto Workers, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, State Association of Firefighters, United Steel Workers, Laborers 386, Machinists District 711, Tennessee Carpenters Regional Council, the Stage Employees Union, Communication Workers of America Local 3808, American Federtion of State County Municipal Employees L.L. 2173, the Building and Construction Trades, the University of Tennessee College Democrats. Additionally he has received support from former Governor Ned McWherter, House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh, Senate Democratic Leader Jim Kyle, Mike McWherter, Nashville Sen. Thelma Harper and Memphis Sen. Beverly Marrero.

Much of this intra-party opposition comes as a result of Senator Kurita’s vote to switch control of the senate to the Republican Party. She said her reason for aligning with the Republicans was because ’she wanted to be somebody.’ Was it not enough to be the District 22 Senator? Well, she is now Speaker Pro Tem of the Senate. This is a largely ceremonial position, true. In theory, she is now the Assistant Lt. Governor of Tennessee, but that is a non-existent position under the state constitution. It would also be another non-publicly elected state office which Kurita has consistently said she opposes. What other temptations draw the senator’s glaze: U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, the governor’s office, even? Was this all some form of ‘tit for tat’ for the Democratic Party’s failure to support her bid over Harold Ford Jr. for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by former Senator Bill Frist?

In January 2007, Senator Kurita said of her Senate Speaker vote, “It was purely a vote of conscience,” and “I have not asked for anything for myself.” [Leaf-Chronicle, January 11, 207] It would seem that pledge certainly was applied to the Democratic Party, which received only two of nine senate committee chairmanship appointments under new Speaker Ramsey. Former Speaker Wilder had given Republicans four of the nine senate committee chairs under his tenure.

Financial reporting records show Kurita had a substantial war chest with which to wage her re-election bid. The good senator is reported to have retained the services of Fletcher and Rowley, the renown Nashville public relations firm, known for negative advertising. According to the Nashville Post politics blog jam, Sean Braisted said her biggest expense was to Fletcher and Rowley. Nashville media political pundits have speculated whether she was feeling stressed enough to unleash the hounds at Flecther as the campaign draws to an end. Judging by the caliber of her recent campaign mailings, it would seem that she has decided time has come to get down and dirty with this campaign. How else would you explain mailings criticizing an attorney for providing constitutionally guaranteed legal counsel to those who need it?

Many Montgomery County voters found another mailing from incumbent State Senator Rosalind Kurita assailing the character of her challenger, Clarksville attorney, Tim Barnes. This latest mailing seems to be an extension of her proposed ban on advertising by attorneys who accept DUI cases. That proposed ban was ruled unconstitutional by the State Attorney General as a violation of the State Constitution’s and the U.S. Constitution’s freedom of expression and legal representation guarantees.[Leaf-Chronicle, April 27, 2008: "Kurita's bill looks like politics"]

The new mailing attempts to paint Barnes as specifically tailoring his law practice to represent spouse abusers, drunk drivers and repeat offenders. Mind you, the yellow pages are filled with ads by a myriad of attorneys offering their services for a wide of array of legal situations. Tim Barnes has no exclusive lock over legal representation for anyone needing it. Thus, it would seem the declared ‘three strikes’ of this flyer are invalid. Voters must be vigilant and diligent in reviewing campaign material that ends up in their mailbox.

This media outlet is reminded of a previous refrain by the senator when her ban proposal failed, “I’m a nurse, not an attorney.” Fortunately for her, we are all U.S. citizens with guaranteed rights and protections of the U.S. Constitution and Tennessee State Constitution.

When contacted for a response to this last minute mailing effort, Barnes, who is challenging Senator Kurita for the Senate District 22 seat, would only say, “Either this an intentional attempt to deceive the public or an appalling display of ignorance of our constitutionally protected rights in a criminal proceeding.”

Thursday, August 7th, is the State Primary Election. For any registered voter who has not yet voted, please exercise your franchise, in other words, your right to vote and cast your ballot. Examine the candidates and make an informed decision.

Vote. It’s the “American Citizen” thing to do!

It’s also of some concern that they are now also looking at implementing plans along the “Madison corridor” and Riverside drive in addition to the massive downtown plan. We have serious doubts that city and the developer interests which are behind them, will be interested in stopping with just those sections of Clarksville.

Here’s Mayor Piper talking about his modifications to the Redevelopment plan…

Yes, our city needs conduct some targeted redevelopment, but they should not attempt to accomplish it in this capricious manner. Just take a look at how the city of Knoxville which has been so lauded by Mayor Piper does things. Lets watch the exact same presentation which was given to the delegation from Clarksville. It’s quite long but there is a lot of very interesting information which you can then use to contrast Clarksville’s current plan with how Knoxville has been doing things.

Our local plan seems intended to transfer property from private owners to a hand-picked redeveloper(s) for them to profit from, while Knoxville’s primary goal appears to be helping the properties owner to fix up their own property. If that was Mayor Piper’s goal here, We seriously doubt that anyone would be opposing him on this.

We also strongly object to the city giving a further gift to the developers picked by the RDB by giving them Tax Incentive Financing for new construction projects, something that is not done by Knoxville. When our publisher asked Mayor Piper about this he said he didn’t recall that. So for him, and for you here is the quote in question.

