The Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan (CCRP) has been met with extreme opposition from residents in the affected area, who jokingly (or not) call their part of Clarksville “Blightville.” I’ve had the opportunity to attend a few of the meetings where the plan was discussed, and as a member of the Human Relations Commission, I’ve been on quite a few of the email lists where this topic has been the point of a lot of major contention. This has been so important that City Mayor Johnny Piper has distributed a letter to affected residents, which reads in part:

Recently, a group calling itself the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition has been distributing a flier that has false and misleading information about the redevelopment plan. I am particularly concerned with the allegation that the City desires to take property from business owners and residents and sell it to developers as part of eminent domain.

The flier states: “Your property can be condemned by a majority vote of the City Council and then resold to private developers.”

Please do not be frightened into believing what the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition is misrepresenting about the plan. The City of Clarksville has no intentions of taking your property. The redevelopment plan ordinance actually makes it harder for any government to exercise eminent domain. There are many layers of protection for property owners built into the ordinance that are not being revealed to you in these fliers distributed by the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition.

Note: the full text of the Mayor’s letter is provided at the end of this commentary.

While there are indeed many steps and protections in place for the use of eminent domain, the reality of the ordinance in its present form is that it removes one step by calling the entire area “blighted.” This is a valid concern, and I’ve said that on several occasions. It’s my understanding that the broad “blight” sweeping designation will be addressed in the forthcoming revised bill, as it should be. Mayor Piper’s letter also says:

The Clarksville Property Rights Coalition has been going door to door telling residents and business owners that the City of Clarksville is going to take your property and you will have 30 days to vacate the property. This scare tactic used by the CCRP is completely FALSE. This will not happen!

I’ve also been hearing (and reading) these claims of how “certain people” associated with the Property Rights Coalition are allegedly telling residents that they’ll be told to leave their homes in “30 days” if the plan goes into effect. This is simply not true and is a gross and distorted misrepresentation of everything that the Coalition is working for.

I don’t know if the claim is just a way to demonize the CPRC leaders, or if a few misinformed individuals are voicing their own fears about the plan. Either way, it’s important that false information be dismissed as such. I urge anyone who is making these claims to better understand the ordinance. The reality is that the Mayor is quite correct. The claim that residents will be given thirty days to vacate their homes is completely false. However, I don’t know if these tactics are being spread by members of the CPRC. If this is true, then it should stop.

I’ve been wanting to read just what points of the ordinance were “misrepresented,” and with the distribution of the Mayor’s letter, we have exactly that. I would love to know, however, who has been spreading the idea that people would be given 30 days to vacate their homes. I’m not aware of any of this being said at any of the CPRC meetings. We’ve covered a lot of what WAS said, and I’ve yet to see any rebuttals to those points. The most that we have seen up until the Mayor’s letter was a constant dressing-down of John Summers. Alas, I’ve not read anything about what those “misrepresentations” were aside from two major points:

• Summers said that specific projects were required to be attached to any redevelopment plans. This is apparently in question, according to Mayor Piper and the Knoxville redevelopment group. Any information on this point would be especially helpful in understanding how this can be properly implemented.
• Summers said that this is, to his knowledge, the largest area that has ever been targeted for redevelopment. Words like “audacious” were used. However, the Council and Mayor have claimed that Knoxville and Nashville both have targeted similar-sized areas for redevelopment. What would really help in this point is some exact cases where this has been done effectively.

In short, could we get some information that would really help bolster these points WITHOUT attacking Mr. Summers, as we have seen from previous emails and quotes from various City officials and supporters? I know it’s great politics to attack a figurehead, but this is a group of several hundred residents whom you feel are being misled. We need facts, not attacks.

Mr. Summers was indeed a part of a project that was highly criticized by people in his ward when he was a councilman in Nashville. However, he was very popular for quite some time before that, since he had a track record of working with the public and preventing power abuses. No one is perfect, and it’s unfair for anyone to attack the messenger when there are some very specific points of the message that are valid:

• Affected Residents were not notified properly.
• The ordinance and redevelopment plan is entirely too broad and open-ended.
• There are too many questions of legality regarding the ordinance in its current form.
• The area designated as “blighted” is too large.

