Clarksville’s Downtown District Partnership has developed a loan program coordinated  through six Clarksville banks  that will make loans available to downtown property owners for exterior building improvements. The Facade Improvement Loan Program was announced on January 22 during the Ten Year Tornado Commemoration breakfast hosted by the DDP, however details of the program were still being finalized at that time.

According to DDP Chairman, Scott Giles, “The Downtown District Partnership has been in discussion with local lenders to get this program up and running and we’re delighted to have great support from our banking community.” The intent of the facade improvement program is to encourage businesses or residential property owners to work with the participating bank of their choice. Each of the six banks has committed to making $500,000 in funds available to loan. These funds are offered to borrowers at favorable rates for qualifying improvements.

Giles further stated, “This is not a loan pool, nor is there an approving authority. Each institution will evaluate loan applications on a case-by-case basis and have agreed to accept applicants for these loan funds over the next 24 months.”

Typical projects that would meet the criteria for loans would include exterior building remodeling and improvements:

• masonry repairs
• window and door replacement
• awnings
• paint and trim
• exterior lighting
• ornamental rails, balconies and fire escapes
• hardscape and landscaping

“Of course, any exterior changes to a property within the boundaries of the CBID must be approved by the Design Review Board before a building permit is issued. This is a function of the City of Clarksville Building & Codes Department and applies regardless of participation in this loan program.” Giles added.

Property owners within the Central Business Improvement District (CBID) can directly contact the participating bank of their choice. The participating banks and contacts are:

• F&M Bank – Scott Giles
• Heritage Bank – Keith Bennett
• Legends Bank – Billy Atkins
• Planters Bank – Suzanne Langford
• Regions Bank — Amy Jerles-Orton
• US Bank -Steve Kemmer

For more information on the Downtown District Partnership go to www.ddpclarksville.org

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.

AGENDA

PUBLIC COMMENTS  7:15 P.M.: Doug Jackson, Richard Molar and Dean Fain

1)  CALL TO ORDER

2)  PRAYER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3)  ROLL CALL

4)  SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS

5)  PUBLIC HEARING

ZONING

1. ORDINANCE 45-2008-09  (First Reading, Postponed January 8th) Amending the Zoning Ordinance and the Official Code of the City of Clarksville, application of City of Clarksville relative to travel easements

2. ORDINANCE 51-2008-09  (First Reading)  Amending the Zoning Ordinance and Map of the City of Clarksville, application of Hock S. Chong, Jeffery B. Long-Agent, for zone change on property at Otis Smith Drive & Bellamy Lane from AG Agricultural District to C-2 General Commercial District  [Request to defer one month]

3. ORDINANCE 52-2008-09  (First Reading)  Amending the Zoning Ordinance and Map of the City of Clarksville, application of Michael E. Young, Trustee, Wayne Wilkinson-Agent, for zone change on property at Vaughn Road & Highway 76 from R-1 Single Family Residential District to O-1 Office-Medical-Institutional-Civic District

4. ORDINANCE 53-2008-09  (First Reading)  Amending the Zoning Ordinance and Map of the City of Clarksville, application of Michael E. Young, Trustee, Wayne Wilkinson-Agent, for zone change on property at Vaughn Road & Francis Lane from R-1 Single Family Residential District to C-4 Highway Interchange District

5. ORDINANCE 54-2008-09  (First Reading)  Amending the Zoning Ordinance and Map of the City of Clarksville, application of Rob Durrett for zone change on property at Dunbar Cave Road & Wilma Rudolph Boulevard from R-1 Single Family Residential District to C-5 Highway & Arterial Commercial District

6. ORDINANCE 55-2008-09  (First Reading)  Amending the Zoning Ordinance and Map of the City of Clarksville, application of Frank Woodard for zone change on property at Warfield Boulevard & Rossview Road from R-1 Single Family Residential District to C-5 Highway & Arterial Commercial District

VACATION OF PROPERTY

1. RESOLUTION 45-2008-09  Approving vacation of property on Richaven Road; request of James Powell, Bryce Sanders-Agent

6)  CONSENT AGENDA

All items in this portion of the agenda are considered to be routine and non-controversial by the Council and may be approved by one motion; however, a member of the Council may request that an item be removed for separate consideration under the appropriate committee report:

1. ORDINANCE 41-2008-09  (Second Reading)  Amending the Zoning Ordinance and Map of the City of Clarksville, application of Kenneth E. Wood, Jr., Kenneth E. Wood, Sr.-Agent, for zone change on property at Madison Street & Ballygar Street from R-1 Single Family Residential District to C-5 Highway & Arterial Commercial District

2. ORDINANCE 44-2008-09  (Second Reading)  Amending the Zoning Ordinance and Map of the City of Clarksville, application of Han S. Yoon for zone change on property at Tiny Town Road & Tobacco Road from O-1 Office-Medical-Institutional-Civic District to C-2 General Commercial District

3. ORDINANCE 46-2008-09  (Second Reading)  Amending the Zoning Ordinance and Map of the City of Clarksville, application of Elizabeth Peterson for zone change on property at Trenton Road & Hayes Street from R-1 Single Family Residential District to C-5 Highway & Arterial Commercial District

4. ORDINANCE 47-2008-09  (Second Reading)  Providing for a donation to the Downtown District Partnership and authorizing transfer of property for the Spurline Trail Project

5. RESOLUTION 42-2008-09  Renewing a Certificate of Compliance for retail liquor store for Todd Morris  (Mulligan’s, 2273 Wilma Rudolph Boulevard)

6. RESOLUTION 46-2008-09  Renewing a Certificate of Compliance for retail liquor store for Ramesh Kasetty (Caddy’s Discount Liquors, 2206-B Madison Street)

7. Adoption of Minutes:  January 1st, January 8th

7)  BUILDING & CODES COMMITTEE

Wallace Redd, Chair

8)  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Bill Summers, Chair

9)  FINANCE COMMITTEE

Deanna McLaughlin

1. ORDINANCE 48-2008-09  (First Reading)  Amending the 2009 Legislative Department Operating Budget for election expenses  ($10,924)  (Finance Committee:  Approval)

2. ORDINANCE 49-2008-09  (First Reading)  Amending the Official Code relative to employee disciplinary process  (Finance Committee:  Approval)

3. RESOLUTION 43-2008-09  Authorizing a contract with TDOT for purchase of a biodiesel processing system with CMAQ funds   (Finance Committee:  Approval)

4. RESOLUTION 44-2008-09  Authorizing purchase of property above appraised value for Peachers Mill Road Improvements  (Finance Committee:  Approval)

10) GAS & WATER COMMITTEE

Bill Summers

1. ORDINANCE 50-2008-09  (First Reading)  Amending the Official Code relative to utility deposits  (Gas & Water Committee:  Approval)

11)GENERAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

Marc Harris, Chair

2) PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE

Bill Forrester, Chair

13) PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE

Geno Grubbs, Chair

14) STREET COMMITTEE

James Lewis, Chair

15) TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

Barbara Johnson, Chair

16) NEW BUSINESS

1. Approval of Board Appointments

17) MAYOR AND STAFF REPORTS

18) ADJOURNMENT

Montgomery County has numerous appointed decision-making and regulatory boards, committees,commissions and councils. Citizens are appointed to all of these entities. However the public is not well-informed of whom among it are making decisions as their representative. This does not meet with the intent nor approval of the state law. The city government is equally at fault in this regard. Appointments are not well publicized and the selection pool seems rather restricted. With the vast array of talents present in our community, it would seem that widening the selection pool should not be a difficult task.

Examples:

The Clarksville-Montgomery County Regional Planning Commission is composed of city and county mayor designees, three city appointees and two county appointees. Its current make-up reflects a solid male majority of eight males and one female. The ethnic make-up is difficult to ascertain as no pictures or other identifying information and no professional information are provided for public review. Hardly an informative stance on government’s part.

Planning Commissioners: City Mayor Designee: Ricky Thomas; County Mayor Designee: Mabel Larson (Vice-Chairman), City Council Rep.: Richard Swift; County Commission Rep.: Joe Creek; City Appointees: Eric Burnett, Mark Grant, John Laida; County Appointees: George Marks, Gary Norris (Chairman).

