ARLINGTON, VA:  Evidently you can fight city hall—and fight private developers who use city hall’s power, too.

A CPRC member displays the controversial ad on blight and eminent domain

In an order issued on March 26, 2009, Judge C.L. “Buck” Rogers of the Circuit Court for Sumner County, Tenn., vindicated the right to protest government abuse by dismissing the libel lawsuit brought by Richard Swift, a developer who is a former member of the Clarksville City Council, and Wayne Wilkinson, a member of Clarksville’s Downtown District Partnership, against members of the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition (CPRC).

Swift and Wilkinson 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.”

The court ruled, “Debate on public issues shall be uninhibited [and] wide open. . . .  Accusing a public official or public figure of using their political influence to obtain a benefit for others or themselves or favoring their supporters is not defamation.”

“The court’s decision is a tremendous victory for everyone who speaks out against the abuse of eminent domain,” said Bert Gall, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represents the CPRC in defense of their free speech rights.  “The decision puts thin-skinned politicians and developers on notice:  If you file a frivolous lawsuit against people just for criticizing your public actions, your case will swiftly be thrown out of court.”

When a local ordinance “blighted” two square miles of downtown Clarksville, the CPRC was formed by residents and small business owners determined to protect their property.  against what they viewed as “flawed legislation.” A first meeting on the issue drew a full house (60+ people) to the H.O.P.E. center; a second meeting at the L&N Train Station brought an overflow crowd of more than 300 people to hear a presentation on the issue and sign peititions.

Members of the CPRC at a city council meeting

Across the country, in places like Renton, Wash., and Freeport, Texas, there has been an ominous trend of politicians and developers using frivolous litigation to suppress the speech of home and business owners who oppose the abuse of eminent domain for private development.  The CPRC’s victory in Clarksville resoundingly reaffirms that the First Amendment protects that speech.

“I am thrilled that the court reached the right decision to protect my right to free speech,” said Joyce Vanderbilt, a member of the CPRC.  “Swift and Wilkinson tried to bully us with this lawsuit, and the court just told them that they should never have brought it in the first place.”

“We won this fight not just for us, but for every home and business owner who gets sued just for speaking out against eminent domain abuse,” said Pam Vandeveer.  “I’m glad that this is still a free country.”

Although the free speech fight on behalf of the Clarksville activists is over, the effort to reform Tennessee’s eminent domain laws rages on.  The Institute for Justice recently graded Tennessee’s eminent domain legislative reforms as a “D-minus,” stating that much more needs to happen to protect Tennesseans from eminent domain abuse.  Tennesseans have much less protection from eminent domain abuse than in states like Georgia and Florida, which have enacted strong laws.  Senator Paul Stanley and Representative Curry Todd have introduced a reform bill that would move Tennessee up into an A grade because it better defines “public use” and “blight”—two key reforms that are needed if property is to be safe from eminent domain for private gain.

Jerry Martin of Barrett, Johnston & Parsley in Nashville serves as local counsel for the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition.

WASHINGTON – U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan today approved nearly $731 million in funding for 48 States and local communities seeking to recover from the effects of high foreclosures and declining home values. Funded under HUD’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP), these plans will target emergency assistance to particular neighborhoods by acquiring and redeveloping foreclosed properties that might otherwise become sources of abandonment and blight (see attached chart).

The neighborhood stabilization plans approved today include a $145 million plan submitted by the State of California, a program President Barack Obama recognized during a town hall meeting today in Los Angeles.

These are Tennessee’s allocations:

Tennessee	Knoxville		$ 2,735,980
	Tennessee State Program		$ 49,360,421

Donovan today approved plans from Knoxville ($2,735,980) and the Tennessee State Program ($49,360,421) for communities seeking to recover from the effects of high foreclosures and declining home values. The total amount of funding totals $52,096,401. Funded under HUD’s new Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP), these communities will shortly begin to target emergency assistance to particular neighborhoods by acquiring and redeveloping foreclosed properties that might otherwise become sources of abandonment and blight.