Question: Are you doing any incentives at all for new construction in your (redevelopment) districts?
Answer: Are we donating any?
Question: No are you providing any incentives, tax incentives
Answer: For new construction? No.
Question: None at all?
Answer: No, Not at all.

The differences between Knoxville’s and Clarksville’s views on eminent domain are also especially enlightening. Mayor Piper explicitly refused to rule out eminent domain being used to acquire property for private redevelopment.

In order to fully understand what they are actually implementing you have to take a close look at the referenced plans. Among the things that you will find: Over 45 specific redevelopment plans already mapped out targeting downtown property, a massive expansion of APSU, Lincoln homes becoming student housing, Burt school becoming a parking lot and athletic fields and much more.

Probably the quote from the Knoxville presentation that most applies to Clarksville is this one from Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslim…

If you don’t get the process right, you won’t get the end result right.

Clarksville certainly has not gotten their process right, and Mayor Piper’s modifications do not even come close to fixing the issues. The only thing left for the city to do is to rescind this plan entirely! Then we can start from scratch with full community input and taking into consideration the concerns of the citizens of the city, those of the residents in the areas affected, and come up with a plan that actually works for everyone and not just influential developers.

CLARKSVILLE CENTER REDEVELOPMENT AND URBAN RENEWAL PLAN

March 4, 2008

A. INTRODUCTION

This Clarksville Center Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan (this “Plan”) is being adopted pursuant to the Housing Authorities Law, being Title 13, Chapter 20 of the Tennessee Code Annotated (the “Act”), and other applicable provisions of law. This Plan is to be undertaken by the Clarksville Housing Authority (the “Authority”), in cooperation with other governmental entities, including the City of Clarksville (the “City”) and Montgomery County (the “County”), if this Plan is approved by the County. This Plan shall constitute both a redevelopment plan under Section 13-20-203 of the Tennessee Code Annotated and an urban renewal plan under Section 13-20-211 of the Tennessee Code Annotated.

B. DESCRIPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT AREA

The area that is the subject of this Plan (the “Redevelopment Area”) includes the Clarksville Central Business Improvement District (the “CBID”), the neighborhoods of Red River, Emerald Hill and Dog Hill, a portion of the Brandon Hill neighborhood, property included within the River District, Austin Peay State University and the industrial area along the Red River. The area is generally bordered on the west by the Cumberland River, the south by the Corman Railroad, on the east by the Corman Railroad and on the north by Red River. The area encompasses about 1097 acres, exclusive of public rights-of-way.

In January, 1999, a tornado struck downtown Clarksville and destroyed the heart of the CBID. Although the greatest impact of the storm was its effect on governmental structures, there was also a great amount of damage to privately owned structures. Significant amounts of insurance coverage as well as local, State and Federal monies were used to rebuild significant structures within the CBID, including the historic Montgomery County Courthouse. A number of privately owned structures have also benefited from this effort and have been either rebuilt or restored. The Redevelopment Area includes a number of historic or landmark properties.

In order to assure the long term economic viability of these recently restored properties and proposed projects, this Plan will serve as a means of providing for and encouraging compatible and supportive development within the defined area. Coordinated redevelopment efforts should provide for parking and access necessary for any new development. This Plan should help provide the impetus for assembling properties for new development and the elimination of underutilized land and deteriorated structures within the Redevelopment Area.

This Plan is consistent with and implements recommendations of the Consolidated Plan for Clarksville, Tennessee, the Clarksville Land Use Master Plan for the Downtown District Partnership (CBID Plan”), the Austin Peay State University Master Plan, the Streetscape Master Plan for the CBID, and the Emerald Hill Historic District Design Guidelines. This Plan incorporates by reference the preservation and redevelopment goals of those plans and superseding or subsequent plans approved by the applicable governmental bodies, including, but not limited to, redevelopment/revitalization plans that may be adopted for the Red River and/or Brandon Hills communities.

While many structures within the Redevelopment Area are used productively, visual inspections by the City and the Authority demonstrate that there are elements of blight within the Redevelopment Area due to dilapidation, obsolescence and deleterious land use that are detrimental to the safety, health or welfare of the community. This conclusion is supported by the incidence of code violations that occur within the Redevelopment Area and the eligibility of some of the Redevelopment Area for Community Development Block Grant funding. Because of these elements of blight within the overall area, the Redevelopment Area is the proper subject of a redevelopment and urban renewal plan, and the redevelopment activities to be undertaken pursuant to this plan constitute an eligible redevelopment project under Section 13-20-202 of the Tennessee Code Annotated.

1. BOUNDARIES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA

The boundaries of the Redevelopment Area are shown on Redevelopment Plan Map attached to this Plan as Exhibit “A” (the “Plan Map”).

2. PLAN OBJECTIVES

The specific provisions and actions incorporated in this Plan have been developed and are necessary to achieve the following objectives:

a.

To establish harmonious land use patterns and provide sites adequate for the planned development of new cultural, commercial, educational, mixed use, and residential uses.

b.

To support resident-sensitive, sustainable growth, while preserving the Red River and Brandon Hills neighborhoods as primarily, though not exclusively, residential.

c.

To provide for redevelopment of the Redevelopment Area, wherein non-conforming or deleterious land uses and the present subdivision and ownership of land precludes the orderly assemblage and desired changes in the use of land.

d.

To eliminate substandard buildings through acquisition and demolition or through a conservation program for the rehabilitation of existing structures where feasible and compatible with objectives of this Plan.

e.

