CPRC member Don Sharpe speaks out against redevelopment at "fact-finding" community meeting

“Sued for a half million dollars for speaking out…”

“This ordinance is detrimental to the community…”

“The City Council ‘rubber stamped’ the mayor…”

“I don’t think they have a plan…”

“Our Leadership doesn’t want to listen to us….”

“CHA is a shadow, not a voice…”

“Preying on minority communities…”

“I’ve never been to a public forum where the public couldn’t speak…”

This is what representatives from the United States Department of Justice, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Institute for Justice  heard when they came to Clarksville Thursday to listen to community concerns about the about the city’s controversial redevelopment plans. Seventy people participated in a fact-finding meeting at the New Providence Community Center on Oak Street sponsored by the NAACP and the Urban Resource Center.

Walter Atkinson, Senior Conciliation Specialist with the U.S. Department of Justice Community Relations Service (Southeast Region IV), in stating that the meeting was “to hear community concerns,” said his role was in part to try and avert “litigation.”

“I am here to listen and observe,” Atkinson said, noting that it was letters from NAACP Chapter President Jimmie Garland and Terry McMoore of the Urban Resource Center that focused federal attention on this local issue. Atkinson had been “in communication” with Mayor Johnny Piper and with the Downtown District Partnership Board. Piper, DDP members and most sitting City Councilors did not attend this meeting. Jim Doyle, who was not re-elected to his Ward 8 seat, along with newly elected councilors Candy Johnson, David Allen and Jeff Burkhart did attend the meeting and spoke with the Ward 6 constituency.

The origin of the issue and the center of the controversy, which exploded in November, 2007, is a city ordinance that was quietly developed and passed by the City Council; at its core was section that designated two square miles, 1825 homes and small businesses in the downtown area, including City Hall and the Courthouse, as “blighted,” with the exception of property owned by Austin Peay State University. The ordinance also included an assemblage clause that would allow eminent domain to be used in “assembling” a group of properties to be transferred to private developers who would “maximize” the potential of the land involved.The land in question lies in Ward 6, the city’s only major minority ward, which, according to Garland, may be protected under the Civil Rights Acts of 1964.

In response to the passage of the ordinance, a grassroots activist group was formed: the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition, who staged an initial Standing Room Only meeting at the Hope Center on Legion Street in November, 2007, which attracted 50 people. Several weeks later, a second meeting at the Train Station on 10th Street was not only packed with concerned citizens but had the overflow crowd of 300 spilling out the doors. A postcard campaign was organized and specialists including representatives and lawyers involved in historic preservation and litigation became involved. Subsequent meetings, including one at APSU where the CPRC and others were not allowed to speak or make a presentation to city officials, and another meeting at the Burt School on Eighth Street where a last minute change in building capacity left nearly a hundred people standing in the parking lot, signs in hand, but unable to speak out to officials or hear what being said inside. Piper later admitted that of the written comments from the concerned residents were destroyed.

Joyce Vanderbilt of Kelly's on Riverside Drive displays the controversial ad on redevelopment

With city officials squaring off against Ward 6 residents and business owners, the redevelopment plans became the supercharged issue of 2008; an ad placed in a local newspaper by the CPRC made a case against the ordinance and proposed development, and The case, borne of a highly controversial ordinance passed by the Clarksville City Council in November, 2007, that “blighted” some two square miles of downtown Clarksville, culminated in a libel suit over a newspaper ad taking some city officials to task for their actions in supporting the ordinance that potentially opened the door for taking of properties by eminent domain and for private development.

In that case, Richard Swift, a developer who is a member of the Clarksville City Council, and Wayne Wilkinson, a member of Clarksville’s Downtown District Partnership, sued the CPRC because its members criticized them for supporting Clarksville’s controversial redevelopment plan, which authorizes the use of eminent domain for private development. In a newspaper ad, the CPRC noted that both Swift and Wilkinson are developers and said, “This Redevelopment Plan is of the developers, by the developers, and for the developers.” Virginia’s Institute for Justice represents the CPRC in the case.

