Topic: Clarksville Property Rights Coalition
By Christine Anne Piesyk | May 12, 2008 |
- Property Rights group faces $500,000 libel suit
- Controversial development plan under fire
- Councilor Richard Swift, DDP member Wayne Wilkinson claim harm to public image and integrity
- Is this a SLAPP suit?
- CPRC will “vigorously defend” against “frivolous” suit
Another punch has been thrown in the ongoing battle between the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition and both city officials and the Downtown District Partnership: the CPRC has been slapped with a lawsuit over a dissenting advertisement on the issue of redevelopment.
The suit was filed by Wilkinson and Swift on Friday in the 19th Judicial District, Circuit Court of Montgomery County against the CPRC as an organization and, Pam Vandeveer, individually as CPRC treasurer. You can read the complete text of the lawsuit here at Clarksville Online.

CCRP member Joyce Vanderbilt with the CPRC ad
At issue is the veracity of an ad which ran in the Leaf Chronicle on May 3, prior to the May 8 City Council special session at which the final reading and approval of the highly controversial Downtown Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan occurred. The ad stated that Clarksville Mayor Johnny Piper, Councilman Richard Swift and DDP member Wayne Wilkinson as developers who worked for passage of the comprehensive redevelopment plan that would cover roughly two square miles of down town Clarksville and which designated the area as blighted.
The lawsuit charges that the CPRC ad made “libelous” statements against plaintiffs Wilkinson and Swift when the CPRC ad implied that [the plaintiffs] placed their “development interests” above the wishes of the community and their constituency. «Read the rest of this article»
Sections: Business, Issues, News | No Comments
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 »
March 18, 2008 |

Several groups opposing the Clarksville Center Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan will hold a rally prior to the City of Clarksville’s public hearing scheduled on the Plan for this Thursday, March 20th, at 6:00pm. Opponents of the redevelopment plan should plan on wearing red clothing.
At 4:30pm on Thursday, the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition (CPRC) will hold a rally to protest the Redevelopment Plan and the recent new Plan Amendment proposed by Mayor Piper. The rally will be held in the parking lot across from Burt School, 110 Bailey Street, the location of the public hearing.
The Redevelopment Plan authorizes the use of eminent domain over more than 1,000 parcels of private property near downtown Clarksville. Under the Plan, government agencies have the power to condemn homes, businesses and churches then transfer the land to a private developer. The city approved the original ordinance and Plan last year, but failed to follow state law in notifying all affected property owners. A proposed amendment to the Plan has been prepared by Mayor Piper. The Amendment does not remove the condemnation provisions, but instead actually strengthens the eminent domain language.
«Read the rest of this article»
Sections: Issues, News | No Comments
By David W. Shelton | February 13, 2008 |
Mayor Johnny Piper’s letter to affected residents attempts to ease concerns
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.
«Read the rest of this article»
Sections: Opinion, Politics | No Comments
By Christine Anne Piesyk | January 10, 2008 |
“It’s all just a big mess.”
Those words summed up the state of the city, City Council, and the Downtown District Partnership regarding the now infamous “blight” ordinance.
The Clarksville Property Rights Coalition met tonight at Austin Peay State University to review the status of a redevelopment ordinance put on hold by Mayor Johnny Piper when it was found to be in violation of state law.
Originally, the Downtown District Partnership had scheduled an informational meeting to explain what were termed “misconceptions” about the ordinance, which declares two square miles and 1823 properties in downtown Clarksville, with the solitary exception of Austin Peay State University, were declared blighted as part of an ambiguous redevelopment plan.
The DDP had suggested that the property in that area were “misinformed” about this legislation. As it turns out, the DDP “failed to use due diligence” and violated state law.
The mayor’s findings and the cancelled meeting brought satisfaction to the citizen’s group who felt their concerns about the ordinance have been substantiated. «Read the rest of this article»
Sections: Issues | No Comments
By Christine Anne Piesyk | December 27, 2007 |
Last week Clarksville Online offered you, our readers, the complete content of the Dec. 14 HOPE-sponsored meeting to review the “blight” designation applied to downtown Clarksville via Ordinance 73-2005-06.
That first meeting was called in response to a City Council voted that placed two square miles, and 1800 homes and business under a “blighted property” designation to facilitate a Downtown Redevelopment Plan. It is the largest “blanket blighting” in the country and has raised the ire of virtually all the homeowners and many of the businesspeople who reside in or own property in that area. In addition to the start of a postcard and petition drive, the Coalition called for a repeal of the new ordinance, which many property owners say “blindsided” them, signs have also been popping up as a show of protest. The City Council is planning a forum to respond to citizen concerns but have not yet announced a date, time, place, or list of speakers.
Today we present a second tape, this one of the Dec. 17 Clarksville Property Rights Coalition meeting held at the historic L&N Train Station in the heart of what is quickly becoming referred to as “Blightsville” USA.
«Read the rest of this article»
Sections: Issues | No Comments
By Christine Anne Piesyk | December 23, 2007 |
As details of the recent City Council action in approving Ordinance 73-2005-06 unfold, residents of the two-square mile downtown district now deemed “blighted” awakened to what is perceived as a potential threat to their homes and neighborhoods in form of “redevelopment” and eminent domain. The Council quietly whispered through the new ordinance and the people roared back their displeasure in the form of grassroots meetings and the beginnings of a sign campaign that touts the area as “Blightville.”
The City Council, which had considered the plan a done deal, is now facing the need to justify the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. They will respond to an angry constituency with a meeting of their own, a public forum to be held in January on a yet to be determined date and time and location. The Council hearing will be led by an as yet unnamed attorney. They’ll need a big room, since the opposition is growing steadily, as noted with the three hundred people who showed up for the December 17 petition drive at the Historic Train Station on Tenth Street. «Read the rest of this article»
Sections: Issues, News | 2 Comments
By Christine Anne Piesyk | December 17, 2007 |
They came, by the hundreds, and they were concerned. Worried. “Mad as hell.” And determined to do something about it. Nearly three hundred Clarksville residents turned out at the Historic L&N Train Station for a 6 p.m. meeting and petition drive to fight the designation of blight applied to their neighborhoods by the recent City Council approval of a Downtown Redevelopment Plan.

The meeting, called by the Clarksville Property Rights Association, came just three days after a similar meeting held Friday at the HOPE Center on Legion Street. That first meeting drew approximately 50 people. A mailing campaign, and a public relations push saw that first crowd grow to a shoulder-to-shoulder crush of about 300 people at the station. The Property Rights group was stunned but pleased by the turnout, and had done their homework, with petition postcards printed and filed by property owner names, each card ready to be mailed to the City Council. Additional cards were available for anyone not already on the list who wanted to support this effort at rescinding the legislation and the “blight” designation. «Read the rest of this article»
Sections: Issues, News | 3 Comments
|