To clear and provide for redevelopment of portions of the Redevelopment Area in which a change in type or intensity of land use is necessary. Within these areas it may be required, and is within the objectives of this Plan, that certain buildings, which are not structurally substandard, be acquired and demolished.

f.

To provide for the temporary or permanent relocation of businesses or residents where necessary to accomplish the objectives of this Plan.

g.

To eliminate and prevent the recurrence of blight.

h.

To eliminate vacant and underutilized land by monitoring development and taking actions necessary to encourage effective and desirable uses of land in accordance with this Plan.

i.

To provide for the layout of new streets, pedestrian ways, parking facilities and other public improvements necessary to support the redevelopment of the area.

j.

To enhance the historic resources represented by structures in the Redevelopment Area.

k.

To create a range of housing opportunities and choices through non-profit and for profit developers.

l.

To ensure that new homes are affordable and blend with existing housing in the community.

m.

To increase and/or expand economic and employment opportunities for residents.

3. PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT ACTIONS

The ultimate objective of this Plan is to create an environment conducive to the redevelopment and the long-term economic viability of the CBID, Red River, Emerald Hill and Dog Hill neighborhoods, a portion of the Brandon Hill neighborhood, Austin Peay State University and the underutilized and underdeveloped industrial area along the Red River, and the property along the Cumberland River. These objectives are to be accomplished through the coordinated and planned redevelopment of the area and the elimination of blighting influences posed by dilapidated buildings and structures, underutilized land and incompatible uses. The various provisions of this Plan have been adopted to remove the conditions which have created or contributed to the substandard character of improvements in the Redevelopment Area and restore the vitality of the area through redevelopment and rehabilitation. The types of actions necessary to achieve this objective are:

a.

The acquisition of land through negotiation, condemnation, or otherwise for public purposes and/or for private infill development, whereby the condition of title, diverse ownership of real property to be assembled, street or lot layouts, or other conditions prevent a proper development of the property in accordance with this Plan.

b.

The acquisition of land for the purpose of removing, preventing, or reducing blight.

c.

Demolition, clearance and relocation as necessary within the Redevelopment Area to achieve the objectives of this Plan.

d.

Closing, vacating, or relocating various streets, alleys, pedestrian ways, or utilities.

e.

To provide for and construct improved streets, alleys, public facilities, open spaces, greenways and pedestrian ways and the provision of additional access roads in and through the area are anticipated or provided for herein.

f.

Negotiation of agreements with developers to undertake redevelopment of property in accordance with this Plan.

g.

Obsolete or inadequate utilities or other public improvements will be removed.

Proposed site improvements and public improvements which are necessary to meet redevelopment objectives, such as streets, sewers, gas, water, power, parks, open spaces, playgrounds, drainage improvements, sidewalks, fire alarms, parking facilities, pedestrian ways, public transportation facilities, and other improvements shall be installed by the Authority, redevelopers, utility providers, or the City of Clarksville.

h.

Changes in zoning to be consistent with the Consolidated Plan for Clarksville and Montgomery County and the CBID Plan and any updates or addendums thereto.

C. LAND USE PLAN

1. LAND USE MAP

The permitted uses of land within the Redevelopment Area are as shown on the Plan Map, and as further described in the following sections. In the event of a conflict between the language pertaining to land uses contained in this Plan, and any other restrictions applicable to the same property, the applicable then existing City zoning laws, codes and ordinances will control. The permitted uses of the land as shown on the Plan Map, and as further described in the following sections, provide a vision for future uses and planning and will promote change in an orderly fashion, and this Plan will be used as a tool for appropriate governmental bodies to determine if rezoning requests are consistent with the community vision.

2. LAND USE PROVISIONS AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS

In order to achieve the objectives of this Plan, all redevelopment and use of land within the Clarksville Center Redevelopment District shall be subject to all requirements and restrictions of the Clarksville Zoning Ordinance, the Consolidated Pan for Clarksville and Montgomery County, the Clarksville Land Use Master Plan for the Downtown District Partnership (”CBID Plan”), the Streetscape Master Plan for the CBID, the Austin Peay State University Master Plan, the Clarksville River District Master Plan, the Dog Hill Design Guidelines, the Emerald Hill Historic District Design Guidelines, and other redevelopment/revitalization plans adopted by the City Council (the “City Council”) of the City of Clarksville that include territory within he Redevelopment District). The Redevelopment District Board (”RDB”), created pursuant to Section I herein, may recommend the adoption of additional design guidelines regarding appropriate land uses, design, color, setbacks, landscaping, parking, ingress and egress and other restrictions to be adopted by the appropriate governmental bodies and/or the CBID.

a. General Land Use Districts: Within the general land use districts shown on the Plan Map, the following represent objectives for redevelopment in accordance with this Plan:

1. Central Business and River District: This subarea encompasses the majority of the CBID, the Austin Peay State University campus, property bordering the Cumberland River and the Dog Hill Historic District, Emerald Hill Historic District and the Red River Improvement Corporation plan area. It is desirable that some buildings be renovated or demolished as appropriate or necessary and vacant or underutilized land be redeveloped with new development encompassing uses permitted by this Plan. Redevelopment and restoration projects may involve the assembly of land in order to promote a set of comprehensive yet diverse improvements to the area. The intent is to promote an “urban” atmosphere within the CBID and a mixture of uses that enhance the river front.
   • General residential
   • Public and private schools and daycare centers
   • Institutional, churches
   • Public parks, plazas and playgrounds
   • Cultural center, fine arts center, museum, theater or assembly facilities
   • Offices -business, governmental, professional, medical, arts, etc.
   • Convenience retail, general retail and personal services
   • Hotels, motels, or other habitation for transient use
   • Indoor recreation facilities and commercial amusement
   • Club, bar or nightclub, excluding adult entertainment
   • Parking
   • Restaurants and other eating or drinking establishments
   • Warehousing
   • Wholesale sales
   • Light industrial activity as regulated in Section 11-316 of the Official Code of the City of Clarksville
   • Churches and other similar places of worship
   • Financial institutions, including drive-through facilities
   • Accessory uses customarily incidental to any of the above
2. Mixed Use District: These areas border the CBID. It is desirable that some buildings be renovated or demolished as appropriate or necessary and vacant or underutilized land be redeveloped with new development encompassing uses permitted by this Plan. Redevelopment and restoration projects may involve the assembly of land in order promote a set of comprehensive yet diverse improvements to the area. The intent is to create an “urban” atmosphere that complements the CBID. Permitted Uses
   • General residential
   • Public and private schools and daycare centers
   • Public parks, plazas and playgrounds
   • Cultural center, fine arts center, museum, theater or assembly facilities
   • Offices-business, governmental, professional, medical, arts, etc.
   • Convenience retail, general retail and personal services
   • Hotels, motels, or other habitation for transient use
   • Parking
   • Restaurants and other eating or drinking establishments
   • Indoor recreation facilities and commercial amusement
   • Club, bar or nightclub, excluding adult entertainment
   • Churches and other similar places of worship
   • Financial institutions, including drive-through facilities
   • Accessory uses customarily incidental to any of the above
   • Medical or health care facilities
   • Warehousing
   • Wholesale sales
   • Light industrial as regulated in Section 11-316 of the Official Code of the City of Clarksville
3. Residential Districts (Dog Hill, Emerald Hill, Red River and a Portion of Brandon Hills neighborhoods): These areas consist of primarily residential development surrounding the CBID. It is desirable that the existing residential development be preserved and protected from incompatible uses and vacant or underutilized land be redeveloped with new residential development. Development within the Dog Hill and Emerald Hill neighborhoods is governed by the applicable Historic District guidelines. Development/redevelopment within the Red River and portion of Brandon Hills included in this Plan is subject to previously mentioned design controls and procedural regulations (Clarksville Zoning Ordinance, the Consolidated Plan, the Clarksville Land Use Master Plan, etc.) and will be further governed by the proposed Red River-Brandon Hills Revitalization Plan if adopted by the City Council. Redevelopment and restoration projects may involve the assembly of land in order to promote the residential character of these areas. It is further the intent of this Plan to support affordable housing opportunities proximate to the CBID. Permitted Uses:
   • Convenience retail, general retail and personal services
   • Country clubs
   • General residential
   • Offices
   • Public and private schools and daycare centers
   • Public parks, plazas and playgrounds
   • Churches and other similar places of worship
4. Industrial District: This area is bordered by the Red River and the Corman Railroad tracks. It is desirable that some buildings be renovated or demolished as appropriate or necessary and that vacant or underutilized land is redeveloped with new development encompassing uses permitted by this plan. Redevelopment and restoration projects may involve the assembly of land in order promote a set of comprehensive yet diverse improvements to the area. The intent is to encourage a variety of industrial, warehouse, and compatible land uses and the revitalization of vacant and underutilized industrial properties. Permitted Uses:
   • Warehousing
   • Wholesale sales
   • Light manufacturing
   • General manufacturing
   • Public and private educational facilities
   • Offices -business, governmental, professional, medical, arts, etc.
   • General commercial
   • Medical and health care facilities

b. General Design Regulations and Controls: In order to achieve the objectives of this Plan, design controls and procedural regulations of the Clarksville Zoning Ordinance, the Consolidated Plan for Clarksville and Montgomery County, the Clarksville Land Use Master Plan for the Downtown District Partnership (”CBID Plan“), the Austin Peay State University Master Plan, the Streetscape Master Plan for the CBID, the Clarksville River District Commission Master Plan, the Dog Hill Design Guidelines and the Emerald Hill Historic District Design Guideline, shall apply, as applicable, to land within the Redevelopment Area developed, redeveloped, or improved subsequent to the recording of this Plan in the Register’s Office of Montgomery County. The RDB may recommend the adoption of additional design regulations and controls to be adopted by the appropriate governmental body. The City Council may adopt additional redevelopment/revitalization plans to control and regulate development within the Redevelopment Area.