Christine Walsh of the Institute for Justice

Becky (McMahan) was sued for a half million dollars for speaking out,” said Christina Walsh, Director of Community Organization for the Institute for Justice. “The Clarksville Center Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan violates the rights of home and business owners in the redevelopment area. The saga of how it was passed illustrates perfectly why the abuse of eminent domain is wrong. This plan would not pass muster in many states.”

“We do have the right to speak. We are not a Third World Country. Wake up, Sleeping Clarksville, and realize that this is our community. Question the ordinance and the need for the ordinance, and the potential use for the ordinance… even some of the city councilors did not understand this ordinance, and if they didn’t understand it thow can they vote on it.” — CPRC member

NAACP Chapter President Jimmie Garland Sr.

Jimmie Garland charged the City Council with “rubber stamping” the mayor on this issue and asked where “the plan” for development. “Knoxville showed us a plan and invited the community in; that’s not how it was done here There is no plan here.” Garland said that Clarksville’s present leadership does not want to represent us and “does not want to  listen to us.” (Ed: garland excepted Ward 6 Councilor Marc Harris, who opposed the plan). “Our legislators don’t listen to us.”

“Clearly, the confluence of bad law and politically connected developers here does not bode well for the citizens of Clarksville, who have been virtually abandoned by the very political officials they elected to represent their best interests…Local governments very often disguise their intentions of transferring perfectly fine properties to private developers, declaring so-called “blight removal,” “urban renewal,” or “slum clearance” as the justification for eminent domain. … they hide behind this “public use” concept in their quest to acquire property for the private use of developers.” ~~ Christine Walsh

Walsh noted that Piper himself said the plan “was not written in strict accordance with state law,” at which point the city amended rather than rescind the plan, and took a trip to Knoxville to view that city’s redevelopment  process.

Turner McCullough Jr. speaking about a state law that requires that community bodies must reflect the diversity of the community they represent.

Turner McCullough Jr. said “the mayor himself said there is no plan.” After the APSU public forum in which the “public” could not actively participate, and “when (the public) asked for information, we were told to shut up. We  were not considered.”

Wanda McMoore noted that the ordinance assesses what terms “underutilage” of land, which the Institute for Justice and the CPRC read as property that could rake in more profit and more taxes if uses for something other than what it is (i.e., three homes vs a strip mall, five homes versus and apartment complex, a family-owned restaurant vs waterfront condos).

Edward Vanderbilt of Kelly’s on Riverside Drive questioned why, under eminent domain his land and business could conceivably be taken for a minimum of money that wouldn’t even buy a plot of land somewhere else  while “the mayor sells his land and gets millions” (Mayor Piper owns land along Riverside Drive that is in the redevelopment and marina area).

Kevin Johnson of Veterans Services of America discusses the make-up of redevelopment committees

Kevin Johnson of the Veterans Services of America suggested that beyond stating what they do not want, the residents of the area and members of the CPRC, along with local community leaders, should assess what they do want, what kind of growth and positive change they would like to see in their community, and what they would use in lieu of the present ordinance.

It was noted that legislation passed in 2006 can withhold federal funds to communities that use public money to fund private development.

A theme that ran through many of the statements offered by concerned citizens included the following:

• The assemblage clause is of serious concern
• Eminent domain should not be used for private development. (”Take eminent domain out of this plan.”)
• Elected officials simply do not listen to or want to hear from dissenting constituents
• Developers and real estate people with properties in the affected area should recuse themselves from voting on issues which may benefit them (conflict of interest, ethics)
• The actual authors of the ordinance should be disclosed. (”Who wrote this damned thing?”
• According to law, redevelopment plans in Tennessee must be overseen by a housing authority. A determination of Kevin Johnson of the Veterans Services of America participation in the development and execution of the ordinance and redevelopment efforts should be disclosed (Wanda Mills of the CHA has said publicly the CHA did NOT do a study for this plan)
• Demographics (ethnicity, gender etc) of development and advisory boards should be disclosed and appointees to these public posts should be present at meetings when their appointments are confirmed, rather than simply being “a name on a piece of paper.”
• What are the qualifications of the people who created the ordinance?
• Why aren’t more members, if not all members, of the board from the areas impacted by this law?
• What have HUD and other federal monies really been spent on? Has HUD funding been redirected to other projects outside of the designated districts or parameters?