State and local governments can use their neighborhood stabilization grants to acquire land and property; to demolish or rehabilitate abandoned properties; and/or to offer downpayment and closing cost assistance to low- to moderate-income homebuyers (household incomes not exceed 120 percent of area median income). In addition, these grantees can create “land banks” to assemble, temporarily manage, and dispose of vacant land for the purpose of stabilizing neighborhoods and encouraging re-use or redevelopment of urban property.

The NSP also seeks to prevent future foreclosures by requiring housing counseling for families receiving homebuyer assistance. In addition, the Agency seeks to protect future homebuyers by requiring States and local grantees to ensure that new homebuyers under this program obtain a mortgage loan from a lender who agrees to comply with sound lending practices.

“These funds will be used to buy up and rehabilitate vacant foreclosed homes and resell those homes with affordable mortgages,” said President Obama. “They’ll allow California to provide mortgage assistance and rehabilitation loans for both low-income and middle-income families. This is how we’ll help people here in California live their dream of homeownership and how we’ll start transforming abandoned streets lines with vacant houses into thriving neighborhoods.”

HUD’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program was created under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 and provides nearly $4 billion to every State and certain local communities experiencing particularly high foreclosure problems and risk of property abandonment. The program permits these State and local governments to purchase foreclosed homes at a discount and to rehabilitate or redevelop them in order to respond to rising foreclosures and falling home values.

In addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 makes available another $2 billion of NSP funding to State, local governments, non-profit entities, or consortia of non-profit entities for similar anti-blight and stabilization efforts. HUD will issue a funding notice with application requirements no later than May 3, 2009. Applicants will prepare an application and, for programmatic funding, complete citizen participation before submitting to HUD. HUD will review applications and make awards shortly thereafter.

The NSP Program also seeks to prevent future foreclosures by requiring housing counseling for families receiving homebuyer assistance. In addition, the Agency seeks to protect future homebuyers by requiring States and local grantees to ensure that new homebuyers under this program obtain a mortgage loan from a lender who agrees to comply with sound lending practices.

About HUD: HUD is the nation’s housing agency committed to sustaining homeownership; creating affordable housing opportunities for low-income Americans; and supporting the homeless, elderly, people with disabilities and people living with AIDS. The Department also promotes economic and community development and enforces the nation’s fair housing laws. More information about HUD and its programs is available on the Internet at www.hud.gov and espanol.hud.gov.

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research awards this dubious distinction annually to the person or group in Tennessee who, more than any other over the past year, acted as a Grinch to Tennesseans by bah-humbugging the principles of liberty and limited government.

Joyce Vanderbilt, owner of Kelly's on Riverside Drive, displays the controversial ad that resulted in a libel suit against the CPRC.

Swift and Wilkinson receive the fourth annual badge of disgrace for leading efforts to take the homes and businesses of Clarksville residents through eminent domain for a private redevelopment scheme that would line their own pockets.

When a group of citizens criticized Swift and Wilkinson for their attack against private property and their conflicts of interest, the shameless duo assaulted the Clarksville residents’ First Amendment rights by filing a frivolous lawsuit attempting to silence the criticism.

The City of Clarksville and the Clarksville Downtown District Partnership, led by Swift and Wilkinson, are threatening hundreds of homes and businesses with the Clarksville Center Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan. The scheme affects  as many as 1,800 homes, businesses and churches, primarily owned by low-income and minority residents, posing a threat of eminent domain. Swift and Wilkinson are both real estate developers positioned to benefit from the redevelopment plan.

Members of the CPRC at a city council meeting

In an attempt to protect their property, a group of Clarksville residents whose homes and businesses are threatened by the redevelopment plan formed the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition. The Coalition ran an ad in the Clarksville Leaf Chronicle criticizing the redevelopment scheme and pointing out that Swift and Wilkinson were  developers positioned to benefit from the city’s land grab.

Six days later, Swift and Wilkinson assaulted the Coalition’s right to free speech by filing a frivolous libel lawsuit against the Clarksville residents, demanding the group pay them $500,000.

“It is disgusting and pathetic that these Scrooges would even imagine suing a group of citizens fighting to keep them from taking their homes and businesses,” Johnson said. “No one in Tennessee deserves to find their stockings filled with coal this Christmas more than Richard Swift and Wayne Wilkinson, the Grinches of Clarksville.”