1. Site PlanTo the extent site plans are required under the general design regulations and controls listed in Section C.2.b., a copy of the site plan shall be submitted to the RDB and where the development is to be accomplished in phases, a construction-phasing schedule shall accompany the site plan. The RDB shall review and provide comments to the governmental agencies with the authority to approve such site plan. Development shall conform to the approved site plan.
2. Landscape Plan To the extent landscape plans are required under the general design regulations and controls listed in Section C.2.b., a copy of the landscape plan shall be submitted to the RDB. The RDB shall review and provide comments to the governmental agencies with the authority to approve such landscape plan. Development shall conform to the approved landscape plan.
3. Exterior Design Control To the extent design guidelines arc required under the general design regulations and controls listed in Section C.2.b., including, but not limited to, building materials, landscaping and paving materials, development shall conform to the approved design guidelines and controls.
4. Historic PreservationTo the extent historic guidelines and controls are required under the general design regulations and controls listed in Section C.2.b., development shall conform to the approved guidelines. A copy of the design plans shall be submitted to the RDB. The RDB shall review and provide comments to the governmental agencies with the authority to approve such design plans. The RDB may recommend the adoption of additional guidelines generally consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Structures to the Governing Body or such other guidelines as the RDB may deem appropriate.
5. EnforcementIn the case of violations of the restrictions contained in this Plan, the RDB may send Notice of Violation to the appropriate code or building official of the City and/or the Clarksville City Attorney who shall be entitled to seek immediate injunctive and other equitable or legal relief to enforce restrictions of this Plan, including pursuing all remedies available at law or in equity, including, without limitation, those that are provided by the Official Code of the City of Clarksville.

c. Duration of Land Use Controls: The provisions of this Plan, specifying the land uses for the Redevelopment Area and the requirements and restrictions with respect thereto, shall commence upon approval of this Plan by the City Council, and, upon being recorded in the Register’s Office of Montgomery County, and shall continue in effect until December 31, 2028.

D. LAND ACQUISITION

In order to achieve the objectives of this Plan, it may be necessary to acquire properties within the Redevelopment Area, with the exception of properties owned by Austin Peay State University and other governmentally-owned properties. Upon the recommendation of the RDB and the approval of the Authority, property may be acquired by eminent domain to provide for the redevelopment of vacant and underutilized land; to eliminate structures which, because of poor initial construction, inadequate maintenance, obsolescence or other conditions, are not suitable for rehabilitation; to eliminate non-conforming land uses which are detrimental to the redevelopment of the Redevelopment Area; to provide for the replatting of land and the development or adjustment of streets, alleys and pedestrian ways; and to assemble suitable tracts for disposition. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no property shall be condemned and/or acquired by eminent domain pursuant to this Plan for the purpose of conveying such property to a third party for redevelopment if the owner of that property has submitted a proposal to redevelopment such property in the manner described and to the extent permitted herein unless such acquisition is first approved by resolution of the City Council and County Commission (if this Plan is approved by the County).

In addition to the potential acquisitions described in the prior paragraph, parcels may also be acquired at the request of the owner or for such valid public purposes as to provide for necessary adjustments in utility easements or street, alley or pedestrian rights-of-way; to provide for the redevelopment of abandoned railroad rights-of-way; to eliminate dilapidated or deteriorated structures which may be found to exist following subsequent surveys of interior conditions where the owner of the property shall have been notified and accorded a reasonable time, in no case less than ninety (90) days from the date of notice, to bring the structure into compliance with applicable building and housing codes: to provide clear and marketable title for vacant or abandoned properties; to eliminate any nonconforming uses in conflict with the permitted uses listed in Section C.2.a. of this Plan or applicable zoning ordinances; if the owner of any said property refuses to comply or reach written agreement with the Authority to abide by the design guidelines of Section C.2.b. of this Plan in the development of or planning of any improvements to be made; or to eliminate buildings which may encroach upon existing or planned rights-of-way whether they be totally or only partially located within the Redevelopment Area.

E. REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AND OBLIGATIONS; LAND USE CONTROLS

The RDB will establish redevelopment priorities within the Redevelopment Area and will make recommendations to the Authority as to those areas within the Redevelopment Area that have the most pressing need for redevelopment. If a particular property is identified for redevelopment by the RDB, the Authority, in consultation with the RDB, will request redevelopment proposals for such property. If the property to be redeveloped is owned by a single owner, the Authority will first request a redevelopment proposal from such property owner in the manner provided below. If the property to be redeveloped is owned by multiple owners, the Authority will request redevelopment proposals from any interested parties. The entity or person whose proposal is selected to redevelop a particular property is referred to herein as the “redeveloper.”

If the RDB and the Authority have identified a particular area for redevelopment that is owned by a single owner, the Authority will request a redevelopment proposal from such owner. Each proposal shall include, in detail, a description of the owner’s proposed redevelopment of the property, the improvements to be made to the property, a proposed budget for such improvements and a timetable for construction. In addition, each owner must demonstrate in its proposal its financial ability to complete any proposed redevelopment project, including evidence of the availability of funds to complete the project. The current property owner will be given at least 90 days to submit a proposal after request from the Authority for a proposal.

The RDB will review proposals submitted by property owners. The RDB will advise the Authority in determining whether a proposal is consistent with this Plan and whether the proposal is feasible. The RDB may discuss an owner’s proposal with the owner in whatever manner the RDB deems appropriate, and the property owner may resubmit a proposal to the RDB and the Authority based upon such discussions. The ultimate approval or rejection of a proposal shall remain with the Authority, however.

If an owner’s proposal to redevelop property is approved by the Authority, the Authority and the owner will enter into a development agreement under which the owner will agree to develop its property as described in its proposal as approved by the Authority. In the event that any such owner fails to redevelop its property in accordance with its development agreement, the Authority may elect to acquire such property and make it available for redevelopment.

