Topic: City Council

Councilor Doyle seeks city council support for Red Cross emergency vehicle

By Christine Anne Piesyk | May 29, 2008 |

The City Council Finance Committee Tuesday rejected Ward 10 Councilor Jim Doyle’s request for $80,000 in municipal appropriations to assist the local Red Cross in acquiring an emergency response vehicle. The Red Cross ERV and all of its equipment was burned to rubble by an arsonist, and insurance on that older vehicle fell far short of replacement value.

Red Cross Executive Director Linda McCoy, Health and Safety Director Patricia Brown, and Emergency Services Director Cecil Stout stand before the charred ruin of the emergency response vehicle.

Since the rejection of the request must still come before the council in executive session, tonight Red Cross Executive Director Linda McCoy, Emergency Response Director Cecil Stout, and Logistics expert Mike Vogt will offer a presentation to councilors on the need for this vehicle and the impact its loss has had on the agency’s ability to effectively respond in its service area. «Read the rest of this article»

Sections: News | 2 Comments

Property Rights group: This is not over!

By Christine Anne Piesyk | May 10, 2008 |

Blatantly disregarding public input and dissent, the City Council voted to approve the controversial Downtown Redevelopment and Urban Renewal ordinance, nicknamed the “blight bill,” even as disgruntled homeowners and small business owners, all members of the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition, dressed in the blood-red color of protest, looked on.

In a May 8 letter written on behalf of the CPRC, Becky McMahan first thanked “those members of the City Council who have given us the courtesy of meeting with us to discuss the Redevelopment Plan,” then presented a number of points for the council to consider the all but pre-ordained vote. «Read the rest of this article»

Sections: Business, Issues, News | 1 Comment »

City Council returns to Chambers with thunderous public slams!

By Turner McCullough Jr. | May 9, 2008 |

Unannounced $524,000 City Hall security package heralds Council’s return to former chambers.

Rejection of resident participation on redevelopment review board slams public demand for representation.

The Clarksville City Council returned to its Council Chambers, delivering two thunderous slaps to the public’s collective face in a single meeting.

Before delivering the back-to-back punches, and with the smell of fresh paint still lingering in the air, city departments, staff and council members were praised for their response to the recent tornado touchdowns in our community. Mayor Pro Temp Barbara Johnson gave city certificates to Council Members Deanna McLaughlin, Geno Grubs and Bill Summers for their personal efforts in aiding with the clean-up.

«Read the rest of this article»

Sections: Business, Issues, Politics | No Comments

Meeting adjourned. Now for public comments!

By Turner McCullough Jr. | April 28, 2008 |

A cruel joke is being perpetrated upon the public at city council meetings. Actually, it’s a travesty!

For some inexplicable reason, knowledge of parliamentary procedure seems to be in short supply at recent city council meetings. The dubious conduct of meetings and voting sessions has caused some citizens to raise a ‘Point of Order’ regarding the April 24th executive and special called voting sessions. Additional review of the printed and published agendas for those meetings brings a serious question to mind.

Questionable agenda ‘order of business’?

Since the city of Clarksville utilizes Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised as its parliamentary authority, citizens must question how the agenda for any of its public meetings can contain a public comment segment AFTER the adjournment of the meeting. By all generally understood interpretations of Robert’s Rules of Order and every other parliamentary authority manual, adjournment is the conclusion of the called gathering, the point at which all agenda business and discussion has been addressed and decided. How then is the public supposed to impart its input upon the deliberative body that is city council, when the meeting is no longer in session and the people’s representatives are released to leave the gathering? «Read the rest of this article»

Sections: Issues, News, Opinion, Politics | 1 Comment »

“Blight” bill up for 2nd reading & vote; City Council sets Executive & Special Sessions

By Christine Anne Piesyk | April 24, 2008 |

UPDATE: Upon receipt of a Special Called Session agenda at 12:30 p.m. today, the vote in question on the adoption of ordinance 96-2007-08 is NOT on the agenda; it was listed as part of the special session agenda previously received by Clarksville Online and discussed on 4/23/08, the agenda upon which this story is based. The ordinance will have its second reading as scheduled.

Ordinance 96-2007-08, a.k.a. “the blight bill,” is coming before the City Council in back-to-back meetings for a second reading AND a vote to adopt the controversial ordinance tonight starting at 4:30 p.m. in the City Hall Conference Room at 1 Public Square in downtown Clarksville. At a recent meeting on this issue on the APSU campus, Mayor Johnny Piper assured concerned residents affected by this ordinance, titled Clarksville Center Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan, that it would NOT come up before the Council “until May.” Today is April 24.