The above four points have been made by the Mayor in earlier statements and in this letter, and are reasons why it’s being revisited. There was a lot of sabre-rattling before the Mayor put the whole thing on hold, and in my opinion, these are the points that were paramount. I’m glad that the Council is going through this thorough research to build an ordinance which will beautify Clarksville and prevent existing residents from being driven from their homes. The last point is of particular interest and was addressed specifically in the Mayor’s letter:

I also believe that some of the language in the ordinance was inappropriate and should be changed.

For Example: The ordinance says, “it is a blighted area.”

To label the entire area as blighted was improper and this will be addressed in any future ordinance that is put forth. I will not support an ordinance which designates an entire area as blighted under any circumstances. In addition, the city council will be looking at the size of the redevelopment district. I plan to make a recommendation that the size of the district be reduced.

In a final thought, I’m told that there have allegedly been statements been made by some officials that we (Clarksville Online writers and the CPRC) are “uneducated” in the matters of the redevelopment plan. This is especially puzzling since we have not only read and reprinted the ordinance in its entirety, but also the DDP’s redevelopment plan itself. On this point, I need to be clear: if a matter affects a major group of people in Clarksville, we MUST be informed. Simply saying that we’re “uneducated” is unacceptable, and the only correct response is to educate the public as to why such action or ordinance is necessary, and the effect of those actions.

The most important thing, in my opinion, is for officials to avoid the impression of saying, “because we’re the experts.” Whether it’s true or not isn’t relevant, it’s the impression that has to be avoided. The reality is that such attitudes are neither appropriate nor acceptable. We’re all neighbors here, and we have a right to know what is going on, and city officials have the responsibility of disclosing the fine print about any ordinance.

Clearly, there’s a lot that needs to be done, and I believe that Clarksville will benefit from the discussions. Let’s keep everyone informed, and make sure that any redevelopment is appropriate for the city as a whole. No one is opposed to progress, and I have long been a supporter of earlier projects that were later abandoned. I look forward to seeing the CCRP presented in a manner that will benefit everyone, especially residents in and near the downtown area.

Affected Residents

The full text of the Mayor’s letter

February 4, 2008

John Q. Public
1234 First Street
Clarksville, TN 37040

Dear Property Owner,

Recently there has been much controversy surrounding the Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan Ordinance that the City Council passed in October. I believe the controversy stems from misinformation about the plan that has been circulated by several groups over the past few weeks.

As you may or may not be aware, the Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan is an initiative developed by the Downtown District Partnership and has been under review for the past three years. Newspaper articles from the Leaf Chronicle about this redevelopment plan date as far back as 2005.

I first became involved with the plan in February 2007 when the Downtown District Partnership leaders asked me to put it on the City Council agenda for a second reading. It was passed by the City Council on first reading in March of 2006, prior to me becoming Mayor. The City Council postponed the second reading so that the DDP and the property owners could meet to discuss some concerns that were raised by those that would be affected by the plan. Several meetings were held to reach an agreement by all parties involved on the details of the ordinance. When the leadership of the DDP approached the City Council about bringing the redevelopment plan before the city council for second reading again, we were assured by them that this plan had the full support of the property owners and any concerns they may have had were resolved.

Recently, a group calling itself the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition has been distributing a flier that has false and misleading information about the redevelopment plan. I am particularly concerned with the allegation that the City desires to take property from business owners and residents and sell it to developers as part of eminent domain.

The flier states: “Your property can be condemned by a majority vote of the City Council and then resold to private developers.”

Please do not be frightened into believing what the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition is misrepresenting about the plan. The City of Clarksville has no intentions of taking your property. The redevelopment plan ordinance actually makes it harder for any government to exercise eminent domain. There are many layers of protection for property owners built into the ordinance that are not being revealed to you in these fliers distributed by the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition.

The Clarksville Property Rights Coalition has been going door to door telling residents and business owners that the City of Clarksville is going to take your property and you will have 30 days to vacate the property. This scare tactic used by the CCRP is completely FALSE. This will not happen!