If an owner submits a redevelopment proposal, and the Authority does not approve the redevelopment proposal, the Authority shall notify the owner in writing, specifying the reason or reasons why the Authority did not approve the redevelopment proposal. The owner shall have 30 days from receipt of such notification to submit a revised redevelopment proposal responding to the reasons specified in the notification.

If an owner of property identified for redevelopment fails to submit a redevelopment proposal, fails to receive approval of its redevelopment proposal or fails to redevelop its property in compliance with its proposal, the Authority intends to solicit proposals from third parties to redevelop such property and to acquire such property. Responses to such proposals shall also be submitted to the RDB for its review and any recommended proposals shall be submitted to the Authority for approval or disapproval. Such responses shall include at least the same information required of property owners. The Authority will enter into a development agreement with any person or entity whose proposal is approved by the Authority in order to ensure compliance with the proposal and the requirements of this Plan.

The Authority, in disposing of any land in the Redevelopment Area to be redeveloped or in connection with entering into a development agreement, will, in its contract and deed or other instruments of conveyance and/or the development agreement, include such terms and condition as in the judgment of the Authority will be necessary or advisable to ensure redevelopment of the Redevelopment Area and its use thereafter, in accordance with this Plan, and to prevent recurrence of the condition of blight or inappropriate land uses in this area. Such provisions will be contained in such contracts, deeds or other instruments of conveyance irrespective of whether they duplicate, in whole or in part, requirements of existing or proposed zoning ordinances or other local laws, ordinances or regulations with respect to the Redevelopment Area, so that such obligations may operate independently of such zoning or other laws, ordinances or regulations. In all instances, the improvements in the Redevelopment Area will be made in accordance with the applicable zoning ordinances, building, electrical, plumbing and other local codes and ordinances, the requirements of this Plan, and such other requirements as may be set forth in the contracts between the Authority and the redevelopers.

Any contract or agreement for conveyance or redevelopment of property in the Redevelopment Area by the Authority or the City, as well as the deed or deeds to the land, shall contain a covenant that the redeveloper and its successors and assigns shall not discriminate upon the basis of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, or national origin in the sale, lease, or rental, or in the use or occupancy of the property or any improvements erected or to be erected thereon. It is intended by this Plan that the Authority and the City are the beneficiaries of all such covenants and obligations and that each shall be entitled to represent the interests and to act on behalf of the community in enforcing any covenants and obligations as to the redevelopment and continued uses of the Redevelopment Area in accordance with this Plan. Such contracts, deeds, or other instruments of conveyance and/or development agreements, in addition to including such other terms and conditions as the Authority may find desirable in order to implement and effectuate the objectives of this Plan, or as are recommended by the RDB, will obligate the purchasers and redevelopers of property in the Redevelopment Area and their successors in interest to:

1. Devote the parcels owned by them to, and only to, uses and controls specified in this Plan;
2. Diligently pursue the construction of the improvements as provided in a development agreement, and to begin and complete such improvements within a reasonable time as provided by the contract;
3. Make no changes, additions or alterations in such improvements after completion of their construction that are not approved by RDB as being in conformity with this Plan, or as it may be changed or amended; and
4. Not reassign contract rights, resell or otherwise transfer the land or any part thereof of interests therein purchased by them prior to the completion of the improvements thereon without the approval of the Authority and except in cases satisfactory with the Authority, and not to speculate in or with respect to such land.

F. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE

In the event any individuals and businesses are permanently or temporarily displaced by the Authority in connection with the implementation of this Plan, assistance will be offered in accordance with the Tennessee’s Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1972, or other applicable federal, state or local laws and regulations that may be in effect at the time even though no State or Federal funds may be involved with a particular project. No residents are expected to be permanently relocated as a part of this Plan. Since many of the planned developments incorporated in this Plan are to occur on vacant land or through the renovation of existing unused or underutilized structures, it is expected that relocation of businesses will be minimal.

G. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING

Total property taxes receivable from land and leaseholds in the Redevelopment Area are currently estimated at around $4.26 million based on a total assessed value of approximately $207 million. The projected future increase in the value of property developed in conjunction with this Plan on land leased or sold by the Authority is estimated to exceed $200 million, which is the estimated cost of the redevelopment project. The total net annual increase of approximately $4.15 million in property taxes so generated in the Redevelopment Area will not occur without the redevelopment activities of the Authority and the RDB. This net annual increase would support approximately $41.5 million of tax increment financing to be issued on one or more series or emissions and secured by all or a portion of the incremental tax revenues generated by the Redevelopment Area, to assist with the financing of redevelopment projects in the Redevelopment Area. By approving this Plan, the City and the County (if the County approves this Plan) are hereby by authorizing the allocation of incremental taxes in the Redevelopment Area as provided in the Act for the purposes provided herein.

Given the blighting elements in the Redevelopment Area as well as the difficulty of development presented by poor access and the diversity of ownership of individual tracts evident in the Redevelopment Area, private investment and redevelopment is unlikely to occur without public assistance. The activities of the RDB and the Authority will make the area conducive to new private development and result in increased tax revenues to the City and the County. The estimated principal amount of debt payable from incremental tax revenues described above and provided for by this Plan is expected to require less than 50% percent of the projected net new property taxes generated by the Redevelopment Area if redevelopment can be induced to occur as anticipated by this Plan. Therefore, the City and the County, as the taxing agencies within the Redevelopment Area, are expected to realize substantial revenues from the Redevelopment Area and will not be substantially impacted by the tax increment financing authorized by this Plan. However, based upon current property tax rates, the estimated annual impact to the City and the County of applying the approximately $4.15 million of incremental property tax revenues as provided herein would be $1.25 million or 30% to the City and $2.9 million or 70% to the County. If the County does not approve this Plan, the entire impact would be on the City.