The first item under new business for the special session reads as follows:

1. ORDINANCE 96-2007-08 (Second Reading) Adopting the Clarksville Center Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan

The ordinance in its original form deemed approximately two square miles of downtown Clarksville as blighted, subject to eminent domain, under a Clarksville Redevelopment Plan. That plan was flawed in content and the process used to present it to the affected residents and business owners. A re-worked version which has some improvements, added the words “urban renewal” to “redevelopment” but still carried many of the same problems including eminent domain and an assemblage clause that Clarksville Property Rights Coalition (CPRC) attorney Attorney John Summers called “audacious.”

Here’s the game plan: The City Council will meet in a non-voting Executive Session first, at 4:30 p.m., in the conference room, with an extensive agenda that includes a second reading of the ordinance as the first item under new business, a move which caught members of the coalition members off-guard, but not for long. That Executive Session agenda lists time for “Public Comment” at the END of each meeting. The Executive Session will be immediately followed by a “Special Called Voting Session” at which a full agenda of items including the Redevelopment Plan will be presented. (See complete Special Session and Executive Session agendas at the end of this article). The Special Called Meeting will also only accept public comment only AFTER the meeting. «Read the rest of this article»

Sections: Issues, News | No Comments

City Council votes in opposition and disregard to citizens outcry

By Turner McCullough Jr. | April 9, 2008 |

Old resolution # 73-2005-06 (also referred to as the “blight” ordinance”) is now resolution # 96-2007-08.

At a Special Called Session under heavy police presence, the Clarksville City Council heard from a wide cross-section of the affected redevelopment district and concerned citizens Monday night. Attendance was estimated at over 200 people. Despite pleas for more openness and deletion of the threat of eminent domain against homeowners and property owners, the Council gave first reading approval of Resolution 96-2007-08 with a vote tally of 3 Nays against 9 Yeas.

The agenda presented at the meeting deviated from that released to the public. The previously released agenda stated that the council “desires to delete Ordinance 73-2005-06 in its entirety and amend the same, or replace the same, with the hereafter Clarksville Center Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan.” No explanation was offered for the change-up in agenda criteria. Ordinance 96-2007-08 was listed as “an ordinance adopting the Clarksville Center Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan.

After motions to delete several items from the agenda, Mayor Johnny Piper gave a slide presentation summarizing the history of the Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan. Acknowledging that the original plan had failed to follow several provisions of state law, Mayor Piper said several steps were taken to correct those flaws. However, repeal of the plan was never pursued. «Read the rest of this article»

Sections: Business, Issues, News, Politics | No Comments

Aurora, Colorado: Red-light cameras increased rear-end collisions 175%

By Bill Larson | March 29, 2008 |

Red light cameras in the city of Aurora, Colorado, failed to yield any reduction in the overall number of accidents since the devices were installed in May 2005. Nonetheless, city officials have approved a measure that will allow the expansion of the existing four-intersection setup to one covering up to twenty-five city locations.

The devices were successful between 2006 and 2007 in issuing 19,087 tickets worth $1,431,525. “We think there’s a value to taking the program to the next step,” Police Chief Daniel Oates told the Rocky Mountain News newspaper.

However, at three of the four ticketing locations, rear end collisions increased dramatically from 2005 to 2006. At Mississippi Avenue and Potomac, rear end collisions jumped 175 percent. At Alameda Avenue and Abilene Street, the increase was 100 percent. «Read the rest of this article»

Sections: Issues, Politics | No Comments

Red light Cameras: Albuquerque, NM

By Bill Larson | March 15, 2008 |

I just love the fact that the above video points out that the Albuquerque Mayor claims cameras have reduced accidents by 20%, while multiple independent reports show they increased by 20%, this sounds a lot like Knoxville… One side has to be lying! Who might that be? I vote for the city since they are receiving a financial benefit from the cameras that they would lose because if the citizens knew these cameras increased accidents, they would be demanding they be removed. Lets avoid this issue in Clarksville totally by saying no to traffic enforcement Cameras!

Remember our city officials want to install the type system here and our lights are still timed to cause more congestion not less. How many times have we all seen Riverside drive back up over 1 mile from the Riverside Drive intersection clear to McGregor park. North Second street back up clear up Emerald Hill towards Forbes and Marion. Kraft street backed up almost to Lincoln Homes. All because New Providence BLVD is backed up all the way to Peachers mill.

This leads to frustrated drivers trailing through the intersections whom with the cameras the city will likely be able to profit from.  Do you really think they will have any incentive to fix the clear problems with our roads when it’s generating a profit for them? «Read the rest of this article»

Sections: Opinion, Politics | 2 Comments