About the Author: The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through the ideas of liberty. Visit TCPR online at: www.tennesseepolicy.org.

Dallas, Texas:

Royall worked with the city of Freeport, Texas, to try to condemn a generations-old shrimp business owned by the Gore family to make way for a luxury marina.  The project became the subject of the book, Bulldozed: ‘Kelo,’ Eminent Domain, and the American Lust for Land, authored by veteran legal journalist Carla Main. 

Bulldozed tells the story of Freeport’s plan to take the Gore’s waterfront property for Royall’s luxury marina development project.  Only hours after the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous Kelo v. City of New London eminent domain abuse decision, the city instructed its attorneys to redouble their efforts to seize the Gore family business.  Bulldozed unravels why, after years of litigation, the threat of condemnation continues to hang over the Gores.  The book was reviewed in many newspapers, including The Wall Street Journal, was nominated for the Texas Historical Commission’s annual T.R. Fehrenbach Book Award and it won a highly competitive independent press award for political science writing.

After journalist Main wrote her book exposing the Freeport land grab, Royall sued her as well as her publisher, Encounter Books, for defamation.  He even sued nationally renowned Law Professor Richard Epstein who wrote a blurb for the book’s dust jacket.  When someone reviewed the book, he sued him.  When two newspapers published that review, he sued them.

On Wednesday, December 10, 2008, the Institute for Justice Texas Chapter (IJ-TX) filed a notice of appearance with the Dallas County District Court in order to vindicate the right of author Main, her publisher and Professor Epstein to freely debate eminent domain abuse.

“Rather than try to defend his indefensible effort to have the government take someone’s land for his private development project, H. Walker Royall sues and sues and sues and sues,” said Matt Miller, executive director of the Institute for Justice Texas Chapter, which is defending the book’s author, the publisher and law professor Epstein.

Earlier, when the Gores—the original victims of Royall’s eminent domain abuse effort in Freeport—complained against Royall’s actions, he sued them for defamation.  That lawsuit is ongoing.

Main is a veteran journalist who was an associate editor of The National Law Journal, where she edited the opinion page and wrote a column on law and society.  She wrote for The Wall Street Journal, Policy Review, National Review, The American Lawyer and The New York Sun, among other publications.  Before becoming a journalist, Main practiced as an attorney in New York City for ten years.

Author Carla T. Main

“The book was a labor of love,” said Main.  “I researched it meticulously and gave Mr. Royall multiple opportunities to be interviewed.  His primary complaint about the book seems to be that I described him as participating in an economic development taking, which he did.”

Richard Epstein is the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School, where he has taught since 1972.  He also teaches at the New York University School of Law.  Epstein has published 14 books.  His Torts and Cases and Materials on Torts textbooks are widely used in law schools across the country.

In 1985, Epstein published Takings: Private Property and Eminent Domain, a book about the Fifth Amendment and the limits of the government’s power to use eminent domain to take private property.  The book has been cited four times by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Takings is an essential book in the debate about eminent domain and property rights in America.

Epstein was sued by Royall over a small blurb on the back cover of Bulldozed.  Epstein said, “It is a sad day in the life of America when a powerful individual like H. Walker Royall, who has complete access to the media, thinks that the appropriate response to criticism is to remain silent and then to bring a defamation action against those who comment on his deeds.”  Writing an admiring blurb is not something Epstein ever expected would get him sued.  “There are few times in my professional career when I’ve been flabbergasted and this is definitely one of them,” said Epstein, who has been a law professor for more than 40 years.  Epstein’s blurb reads, in its entirety:

“Like a Greek tragedy unfolding, Carla Main’s book chronicles the eminent domain struggles in Freeport, Texas, which pitted the Gore family, with its longtime shrimp business, against the machinations of an unholy alliance between city politicians and avaricious developers. If you have ever shared the Supreme Court’s unquestioned deference to the public planning process that shaped its ill-fated Kelo decision, you’ll surely change your mind as you follow this sordid saga to its bitter end. You’ll never look at eminent domain in the same way again.”