Walter Atkinson, Senior Conciliation Specialist, U.S.D.O.J.

In summing the comments accumulated during the fact finding meeting, Atkinson asked the audience to consider the following?

• If the plan is dropped, what do you want (in your community)?
• What qualifications do you feel people need to participate on redevelopment and related boards?
• What kind of oversight (and by whom) do you need for your community?

As the meeting closed, Terry McMoore noted that he had sent “many, many emails and invitations to people about this meeting, including city officials and Mayor Piper. Given the Mayor’’s lack of response and absence from this session, McMoore requested that Atkinson himself ask the Mayor to attend the next meeting on this issue.

Also attending were Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Representative David H. King, Director, Knoxville Field Office; , Louisville, HUD Fair Housing Equal Opportunity;  County Commissioner Lettie Kendall; CPRC spokesperson Rebecca McMahan; and Tim Harvey, former City Attorney.

[Show as slideshow]

12►

County Mayor Bowers, center, in anad hoc meeting with concerned minority citizens (CO archive photo)

Montgomery County mayor Carolyn Bowers, in letters sent to Piper and DDP chair Scott Giles, said the county will not participate in the controversial Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan, which had been dubbed “the blight bill.” The proposed plan which was approved by the City Council earlier this year had been strongly opposed by the Clarksville Property Owners Coalition, a grassroots group that has challenged the legality of the program and process of eminent domain and an assemblage clause. The redevelopment plan would offer tax increment financing for certain property developments.

Mayor Johnny Piper addresses concerned residents at redevelopment hearing

Bowers indicated that county officials wanted “more time” to review and analyze the project and study alternatives.

Without county participation, the tax incentive financing would affect only city taxes; the county would also not participate in decisions on which projects will be supported.

In her response, Bowers said simply that the county by concensus “declined.” The county mayor then added that the county was seeking projects with a “countywide” impact and allow greater participation in and benefit from such development.

UPDATE: This morning [Thursday, August 28, 2008], the Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency (MDHA) removed its motion for judgment on the pleadings from the court’s calendar in Joy Ford’s fight to save her Nashville music business from eminent domain abuse. As a result, the hearing originally scheduled for Friday at 9 a.m. before Judge Barbara Haynes will not take place. In its letter, MDHA notified the court that it will re-set the motion at a later date.The original story follows:

On Friday, August 29, at 9 a.m., Joy Ford will appear in Nashville court for the first time, along with her lawyers from the Institute for Justice, to fight to save her small country music recording and publishing business from an illegal and unconstitutional eminent domain action.

The Institute for Justice is also representing the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition in defending a libel action in Montgomery County courts that is rooted in this city’s redevelopment plan and its potential for the use of eminent domain via an “assemblage” clause in that controversial redevelopment ordinance.

In June 2008, Nashville’s redevelopment agency, Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency (MDHA), filed a condemnation petition against Country International Records located on storied Music Row.  MDHA wants to give the property to a Houston-based private developer to put up a generic office building.

Now, in an audacious and unfounded move, MDHA’s lawyers, who are being paid by the private developer that will benefit from the condemnation. have filed a “motion for judgment on the pleadings,” asking the court to hand over Ford’s property on the basis of the four-page condemnation petition filed by the agency.  MDHA seeks to deny Ford any discovery in the case and wants the judge to order possession immediately rather than hold a trial and hear evidence.