Montgomery County Title VI Advisory Committee: It is composed of seven county employees including the chairman, Ed Davis, the County Director of Administration. There are five ethnic minorities, four men (- one white male) and three females (- one white female), which comprise the committee. There is no citizen appointee listed for this body whatsoever. Title Vi being such a serious and important element of government functioning, this seems a major misstep.

County Beer Board: No information is available on its composition at the county government website. No names of members or contact information whosoever.

The same goes for the Audit Committee, Building Advisory Committee, County Conservation Board, Investment Committee, Legislative Liaison Committee, Rules Committee, School Liaison Committee, Strategic Planning Committee, and the Tax Freeze Committee. In fact the only county committee that provides anything more than a purpose statement is the Title VI Advisory Committee. where one must click on the “Who to Contact” button to see the information. It’s not labeled that one must do this to gain access to the information but it will display. There is NO such info whatsoever for all the other county government committees.

City Government:

On the city’s website, one must search under the “Links” tabs to find the standing committees listing. It is a complete listing of all 33 boards, committees, commissions and councils of and connected to our city government. The makeup of each body is listed and a point of contact is given. Gender parity may not be quite what one would like but women are named to many of these committees. Among these are Adjustments and Appeals, Airport Authority, Arts and Heritage Development Council, Fair Board, Ft. Defiance Committee, Gas & Plumbing Board, Historic Zoning Commission, Housing Authority, Human Relations Commission, Residential Development Commission, River District Commission and Downtown District Partnership.

There is no way to determine the level of ethnic parity within these committees with the information provided. Hopefully the annual reports required under the Open Appointments Act would yield such desired data. Both the county and the city should be more aggressive in providing the public with an easily accessible means to see this information about its government functions and composition.

An informed public is a better partner to government and society itself. This requires that you, the public, must step up and demand more of your government. How is it that a revised city charter is being presented to the state legislature for review BEFORE the citizens who will have to live under those provisions have a say on these new laws? There is something seriously off-kilter with that arrangement.

All government in Tennessee is predicated upon its service to and benefit of the people who authorize it. Dissatisfaction with that government is to be given swift and true redress by that government.

Article I of the Tennessee Constitution:

That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

Will you, the public, alert YOUR GOVERNMENT to your discontent? It will not change without such action.

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

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.

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.

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 Mayor Johnny Piper.

HUD authorities could not find any proposed objectives that would provide protection for low to moderate income residents and their property mentioned in the voted on ordinance.

The Clarksville NAACP first bought these issues to the attention of the U.S. Department of Justice and HUD after feeling that the civil rights and the federally protected rights of the Majority Minority Voting Ward was in jeopardy of being dismantled under this voted on redevelopment plan.

The redevelopment plan offer tax increment financing (tax abatements) to encourage private development, and is focused on the downtown area, Kraft and College Streets. In a comparison with the city’s Five Year Consilidated Plan for Housing and Community Development, HUD field office director William Dirl determined that while the city’s five year plan has a goal of increasing affordable housing, the new redevelopment plan had no “proposed objective to assist with this priority and to provide housing rehabilitation to eligible property owners.”

The consolidated plan is drafted by the city with community input, and approved by HUD. No federal funds can be used for projects lacking HUD approval of falling within HUD parameters.

After an extensive investigation and a thorough review of the Clarksville Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan and after consultation with numerous government agencies, William H. Dirl, Field Office Director for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Nashville was able to determine the flaws of the redevelopment plan and issued a few recommendations to the City of Clarksville in writing.

Clarksville NAACP President Jimmie Garland Sr. had asked HUD to review the plan, citing concerns about the ” detrimental effect” this plan would have on the poor, elderly and (minority) residents” of the downtown district.

Dirl addressed that concern in his response:

“We could not find any proposed objective to assist with this priority and to provide housing rehabilitation to eligible property owners. We will recommend that an objective be included to provide housing rehabilitation assistance to eligible housing units. This should greatly relieve fears that housing units not meeting minimum codes standards will be immediately considered for demolition.”

It is hoped that the Clarksville City Council and Mayor Piper will work diligently to insure that the equal rights and civil rights of all individuals are protected under this ordinance regardless of race, creed, nationality or socially economic status.

This Community Press Release provided courtesy of the Urban Resource Center and Mr. Terry McMoore (931) 378-1999. Any and all questions about the NAACP should be referred to NAACP President Jimmie Garland Sr. (931) 216-6745.