Encounter Books is a non-profit publisher that promotes democratic culture with a catalogue of award-winning and important books.  Encounter Books has more than 100 titles on topics including religion, military affairs, Greek civilization and current events.  Roger Kimball, president and publisher of Encounter Books, also publishes The New Criterion magazine.  Kimball said, “There is the First Amendment, which I think is very much at stake in this case.  There is also the broader issue of public education.”

“Eminent domain for private gain is the subject of nationwide public debate,” said senior attorney Dana Berliner, who was co-counsel in the Kelo case and who will help direct this litigation.  “If Walker Royall didn’t want anyone to talk about him or his development deals, he shouldn’t have made a deal to develop a private marina using public money and someone else’s land.  The Constitution protects people who talk about important issues like eminent domain abuse by governments and private developers.  If developers don’t want people writing about them, then they shouldn’t be involved with government’s abuse of eminent domain.”

The freedom to learn about eminent domain abuse is also at stake because Royall is asking the court to stop the presses on Bulldozed, preventing anyone else from reading the book.  “Mr. Royall should tell the public why he doesn’t like Carla Main’s book, rather than try to censor it,” said Wesley Hottot, an IJ-TX staff attorney.

About the Author: Founded in 1991, the Virginia-based Institute for Justice fought the landmark legal battle to protect property rights in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing Kelo v. City of New London in 2005.  The Institute has successfully defended eminent domain abuse activists sued for speaking out in St. Louis, Mo., Clarksville, Tenn., and Renton, Wash.

As our city government, comprised of the mayor and city council, routinely rule on issues affecting realtors, builders, developers, and building material suppliers, people in those disciplines should not serve in city government. Since active realtors, builders, and developers are entrenched in elected local offices, we have bad laws which enrich them at the expense of the voters who elected them and all taxpayers and residents.

Christina Walsh of the Castle Coalition, of which I am a member, wrote recently about Clarksville, “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.”

The long-range solution to conflicts of interest is voter education. All qualified candidates for local office who receive $1,000 or more in campaign contributions or spend $1,000 or more on their campaigns must file financial disclosures. These disclosures must identify all contributions and expenditures over $100. Since the local newspaper does not publish these public records, I will do so, on Clarksville online, for future elections, as the candidates file their disclosures. I will highlight, for voter scrutiny, all contributions from realtors, builders, developers, and building material suppliers. I will also attempt, with Clarksville online, to vet all qualified candidates, with special attention, again for voter scrutiny, to active realtors, builders, and developers. Hopefully, through this process, we will eventually achieve a city governent that is dedicated to serving the populace rather than itself.

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►

The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will host a fact finding meeting tonight on the controversial downtown redevelopment plan, dubbed “the blight bill,” including its eminent domain and assemblage issues. The meeting will be held at the New Providence Outreach Center, 207 Oak Street, in Clarksville at 7:00 p.m.

The redevelopment plan was first brought to the attention of federal officials this summer, when local NAACP President Jimmie Garland submitted some concerns to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The plan as it was passed contained language that effectively “blighted” the entire downtown business district — two square miles.

Angry residents challenge the redevelopment ordinance at a series of public meetings on the issue

Property owners, in response to this legislation, formed the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition to challenge this ordinance.William Dirl, field office director of the Nashville HUD office, expressed concerns in a letter to Clarksville Mayor Johnny Piper that the redevelopment plan did not emphasize providing housing rehabilitation to existing residents nor did it protect low to moderate home owners from eminent domain abuse.

Representatives from the NAACP, Clarksville Property Rights Coalition and the Institute for Justice a national advocacy group supporting the community will  attend the meeting.

Elected officials, community leaders have been invited to attend. The meeting is also open to interested members of the public and the media.

For more information please contact meeting coordinator Mr. Terry McMoore, Director, Urban Resource Center at (931) 378-1999 or Jimmie Garland, NAACP President, at (931) 216-6745

The original Community Town Hall Meeting format was discarded in favor of this new agenda. Elected officials, community leaders and civic organizations have been invited to attend. The meeting is also open to interested members of the public.