The estimated amount of bonds or other indebtedness backed by tax increment revenues issued pursuant to this Plan is $41.5 million. The final maturity date on any bonds or other indebtedness backed by the tax increment revenues from the Redevelopment Area shall be on or before 20 years from the date the redevelopment project being financed is expected to be completed. Upon retirement of all bonds or other indebtedness incurred and payable from tax increment funds or at such time as moneys on deposit in the tax increment fund or funds are sufficient for such purpose, all property taxes resulting from the development of the Redevelopment Area shall be retained by the City and the County. Activities or improvements eligible for tax increment funding shall include all permitted projects that may be financed as part of a redevelopment project or urban renewal project pursuant to the Act. Sources of revenue to finance the costs of redevelopment projects, in addition to tax increment financing, include private equity and loans.

If this Plan is not approved by County, the tax increment financing provisions contained herein shall still be effective as to incremental City property tax revenues provided the City furnishes to the County an agreement, as permitted by the Act, exempting the County’s property tax levy from these tax increment financing provisions.

H. DELEGATION TO NEGOTIATE PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES

The Clarksville-Montgomery County Industrial Development Board (”IDB”), pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated, § 7-53-305, is hereby authorized and delegated the authority to negotiate and accept from the IDB’s lessees located within the Redevelopment Area, payments in lieu of ad valorem taxes upon the IDB’s finding that such payments further the IDB’s public purposes and the purposes of this Plan. The IDB is requested to establish appropriate and necessary guidelines that will promote redevelopment and further both the public purposes of the IDB and the Redevelopment Area. The Authority is also hereby authorized and delegated the authority to negotiate and accept payment in lieu of ad valorem taxes with respect to low-income housing property in accordance with the Act. If this Plan is not approved by the County, the delegation in this Section H shall only apply to City property taxes.

I. REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT BOARD

Pursuant to the Act, the Authority shall establish an advisory board to assist with the implementation of this Plan, which shall be known as the Redevelopment District Board (the “RDB”). The Chairman of the Authority shall serve as a member and chairman of the RDB and will appoint twelve additional members to the RDB as follows:

• one (1) member to be recommended by the County Mayor for an initial 3-year term (if the County does not approve this Plan, this member shall be recommended by the City Mayor),
• one (1) member to be recommended by the City Mayor for an initial 3-year term,
• the Director or one (1) representative of the Clarksville Office of Housing and Community Development to serve for an initial 3-year term,
• the President of the Lincoln Homes Residents Council or one (1) other member who resides in public housing in the Redevelopment Area to be recommended by the Authority as a public housing representative for an initial 2-year term,
• one (1) member of the Downtown District Partnership to be recommended by the Downtown District Partnership for an initial 2-year term,
• one (1) member of the Clarksville/Montgomery County Regional Planning Commission to be recommended by the Clarksville/Montgomery County Regional Planning Commission for an initial 3-year term,
• one (1) voting member as a representative of Austin Peay State University as recommended by the President of the university for an initial 2-year term,
• one (1) member with real estate, financial, and/or development background, recommended by the City Mayor for an initial 2-year term, and
• one (1) member for each of the four residential neighborhoods who resides in the Emerald Hills, Dog Hill, Red River, and Brandon Hills neighborhood for an initial 2-year term. The four neighborhood members shall be jointly recommended by the City Mayor and County Mayor (if the County approves this Plan).

Thereafter, all members shall serve 3-year terms. The RDB shall review redevelopment projects as being in conformance with this Plan and any applicable design guidelines, and zoning and code requirements, approve developer agreements, recommend tax increment financing transactions to the Authority, recommend to the Regional Planning Commission the rezoning of property, if necessary, recommend the adoption of additional land use regulations, if needed, and recommend acquisition of property by the Authority, if necessary.

J. ADMINISTRATION

The City Council and the County Commission of the County (the “County Commission”) (if this plan is approved by the County), on behalf of the City and the County, hereby authorize the Authority to enter into inter-local agreements with the City and/or the County or any division or instrumentality thereof and the RDB to perform any and all of the administrative functions designated herein including, but not limited to negotiating developer agreements, providing review and comment on proposed development within the Redevelopment Area, recommending additional design guidelines or land use controls to the appropriate legislative and administrative bodies, negotiating the acquisition, sale or lease of property and carrying out relocation assistance functions.

K. AMENDMENTS; TERM

This Plan may be modified, changed or amended by the Authority, with the subsequent approval of the City Council and the County Commission (if initially approved by the County Commission) in the same manner as this Plan was originally approve, provided, however, that in no event will the provisions of this Plan be modified in any manner which will adversely affect any as yet not fully developed land in the Redevelopment Area that has been sold or leased by the Authority, or as to which a sales contract has been entered into by the Authority, except with the written consent of the then owners of such land or of the parties to such contract, or their successors in interest.