“If MDHA gets its way, it will become impossible for any home or small business owner in Tennessee to prevail against an abuse of eminent domain,” said Scott Bullock, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, a national non-profit, public interest law firm located in Arlington, Va., that serves as the nation’s leading legal advocate against eminent domain abuse.

Bullock added, “Courts should actually review evidence in eminent domain cases rather than merely rubber-stamping what the agency wants.  We are confident MDHA’s motion will fail.”  Bullock argued the Kelo v. New London eminent domain case before the U.S. Supreme Court and was co-counsel in the first post-Kelo state supreme court case that ended eminent domain for private gain in Ohio.

Franklin Street at the heart of development plans. David Shelton Photo.

The Tennessee Trust for Historic Preservation has put Clarksville/Montgomery County Historic Districts at in the number one spot on its 2008 list, according to an announcement released at a press conference on Friday, May 30 at the Old Supreme Court Chambers at the Tennessee State Capitol, Nashville.

“Properties in the downtown, Dog Hill,and Emerald Hill Historic Districts are threatened by recent Downtown Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan, which would designate two square miles of the historic downtown as “blighted” and give the city the power to use eminent domain to condemn and demolish structures for development. The National Trust for Historic Preservation calls the situation “the most significant threat to historic districts” it has encountered.” — Tennessee Trust for Historic Preservation.

The Historic Trust ,in its announcement, confirmed what many Clarksville residents have been saying: the new law “this is possibly the largest eminent domain case affecting historic structures in the country.”

The ordinance affect 1300 acres, designated the entire area as blighted, allows for “assemblage” of properties, and enables the use of eminent domain to condemn property for “demolition and speculative private development.”

The ordinance created tax breaks for developers via tax-increment financing to encourage and promote development in this district.

The redevelopment plan has been at the center of controversy that pitted 1800 residents and small business owners against the city and resulted in the formation of the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition and the dubbing of the downtown district as “Blightville.”

The hotly-debated ordinance was passed May 8 by the City Council. The ordinance allows condemnation and the taking of property for tax delinquency of 12 months or more, if property has been declared dilapidated, unsafe or uninhabitable for six months, or has ongoing code violations for more than six months.

Dan Brown(left, at coalition rally), executive director of the Tennessee Historic Preservation Trust, has worked with the CPRC for the past six months. he has given presentations on this issue at CPRC and other meetings.

A newspaper ad opposing the ordinance was run prior to that vote and libel lawsuit was filed in Mongtomery County courts concerning that ad, though at last check none of the defendants had been served.

The Tennessee Preservation Trust annually seeks nominations from the public for the “Ten in Tennessee,” a roster of some of the state’s most endangered historic sites. Begun in 2001, this successful program highlights ten endangered places across the state to help garner support for saving threatened historic resources. Of the sites listed since the program began, only three have been lost.

A committee made up of grass-roots and professional preservationists from across the state meets to choose the list each spring. TPT, which promoted historic preservation across the state, has been the recipient of generous support for the past four years from the renowned public relations firm of McNeely, Pigott, and Fox, LLC. Richard Quin serves as the 2008 Ten in Tennessee Chair.

Tennessee’s “top ten” endangered sites are:

• Clarksville Historic Districts, Montgomery County.
• Tipton-Rosemark Academy, Millington, Shelby County.
• Fleming Hall at Battle Ground Academy, Franklin, Williamson County.
• Old City Cemetery, Murfreesboro, Rutherford County.
• Kimsey Junior College, Ducktown, Polk County.
• Shofners Chapel Lutheran Church, Thompsons Creek, Bedford County.
• Geist Blacksmith Shop and Residences, Nashville, Davidson County.
• Beth Salem Presbyterian Church, three-county area of McMinn, Meigs and Polk counties.
• S.S. Eaves House, Decatur, Meigs County
• Franklin P. Blue Municipal Building, McMinnville, Warren County.

Editor’s Note: For more information and complete copies of all CO stories, videos and photos on downtown redevelopment, click the black “ordinance” box on the left of our front page.