]]> http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/06/04/hud-finds-flaws-in-clarksville-redevelopment-plan/feed/ 2 http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/05/12/property-rights-group-slapped-with-500k-libel-suit-cprc-vows-vigorous-defense/ http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/05/12/property-rights-group-slapped-with-500k-libel-suit-cprc-vows-vigorous-defense/#comments Mon, 12 May 2008 18:02:31 +0000 Christine Anne Piesyk http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/?p=5118

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.

In responding to news of the suit, Becky McMahan, a member of the CPRC Steering Committee, said:

“We believe the libel suit filed by Downtown Development Partnership [DDP] Member and former Chair Wayne Wilkinson and Clarksville City Council Member Richard Swift against the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition is frivolous. All statements regarding Councilman Swift and Mr. Wilkinson made by the CPRC in our advertisement in the May 3rd Leaf-Chronicle were factual and were truthful.

These are public figures. The law simply does not support their claim given the facts here. It appears the plaintiffs are trying to intimidate and scare ordinary citizens from exercising their right of free speech in trying to defend their homes and their businesses from the threat of condemnation for private development, which this redevelopment plan allows.”

The text of the highly-debated ad reads:

“Hundreds of homeowners and property owners have voiced their opposition to this Plan, but our concerns are being ignored. No one supports this Plan except a few in the development community, those who expect to benefit from it. Mayor Piper has done everything possible to exclude opponents from the process. When a public hearing had to be scheduled, the public wasn’t even allowed to speak.

This Redevelopment Plan is about private development. Our City government is controlled by developers. This Redevelopment Plan is of the developers, by the developers, and for the developers. Mayor Johnny Piper, Councilman Richard Swift, and DDP Chair Wayne Wilkerson, are all developers. They all own development property in the Plan area.”

The ad also makes the following claims:

“No other city in the United States has included its entire downtown area in a Redevelopment Plan. But Clarksville’s Redevelopment Plan does.

“Nashville has eight Redevelopment Plans. None of Nashville’s Plans applies to residential homeowners. But Clarksville’s Redevelopment Plan does.”

Ironically, the very action of placing the ad with the Leaf Chronicle became a chess game with the newspaper initially opting not to run the ad, only to later accept it after consulting with their attorney and requiring attribution of the ad to the CPRC. The ad, which CPRC was told had been slated to run on page 4 of the May 3 edition, was in fact placed in the back section of the paper, which is published by Gene Washer, a member of the DDP.

The suit charges that:

“The allegations are intended to convey, and do convey, that Richard Swift and Wayne Wilkinson are engaged in actions to undermine the democratic process undertaken by elected officials. This allegation is false. The allegations are intended to infer that Richard Swift and Wayne Wilkinson ‘control’ City Government because they are ‘developers’.”

The suit further charges that the ad “falsely attacks the good reputations” of both plaintiffs and claims the statements in the ad damage their reputation and public perception. Although named in the ad, Mayor Piper is not one of the plaintiffs.

“Discovery,” the process of investigating these claims, is underway with the understanding that more members of the CPRC will be included in the suit with the names and addresses made part of the public record.

An overflow crowd of CPRC members gather outside a public hearing

The grassroots CPRC organized late last year when they learned of an ordinance that effectively “blighted” their neighborhood in the name of redevelopment. Standing room only meetings were held at the H.O.P.E. center on Legion Street and at the L&N Train Station. Hundreds of residents and small business owners wrote postcards and otherwise contacted their representatives and the city council at large to voice concern, outrage and overall dissent with the original, which was found to be in violation of state law including improper notification of affected citizens. They have remained active and vocal in their opposition to the original and the revised law. At the time of the final vote, some sections of the revised ordinance were changed back to the original form, including an option appoint rather than elect community representatives to the redevelopment board.

McMahan said all Clarksville residents should be “aware” of what is happening downtown since “representatives of the DDP said publicly last year, speaking before the Montgomery County Commission, that they have long-term plans to extend similar redevelopment plans out into other parts of the city.”

McMahan said:

“The first redevelopment plan promoted by the DDP and approved by the Clarksville City Council in 2007 was legally flawed for not following state law. The members of the CPRC believe the redevelopment plan approved last week is also legally flawed under state law. If you can intimidate those affected by the Plan’s provisions, then you can effectively eliminate any challenge to the Plan’s legality.