Organizers felt this meeting format will best help identify to USDOJ and HUD the issues and non-compliance that will and have already come about since this redevelopment plan was put together. A letter from HUD concerning these issues of non-compliance along with some recommendations were sent to the office of Mayor Johnny Piper several months ago.

The USDOJ and HUD will use the information gathered at this meeting to determine the best possible way to effectively engage the community in thnext phase of this process.  Please RSVP to Terry McMoore at the Urban Resource Center, 931-378-1999.

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.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in response to a complaint filed by the Clarksville NAACP found numerous flaws in the Clarksville Center Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan voted into law by the City Council with full support of City of Clarksville Mayor Johnny Piper.

The plan, which effectively “blights” two square miles of downtown Clarksville, has been a center of controversy and triggered the formation of the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition, which is lobbying for its repeal. The ordinance allows for use of eminent domain and provides an assemblage clause for developers seeking to acquire neded propoerties for redevelopment and /or urban renewal.

In a letter requesting an audience with this committee, Urban Resource Center Director, Terry McMoore, stressed the following:

“We are very concerned that this plan in its current form does not protect low income homeowners from losing their homes and that it also violates the voting and civil rights of the citizens of Clarksville – Montgomery County’s only Majority Minority voting ward and district”.

Mayor Bowers commissioned this review committee to look into whether Montgomery County government should partner with the City of Clarksville in this Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan.

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.

Two weeks ago in the Montgomery County Circuit Court, Judge Hicks dismissed a libel suit filed against the grassroots Clarksville Property Rights Coalition regarding downtown redevelopment, but on July 29 the Court notified the Institute for Justice of Virginia, CPRC’s legal representatives, that the signing of the order was “a mistake,” that oral arguments and discovery in this case would be heard August 4. Judge Hicks recusal canceled scheduled hearings in that matter and the lawsuit is, for now both resurrected and in limbo.

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 this 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.” IJ represents the CPRC in the case. Jerry Martin of Barrett, Johnston & Parsley in Nashville serves as IJ’s local counsel.

The grassroots CPRC formed quickly to lobby on behalf of the 1800 residents and small business owners living and working in that district. Public meetings were standing room only. (see related Clarksville Online stories and documents on this issue by clicking the black “blightville” box on the right side of our homepage.)

The court’s original and “erroneous” dismissal of the case was quick: the decision came down less than three weeks after the Institute filed a motion to have the case dismissed. In fact, the court did not even wait to hear a response from Swift and Wilkinson’s attorney or have a hearing on the motion. Then came the reversal of that ruling, and now the recusal of Judge Hicks. Clarksville Online will continue to follow this story as it develops.

With the CPRC vindicated just last week, Montgomery Court now says it made “a mistake.” The libel suit against the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition has been resurrected, with motions, discovery on August 4.

Last week the Montgomery County Circuit Court dismissed a libel suit filed against the grassroots Clarksville Property Rights Coalition regarding downtown redevelopment, but late today the Court notified the Institute for Justice of Virginia, CPRC’s legal representatives, that the signing of the order was “a mistake,” that oral arguments and discovery in this case will in fact be heard on Monday, August 4.

The Institute for Justice has just been informed by the clerk’s office of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, that a mistake in that office led to the accidental signing of an order granting IJ’s motion to dismiss a libel lawsuit brought against members of the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition (CPRC). As a result, that order will be rescinded and Judge Ross Hicks will hear oral argument on IJ’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit on Monday, August 11. The court will also conduct a discovery hearing on Monday, August 4.

Joyce Vanderbilt, owner of Kelly's on Riverside Drive, displays the controversial ad that resulted in a libel suit against the CPRC.

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 this 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.” IJ represents the CPRC in the case.

CPRC members: visible and vocal about redevelopment plans

The grassroots CPRC formed quickly to lobby on behalf of the 1800 residents and small business owners living and working in that district. Public meetings were standing room only. (see related Clarksville Online stories and documents on this issue by clicking the black “blightville” box on the right side of our homepage.)