This Plan shall remain in effect until terminated by appropriate resolution or ordinance of the City and the County (if the County has approved this Plan).

L. SEVERABILITY

The invalidation of any one or more of the foregoing provisions of this Plan or any part thereof by judgment of any Court of competent jurisdiction shall not in any way affect the validity of any other of such provisions of this Plan but the same shall remain in full force and effect.

We see no issues with the city purchasing a couple of mobile surveillance camera systems to be used in parks and other areas for which a documented history of problems can be shown, such as at the train station. Clarksville Online believes that both the park rangers and city police department should have their own mobile systems with which to target crime hot spots.

These systems which can run from a few thousand to a over a hundred thousand dollars. The park rangers preferred system has a price tag of $9,600.

The cost of these systems can be more than paid for by their preventing additional acts of wanton destruction.

A citizen review board should be established with the responsibility of setting clear policies to ensure that the city’s fixed and mobile surveillance camera network systems are not being used to infringe on law-abiding individuals’ right to privacy. Such a board should also establish a reasonable policy to ensure that the city can use surveillance when it is warranted, while protecting the constitutional and civil rights of our citizenry. Ultimately, government surveillance should only be used in areas where a pattern of illegal or illicit activity has been reported.

The standard straw-man argument will likely be raised in response: “if you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.” We disagree; everyone has an inherent right to privacy, even if the legal system may not always agree.

Mayor Johnny Piper made the right decision in opting to cancel the public meeting on Ordinance 73-20050-06, acting on suspicion and subsequently on information that the the Downtown District Partnership and the City Council did not practice “due diligence” or follow state law in preparing, submitting and approving this plan. Over the past six weeks, Piper fired salvos toward former DDP members, stating there “may have been instances that they [DDP] did not follow state law.”

That was one of the questions raised by members of the grassroots citizen group comprised of property owners and taxpayers, Clarksville Property Rights Coalition, who challenged the legality and the morality of the ordinance and have been proved right.

We had the opportunity to listen to residents from the affected area in a meeting last month. After reading the bill in depth and listening to everyone involved, We are fully convinced that this ordinance needs to be abjectly rejected by the County Commission and immediately repealed by the City Council. It’s a rotten piece of legislation that has the danger of being precedent setting. If it sticks, then it will be even more dangerous. Hundreds of people have been attended various meetings in the last two months regarding the ordinance. Even more have been outspoken against it, including City Mayor Johnny Piper.

This issue effects the entire city, and we believe that everyone needs to get involved. Proponents have even suggested that people from outside the affected area have little to say about it. Nashville Attorney and former Metro Council Member John Summers was also put under scrutiny. An earlier press release dispatched from City Information Officer Missy Graham’s office said that “misinformation” had been given about the ordinance. Apparently, it wasn’t misinformation after all.

We can’t see any way in which this ordinance is positive. Clause #7 is enough to send chills down anyone’s spine:

“That it is hereby found and determined that the Plan for the project area will afford maximum opportunity consistent with sound needs of the locality as a whole, for the redevelopment of the area by private enterprise.”

“In other words,” Summers said, “It’s an assemblage clause.” Since the whole area is declared “blighted,” then even if a home or business is in pristine condition and up-to-date on their taxes, it’s still subject to condemnation if it’s in a block that’s being redeveloped. Even historical homes are vulnerable. The assemblage clause includes language which allows any opportunistic developer to have pristine homes with paid-up property taxes condemned for whatever project might be planned.

As one panelist said in the recent grassroots meetings said, it’s a developer’s fantasy. That alone is enough to be highly suspicious. The last thing we need is room for more loopholes. Any redevelopment plan must be accompanied by a specific goal and area to be redeveloped. This ordinance is nothing more than a blank check that would allow developers to pursue imminent domain, and bypass the whole ‘blighted’ issue, since this ordinance declares that the entire area (with the exception of APSU) is blighted. Ward 6 Councilman Marc Harris was succinct when he described the ordinance: “It’s a mess.”

According to this language, the Courthouse is blighted. So is the new court center. And the refurbished Two Rivers Center. The brand new F&M Bank Building is even considered “blighted” in this ordinance. It’s so broadly (and badly) written, that even our city’s landmarks are subject to “blight.”

Clarksville NAACP Branch president also pointed out that Burt School is “blighted.” Wilma Rudolph’s former high school is one of the many buildings in the affected area that are at risk because of this ordinance.

One of the largest gaps is the complete open-ended conclusion of the document which literally allows for any provision possible. There are no concrete plans associated with it, which raises far more questions than answers. Tennessee Preservation Trust Executive Director Dan Brown’s assessment of the ordinance as “audacious” is, in our opinion, not strong enough. This ordinance is an atrocity.

Given the breakdown in trust between citizens and both the City Council and the DDP, amending the ordinance is not the solution.

Clearly, this ordinance was written with broad strokes to allow for a master plan to be put in action. What is that plan? Clearly, this is a framework for future use, loosely rooted in the DDP’s Land Use Master Plan but without any immediate or clearly defined purposes or projects. It defies public knowledge.

There’s no gray area here. Without any clear and specific plans attached, it’s an open-ended nightmare that’s just waiting to happen.

The ordinance needs to be repealed, now.

Editor’s note: Clarksville Online editorials are the combined opinions of Bill Larson, Christine Anne Piesyk, and David W. Shelton.