“Isn’t it ironic that men and women from Ft. Campbell here in Clarksville are putting their lives at risk in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect our rights as Americans, while at the same time citizens from Clarksville weren’t even being allowed to speak at a public hearing called by the City of Clarksville, while trying to protect their homes from condemnation for private development?”

McMahan, speaking for the CPRC, said the group “will vigorously defend against this frivolous claim and pursue whatever legal recourse and remedies may be appropriate.”

The filing of this a lawsuit is one more ingredient in what remains an energized battle over property rights. On May 2, Clarksville NAACP President Jimmie Garland Sr. contacted HUD (Housing and Urban Development) in Nashville and the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. over the potential racial and minority impacts of this legislation on the downtown Clarksville community.

Tennessee has a little known piece of legislation on the books called the Tennessee Anti-SLAPP Act of 1997, SLAPP is shorthand for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” SLAPP lawsuits are designed to “discourage or retaliate for a person or group’s expression of free speech.

According to information available through the Legal Aid Society, such suits are not uncommon in situations where citizens “exercise their rights to make comments in opposition to a proposed corporate initiative or proposed land development. Such suits are used to “silence” or “intimidate” citizens by claiming libel, slander or “interference with business” and may seek redress in the form of substantial financial settlements. Beneath the surface, SLAPP suits are specifically designed to silence members of the public, or retaliate and punish citizens who wish to exercise their right of free speech or their right to a dissenting opinion.

The anti-SLAPP legislation is designed to protect citizens and within its provisions allows for citizens sued for exercising their right to “free speech” to ask the court for the corporation/municipality to pay defense fees and court costs.

Editor’s Note: to view development plans, news stories, and other documents related to this story, click the black “Blightville” box on the left side of the Clarksville Online front page.

It’s also of some concern that they are now also looking at implementing plans along the “Madison corridor” and Riverside drive in addition to the massive downtown plan. We have serious doubts that city and the developer interests which are behind them, will be interested in stopping with just those sections of Clarksville.

Here’s Mayor Piper talking about his modifications to the Redevelopment plan…

Click here to view the embedded video.

Yes, our city needs conduct some targeted redevelopment, but they should not attempt to accomplish it in this capricious manner. Just take a look at how the city of Knoxville which has been so lauded by Mayor Piper does things. Lets watch the exact same presentation which was given to the delegation from Clarksville. It’s quite long but there is a lot of very interesting information which you can then use to contrast Clarksville’s current plan with how Knoxville has been doing things.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Our local plan seems intended to transfer property from private owners to a hand-picked redeveloper(s) for them to profit from, while Knoxville’s primary goal appears to be helping the properties owner to fix up their own property. If that was Mayor Piper’s goal here, We seriously doubt that anyone would be opposing him on this.

We also strongly object to the city giving a further gift to the developers picked by the RDB by giving them Tax Incentive Financing for new construction projects, something that is not done by Knoxville. When our publisher asked Mayor Piper about this he said he didn’t recall that. So for him, and for you here is the quote in question.

Question: Are you doing any incentives at all for new construction in your (redevelopment) districts?
Answer: Are we donating any?
Question: No are you providing any incentives, tax incentives
Answer: For new construction? No.
Question: None at all?
Answer: No, Not at all.

The differences between Knoxville’s and Clarksville’s views on eminent domain are also especially enlightening. Mayor Piper explicitly refused to rule out eminent domain being used to acquire property for private redevelopment.

In order to fully understand what they are actually implementing you have to take a close look at the referenced plans. Among the things that you will find: Over 45 specific redevelopment plans already mapped out targeting downtown property, a massive expansion of APSU, Lincoln homes becoming student housing, Burt school becoming a parking lot and athletic fields and much more.

Probably the quote from the Knoxville presentation that most applies to Clarksville is this one from Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslim…

If you don’t get the process right, you won’t get the end result right.

Clarksville certainly has not gotten their process right, and Mayor Piper’s modifications do not even come close to fixing the issues. The only thing left for the city to do is to rescind this plan entirely! Then we can start from scratch with full community input and taking into consideration the concerns of the citizens of the city, those of the residents in the areas affected, and come up with a plan that actually works for everyone and not just influential developers.