Earlier today (Tuesday, July 29),the Institute for Justice received notice that Judge Ross Hicks of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County vindicated the right to protest government abuse by dismissing the libel lawsuit brought by Richard Swift, a developer who is a member of the Clarksville City Council, and Wayne Wilkinson, a member of Clarksville’s Downtown District Partnership, against members of the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition.

Swift and Wilkinson 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.” IJ represents the CPRC in the case. Jerry Martin of Barrett, Johnston & Parsley in Nashville serves as IJ’s local counsel.

The court’s original and “erroneous” dismissal of the case was quick: the decision came down less than three weeks after the Institute filed a motion to have the case dismissed. In fact, the court did not even wait to hear a response from Swift and Wilkinson’s attorney or have a hearing on the motion.

Laboring under the the initial report of victory for the CPRC, Atty. Bert Gall had said:

“The court’s decision is a tremendous victory for everyone who speaks out against the abuse of eminent domain. The decision puts thin-skinned politicians and developers on notice: If you file a frivolous lawsuit against people just for criticizing your public actions, your case will swiftly be thrown out of court.”

– Bert Gall, an IJ senior attorney

Across the country, in places like Renton, Wash., and Freeport, Texas, there has been an ominous trend of politicians and developers using frivolous litigation to suppress the speech of home and business owners who oppose the abuse of eminent domain for private development. The CPRC’s victory in Clarksville resoundingly reaffirms that the First Amendment protects that speech.

The national battle against eminent domain abuse is now focused in Tennessee. Not only did the CPRC stand up against an attempt to intimidate them from speaking out against the abuse of eminent domain in their city, but Joy Ford, the owner of a small country music business on storied Music Row in Nashville, is fighting the attempts of Nashville’s redevelopment agency to condemn her business and turn it over to a private developer who wants to build an office building. On July 21, the Institute announced that it would join Joy’s fight to save her business.

On the steps of our historic County Courthouse, a group of grassroots advocate citizens gave voice to an exercise that the founding fathers would have cherished. Members of the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition (CPRC), stood on the courthouse steps to declare their intent to protect their First Amendment Right of Free Speech in their criticism of government.

Bert Gall, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, stood with the group to announce that The Institute for Justice has risen to coalition’s defense in a defamation lawsuit following publication of an ad by the group that stated that the plaintiffs, Richard Swift and Wayne Wilkinson, are developers and that as developers, they are using the power of government to benefit developers. Gall said that the lawsuit is frivolous on its face and it represents a callous attempt by government officials to silence and intimidate critics among the general public and the affected community in particular.

The Institute for Justice is a non-profit public interest law firm that litigates on behalf of individuals whose rights are being violated by the government. Bert litigates property rights cases across the country. Most recently he represented home and business owners in Norwood v. Horney, the first eminent domain abuse case to be argued in front of and decided by a state supreme court in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous decision in Kelo v. City of New London.

In the Norwood case, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected the Kelo decision and held that the City of Norwood could not use eminent domain to take ordinary homes and businesses for private development. Also, through litigation and grassroots efforts, Bert helped a neighborhood in Lakewood, Ohio, gets its blight designation reversed. From August 2005 to August 2006, he directed the legislative, grassroots and education activities of the Castle Coalition’s “Hands Off My Home” campaign. The campaign’s goal is to achieve real reform that will protect ordinary Americans against the abuse of eminent domain.

According to their press release, The Institute for Justice seeks to vindicate the group’s right to protest eminent domain abuse. The CRPC is a grassroots citizens group who joined together to fight a redevelopment plan that threatened to subject their city to eminent domain for private gain. To better inform the public about the plan and its danger, they ran an ad in the local newspaper criticizing elected officials and developers for abusing eminent domain. For exercising their right of free speech and grassroots activism, they got sued.  Six days after the ad appeared and the City Council had voted to approve the final striped down revision of the ordinance, Swift, who is a member of the Clarksville City Council and a developer, and Wilkinson, a member of the Clarksville Downtown District Partnership and also a developer, together filed a defamation lawsuit against the group and its members, seeking $500,0oo in damages.

In short, Swift and Wilkinson are developers, using the power of government to benefit developers and they sued citizens for saying so. For home and small business owners in Clarksville and nationwide, the ability to protect what they own depends on their right to speak freely, especially after the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to eminent domain abuse in its infamous Kelo decision. Since the Kelo ruling, protest is the most effective way for property owners to defend what is rightfully theirs.