I want you to know that I am concerned about the controversy that has overshadowed the good intentions of the plan, but equally concerned that there were some procedures that were not followed properly in accordance with Tennessee law when developing the plan.

For Example: Tennessee law is very clear in stating that a public hearing should have been held and every property owner in the affected area should have been notified of the public hearing.

This did not happen and I can assure you that as we move forward with this issue a public hearing will be held and you will be notified in writing as to the date and location that the public hearing will be take place. I want to give you, the property owners in the affected area, the opportunity to hear about the plan and the opportunity to make comments and ask questions about it. I also believe that some of the language in the ordinance was inappropriate and should be changed.

For Example: The ordinance says, “it is a blighted area.”

To label the entire area as blighted was improper and this will be addressed in any future ordinance that is put forth. I will not support an ordinance which designates an entire area as blighted under any circumstances. In addition, the city council will be looking at the size of the redevelopment district. I plan to make a recommendation that the size of the district be reduced.

Over the next month, you will see a lot of action by the City Council and myself in regards to the Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan. I will propose to the City Council at the February City Council meeting that we establish a whole new ordinance that addresses this issue. Additionally, a group of community leaders and representatives from the affected neighborhoods will be traveling to Knoxville on February 6th to meet with representatives from the Knoxville Redevelopment Corporation (a group that has extensive experience with similar redevelopment plans) to discuss how their redevelopment plans were created.

Please visit the City of Clarksville website at www.cityofclarksville.com to get more information about the Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan. I will be seeking your input as we move forward with this initiative and I hope you will participate in the process.

Sincerely,

John E. Piper

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.

The Tennessee Code, Constitution, and at least theoretically the United States Constitution provide that private property may only be taken for ‘public use’ and then only after ‘just compensation’ has been given. The Tennessee Code theoretically should prohibit the proposed action, except for the minor problem that theory is fine and well, but as written the title does absolutely nothing to affect the actual eminent domain power with its list of exceptions and lack of definitions of the key terms involved.

This leaves us with a fall back to the United States Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has held that it is legitimate for a government to seize property from one private holder and transfer it to another private holder for virtually any conceivable purpose. The city in this case can simply declare swathes of land blighted and assign it to some entity to correct its status. This is wrong and all Americans should be morally opposed to this action and on the socialist/collectivist philosophy on which it rests.

Let us start by accurately defining eminent domain. The ‘definition’ generally given is “the taking of private property for public use.” However, a better definition would be “extortion by the governmental authority.” Why is this? To begin with, there is no such entity as the public because it consists entirely of individuals. Therefore the idea that the ‘public interest’ supersedes private interests and rights can mean only one thing: the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of some others, or more specifically the desire of some individuals for property they did not earn and freely obtain is more important than the rights of the individuals who did earn their property and do not wish to liquidate it. Therefore that which you own will be taken by force (police power of the government) and given to someone else (which is the definition of extortion).

Why can’t anyone stop this? The truth is that eminent domain itself is not the underlying problem, but a symptom of the perverse ideology that grips America. Recall that in the capitalist model of politics the individual and his rights are sacred, including his property rights. Eminent domain exists in such a situation solely as the extension of the legitimate police power (IE: if you use your property for illegal acts you have forfeited your right to said property).

However, America does not exist under such a system. Instead, politicians readily accept the idea that it is permissible to take from one individual and give to another. Actually, they even call it moral. The American political system is currently operating under the delusion that people have some right to something they have not earned, ranging from Medicaid to Food Stamps, Housing and Urban Development, Sub-Prime Bail Out, and yes eminent domain — which are all based on the mistaken idea that some ‘public good’ (a term which suffers the same exact problem as public use) makes the violation of the rights of man acceptable and moral. So long as this perversely immoral philosophical viewpoint is allowed to exist eminent domain will not stop and the Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan will likely be continued as planned. Of course, the left really shouldn’t be so shocked. After all, their philosophy of altruism enforced by government power made it possible.

All words used Friday evening to describe the Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan that deems 1800 parcels of lands and two square miles of the city as “blighted,” a move that would allow the city to take property designated as blighted and “redevelop” it to its maximum potential. Read “profit.”