CLARKSVILLE CENTER REDEVELOPMENT AND URBAN RENEWAL PLAN

March 4, 2008

A. INTRODUCTION

This Clarksville Center Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan (this “Plan”) is being adopted pursuant to the Housing Authorities Law, being Title 13, Chapter 20 of the Tennessee Code Annotated (the “Act”), and other applicable provisions of law. This Plan is to be undertaken by the Clarksville Housing Authority (the “Authority”), in cooperation with other governmental entities, including the City of Clarksville (the “City”) and Montgomery County (the “County”), if this Plan is approved by the County. This Plan shall constitute both a redevelopment plan under Section 13-20-203 of the Tennessee Code Annotated and an urban renewal plan under Section 13-20-211 of the Tennessee Code Annotated.

B. DESCRIPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT AREA

The area that is the subject of this Plan (the “Redevelopment Area”) includes the Clarksville Central Business Improvement District (the “CBID”), the neighborhoods of Red River, Emerald Hill and Dog Hill, a portion of the Brandon Hill neighborhood, property included within the River District, Austin Peay State University and the industrial area along the Red River. The area is generally bordered on the west by the Cumberland River, the south by the Corman Railroad, on the east by the Corman Railroad and on the north by Red River. The area encompasses about 1097 acres, exclusive of public rights-of-way.

In January, 1999, a tornado struck downtown Clarksville and destroyed the heart of the CBID. Although the greatest impact of the storm was its effect on governmental structures, there was also a great amount of damage to privately owned structures. Significant amounts of insurance coverage as well as local, State and Federal monies were used to rebuild significant structures within the CBID, including the historic Montgomery County Courthouse. A number of privately owned structures have also benefited from this effort and have been either rebuilt or restored. The Redevelopment Area includes a number of historic or landmark properties.

In order to assure the long term economic viability of these recently restored properties and proposed projects, this Plan will serve as a means of providing for and encouraging compatible and supportive development within the defined area. Coordinated redevelopment efforts should provide for parking and access necessary for any new development. This Plan should help provide the impetus for assembling properties for new development and the elimination of underutilized land and deteriorated structures within the Redevelopment Area.

This Plan is consistent with and implements recommendations of the Consolidated Plan for Clarksville, Tennessee, the Clarksville Land Use Master Plan for the Downtown District Partnership (CBID Plan”), the Austin Peay State University Master Plan, the Streetscape Master Plan for the CBID, and the Emerald Hill Historic District Design Guidelines. This Plan incorporates by reference the preservation and redevelopment goals of those plans and superseding or subsequent plans approved by the applicable governmental bodies, including, but not limited to, redevelopment/revitalization plans that may be adopted for the Red River and/or Brandon Hills communities.

While many structures within the Redevelopment Area are used productively, visual inspections by the City and the Authority demonstrate that there are elements of blight within the Redevelopment Area due to dilapidation, obsolescence and deleterious land use that are detrimental to the safety, health or welfare of the community. This conclusion is supported by the incidence of code violations that occur within the Redevelopment Area and the eligibility of some of the Redevelopment Area for Community Development Block Grant funding. Because of these elements of blight within the overall area, the Redevelopment Area is the proper subject of a redevelopment and urban renewal plan, and the redevelopment activities to be undertaken pursuant to this plan constitute an eligible redevelopment project under Section 13-20-202 of the Tennessee Code Annotated.

1. BOUNDARIES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA

The boundaries of the Redevelopment Area are shown on Redevelopment Plan Map attached to this Plan as Exhibit “A” (the “Plan Map”).

2. PLAN OBJECTIVES

The specific provisions and actions incorporated in this Plan have been developed and are necessary to achieve the following objectives:

a.

To establish harmonious land use patterns and provide sites adequate for the planned development of new cultural, commercial, educational, mixed use, and residential uses.

b.

To support resident-sensitive, sustainable growth, while preserving the Red River and Brandon Hills neighborhoods as primarily, though not exclusively, residential.

c.

To provide for redevelopment of the Redevelopment Area, wherein non-conforming or deleterious land uses and the present subdivision and ownership of land precludes the orderly assemblage and desired changes in the use of land.

d.