The Institute for Justice contends that politicians and developers across the nation accused of abusing eminent domain for private gain are trying, through the threat of litigation, to muzzle property owners who speak out to defend their neighborhood. “If politicians and public figures could sue anyone who criticized them, everyone in America would need a lawyer.” As the institute declares, “Under the First Amendment, you shouldn’t need a lawyer to speak out about politics.”

Dr. Rebecca Slayden-McMahan said she’s “insulted by the behavior of our elected officials and ashamed of their conduct.” She noted that with the approaching anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and 4th of July, here we are “having to defend ourselves from the very government that was designed to protect and defend us as citizens. The ability to protect what is rightfully ours depends on the right to speak freely.”

“The Leaf Chronicle ad was an attempt by CPRC to communicate with the people of Clarksville and urge them to contact their council representatives and voice their opinion regarding the redevelopment plan and the enabling legislation of the ordinance.” In her own remarks, she declared that “the information in the ad is accurate and factual. This lawsuit is frivolous and threatens our civil liberties and First Amendment Rights.”

As citizens, we all have a First Amendment right to speak out against government abuses without being sued for exercising that speech by the very people whose actions we are protesting. Characterizing the city government structure as a developer-driven government, Dr. Slayden-McMahan regards the council as a bunch of thin-skinned bullies that “don’t want anyone else playing in their sandbox, …and attempt to silence their critics with frivolous litigation; …we are involved because is not only our right but our obligation to be enlightened and engaged citizens.”

In closing her remarks, she quoted U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, “To stand in silence ,when they should protest, makes cowards of men.” And in reference to the lawsuit’s accusation of defamation, Dr. Slayden-McMahan again deferred to Lincoln, quoting, “What kills a skunk is the publicity it gives itself.”

[Show as slideshow]

12►

The Institute for Justice will stand with the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition on Monday, June 30, at 11 a.m. on the steps of the Montgomery County Courthouse at Millenium Plaza [corner of 2nd and Commerce Streets], to announce their legal plan to fight back against what they see as a “frivolous” defamation lawsuit filed by Clarksville City Councilmember Richard Swift and Wayne Wilkinson, a member of Clarksville’s Downtown Development Partnership. ”

Making the announcement will be Bert Gall, Senior Attorney for the Institute for Justice, and CPRC members Debbie Hunt, a homeowner, Joyce Vanderbilt, owner of Kelly’s Big Burger, and Dr. Rebecca Slayden-McMahan.

IJ is a non-profit, public interest law firm that has a long and successful history of defending property rights and First Amendment freedoms nationwide.

The CPRC, a grassroots group, was formed in November, 2007, to fight the abuse of eminent domain after a controversial redevelopment and urban renewal plan was passed by the Clarksville City Council. The plan designated two square miles of downtown property as “blighted.”

CPRC member Joyce Vanderbilt, owners of Kelly’s Big Burger, with the controversial ad that is the subject of a pending lawsuit

CPRC members joined together to fight the plan, which threatens their city with eminent domain for private gain. To better inform the public about the plan and its dangers, they ran an ad in the local newspaper criticizing elected officials and developers, including Swift and Wilkinson, for abusing eminent domain.

The ad, noting that both Swift and Wilkinson are developers, said, “This Redevelopment Plan is of the developers, by the developers, and for the developers.” Six days after the ad appeared, Swift and Wilkinson sued the group and its members and demanded $500,000.

But all citizens have a First Amendment right to speak out against government abuse—without getting sued for their speech by the very people whose actions they are protesting. To ensure that right, the Institute for Justice is stepping in to defend the members of the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition from Swift and Wilkinson’s heavy-handed attempt to silence and intimidate their critics.

For more information on the redevelopment plan, the CPRC, and the lawsuit, click the “black box” on the right hand column of this page. All Clarksville Online stories, photos and videotape on this issue are archived there.

For more information on this breaking story, call Lisa Knepper, Director of Communications, at (703) 682-9320.