Terry McMoore of the Urban Resource Center sponsored a community meeting at the HOPE Center on Legion Street to present a panel of speakers on this issue and to field questions from a worried public.

One phrase in the ordinance that concerned panelists and residents alike reads as follows:

“…the Plan for the project area will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the locality as a whole, for redevelopment of the area by private enterprise.” [Ordinance 73-2005-06, Section 7]

This meeting is one of a number of citizen- and community-sponsored events scheduled to address the concerns of proposed legislation that designated the entire downtown area — including the multi-million dollar courthouse, the new FM bank building, and businesses and homes in the district except property held by Austin Peay State University. The endorsement by the City Council followed a “revitalization” program in which citizens of the Red River and Brandon Hills area were invited to a series of planning sessions on the betterment of their community. Not long after the hype of “community betterment” project came the issuance of what Clarksville homeowners are calling “the blight deal.”

The panelists for this program, which aired to a full house of fifty people, included Nashville Atty. John Summers who currently chairs the Tennessee Historic Preservation Coalition, Dan Brown, Executive Director of the Tennessee Preservation Trust, Civil Rights activist and advocate Jimmie Garland Sr. (at left) who is currently serving as President of the Clarksville branch of the NAACP, and author and Human Relations Commissioner David Shelton. Ward 6 Councilor Marc Harris was scheduled to be on this panel but failed to appear.

“This is not just a development issue, this is a social justice issue,” Brown said, calling the plan, bold, audacious, over the top, the largest [redevelopment plan] of its kind in the nation.” The plan can be included on a top ten list of most endangering projects in the United States.

“There is no plan to it. It is ‘enabling’ legislation that allows developers to come into a community and take property.” Brown said the scope of the project is “unbelievable.”

John Summers (at right) displayed maps of Nashville Redevelopment projects, citing seven individualized development projects targeting specific issues in specific neighborhoods, each with it own issues and objectives, couched in long-range planning, unlike Clarksville’s move to blanket the entire center of the center under the collective label of “blight.”

“This kind of action is unprecedented; no other city in all of Tennessee — not Memphis, not Nashville, not Chattanooga or Jackson — has declared all of a downtown district as part of a single redevelopment. [Clarksville] declared 1800 parcels as blighted irregardless of their actual condition.” — John Summers

Summers and the panel agreed the only course of action to get this plan repealed, and said it would take a dedicated effort by residents to make that happen. He said the community must come together with a consensus. He said that while he hopes the plan will be repealed “because it is the right thing to do,” this precedent-setting legislation should be “fought on every level.” He has been in touch with a historic preservation legal trust fund. “This plan if allowed to manifest itself has national implications.”

Garland noted that a high percentage of residents in the area are middle and low income families, and many are people of color. Garland sees the plan as a way for the city to shift the balance of the community and move the poor out of the downtown corridor. Garland is taking a copy of the the ordinance (73-2005-06) to the state NAACP for review and discussion of potential action.

“If you trust your city council in this matter, go home and sleep well.” With those words came a rueful and wry laughter from the audience.

“This law will let developers build the convenience stores people say they need, and build the playgrounds, but there won’t be anyone living there to use them.” Not one presenter or member of the audience spoke in favor of this legislation, and many questioned the absence of any city officials.

Residents collectively voiced concern that the designation of blight will either diminish the value of their property and/or hinder their ability to sell property since anything in that area would be vulnerable to eminent domain takings for redevelopment.

It doesn’t matter if your property is not run down, if you live in a nice home…if you property is attached to a parcel that is needed to complete some other building package, it can and would be vulnerable to a taking. Summers said.

If Clarksville’s administrative and political leadership think the issue will die out, they need a reality check. The homeowners were not just worried, they were fighting mad. And they are organizing.

On Monday at 6 p.m. at the Train Station downtown, the Clarksville Property Rights Association will stage another meeting — complete with petitions — extending the face and the voice of the people affected by this designation.

These images reflect “the face of concern” at Friday’s meeting:

Editor’s Note: Author/Editor Christine Anne Piesyk facilitated the event at the request of the sponsor, the Urban Resource Center. Photos by Bill Larson