To eliminate substandard buildings through acquisition and demolition or through a conservation program for the rehabilitation of existing structures where feasible and compatible with objectives of this Plan.

e.

To clear and provide for redevelopment of portions of the Redevelopment Area in which a change in type or intensity of land use is necessary. Within these areas it may be required, and is within the objectives of this Plan, that certain buildings, which are not structurally substandard, be acquired and demolished.

f.

To provide for the temporary or permanent relocation of businesses or residents where necessary to accomplish the objectives of this Plan.

g.

To eliminate and prevent the recurrence of blight.

h.

To eliminate vacant and underutilized land by monitoring development and taking actions necessary to encourage effective and desirable uses of land in accordance with this Plan.

i.

To provide for the layout of new streets, pedestrian ways, parking facilities and other public improvements necessary to support the redevelopment of the area.

j.

To enhance the historic resources represented by structures in the Redevelopment Area.

k.

To create a range of housing opportunities and choices through non-profit and for profit developers.

l.

To ensure that new homes are affordable and blend with existing housing in the community.

m.

To increase and/or expand economic and employment opportunities for residents.

3. PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT ACTIONS

The ultimate objective of this Plan is to create an environment conducive to the redevelopment and the long-term economic viability of the CBID, Red River, Emerald Hill and Dog Hill neighborhoods, a portion of the Brandon Hill neighborhood, Austin Peay State University and the underutilized and underdeveloped industrial area along the Red River, and the property along the Cumberland River. These objectives are to be accomplished through the coordinated and planned redevelopment of the area and the elimination of blighting influences posed by dilapidated buildings and structures, underutilized land and incompatible uses. The various provisions of this Plan have been adopted to remove the conditions which have created or contributed to the substandard character of improvements in the Redevelopment Area and restore the vitality of the area through redevelopment and rehabilitation. The types of actions necessary to achieve this objective are:

a.

The acquisition of land through negotiation, condemnation, or otherwise for public purposes and/or for private infill development, whereby the condition of title, diverse ownership of real property to be assembled, street or lot layouts, or other conditions prevent a proper development of the property in accordance with this Plan.

b.

The acquisition of land for the purpose of removing, preventing, or reducing blight.

c.

Demolition, clearance and relocation as necessary within the Redevelopment Area to achieve the objectives of this Plan.

d.

Closing, vacating, or relocating various streets, alleys, pedestrian ways, or utilities.

e.

To provide for and construct improved streets, alleys, public facilities, open spaces, greenways and pedestrian ways and the provision of additional access roads in and through the area are anticipated or provided for herein.

f.

Negotiation of agreements with developers to undertake redevelopment of property in accordance with this Plan.

g.

Obsolete or inadequate utilities or other public improvements will be removed.

Proposed site improvements and public improvements which are necessary to meet redevelopment objectives, such as streets, sewers, gas, water, power, parks, open spaces, playgrounds, drainage improvements, sidewalks, fire alarms, parking facilities, pedestrian ways, public transportation facilities, and other improvements shall be installed by the Authority, redevelopers, utility providers, or the City of Clarksville.

h.

Changes in zoning to be consistent with the Consolidated Plan for Clarksville and Montgomery County and the CBID Plan and any updates or addendums thereto.

C. LAND USE PLAN

1. LAND USE MAP

The permitted uses of land within the Redevelopment Area are as shown on the Plan Map, and as further described in the following sections. In the event of a conflict between the language pertaining to land uses contained in this Plan, and any other restrictions applicable to the same property, the applicable then existing City zoning laws, codes and ordinances will control. The permitted uses of the land as shown on the Plan Map, and as further described in the following sections, provide a vision for future uses and planning and will promote change in an orderly fashion, and this Plan will be used as a tool for appropriate governmental bodies to determine if rezoning requests are consistent with the community vision.

2. LAND USE PROVISIONS AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS

In order to achieve the objectives of this Plan, all redevelopment and use of land within the Clarksville Center Redevelopment District shall be subject to all requirements and restrictions of the Clarksville Zoning Ordinance, the Consolidated Pan for Clarksville and Montgomery County, the Clarksville Land Use Master Plan for the Downtown District Partnership (”CBID Plan”), the Streetscape Master Plan for the CBID, the Austin Peay State University Master Plan, the Clarksville River District Master Plan, the Dog Hill Design Guidelines, the Emerald Hill Historic District Design Guidelines, and other redevelopment/revitalization plans adopted by the City Council (the “City Council”) of the City of Clarksville that include territory within he Redevelopment District). The Redevelopment District Board (”RDB”), created pursuant to Section I herein, may recommend the adoption of additional design guidelines regarding appropriate land uses, design, color, setbacks, landscaping, parking, ingress and egress and other restrictions to be adopted by the appropriate governmental bodies and/or the CBID.

a. General Land Use Districts: Within the general land use districts shown on the Plan Map, the following represent objectives for redevelopment in accordance with this Plan:

1. Central Business and River District: This subarea encompasses the majority of the CBID, the Austin Peay State University campus, property bordering the Cumberland River and the Dog Hill Historic District, Emerald Hill Historic District and the Red River Improvement Corporation plan area. It is desirable that some buildings be renovated or demolished as appropriate or necessary and vacant or underutilized land be redeveloped with new development encompassing uses permitted by this Plan. Redevelopment and restoration projects may involve the assembly of land in order to promote a set of comprehensive yet diverse improvements to the area. The intent is to promote an “urban” atmosphere within the CBID and a mixture of uses that enhance the river front.
   • General residential
   • Public and private schools and daycare centers
   • Institutional, churches
   • Public parks, plazas and playgrounds
   • Cultural center, fine arts center, museum, theater or assembly facilities
   • Offices -business, governmental, professional, medical, arts, etc.
   • Convenience retail, general retail and personal services
   • Hotels, motels, or other habitation for transient use
   • Indoor recreation facilities and commercial amusement
   • Club, bar or nightclub, excluding adult entertainment
   • Parking
   • Restaurants and other eating or drinking establishments
   • Warehousing
   • Wholesale sales
   • Light industrial activity as regulated in Section 11-316 of the Official Code of the City of Clarksville
   • Churches and other similar places of worship
   • Financial institutions, including drive-through facilities
   • Accessory uses customarily incidental to any of the above
2. Mixed Use District: These areas border the CBID. It is desirable that some buildings be renovated or demolished as appropriate or necessary and vacant or underutilized land be redeveloped with new development encompassing uses permitted by this Plan. Redevelopment and restoration projects may involve the assembly of land in order promote a set of comprehensive yet diverse improvements to the area. The intent is to create an “urban” atmosphere that complements the CBID. Permitted Uses
   • General residential
   • Public and private schools and daycare centers
   • Public parks, plazas and playgrounds
   • Cultural center, fine arts center, museum, theater or assembly facilities
   • Offices-business, governmental, professional, medical, arts, etc.
   • Convenience retail, general retail and personal services
   • Hotels, motels, or other habitation for transient use
   • Parking
   • Restaurants and other eating or drinking establishments
   • Indoor recreation facilities and commercial amusement
   • Club, bar or nightclub, excluding adult entertainment
   • Churches and other similar places of worship
   • Financial institutions, including drive-through facilities
   • Accessory uses customarily incidental to any of the above
   • Medical or health care facilities
   • Warehousing
   • Wholesale sales
   • Light industrial as regulated in Section 11-316 of the Official Code of the City of Clarksville
3. Residential Districts (Dog Hill, Emerald Hill, Red River and a Portion of Brandon Hills neighborhoods): These areas consist of primarily residential development surrounding the CBID. It is desirable that the existing residential development be preserved and protected from incompatible uses and vacant or underutilized land be redeveloped with new residential development. Development within the Dog Hill and Emerald Hill neighborhoods is governed by the applicable Historic District guidelines. Development/redevelopment within the Red River and portion of Brandon Hills included in this Plan is subject to previously mentioned design controls and procedural regulations (Clarksville Zoning Ordinance, the Consolidated Plan, the Clarksville Land Use Master Plan, etc.) and will be further governed by the proposed Red River-Brandon Hills Revitalization Plan if adopted by the City Council. Redevelopment and restoration projects may involve the assembly of land in order to promote the residential character of these areas. It is further the intent of this Plan to support affordable housing opportunities proximate to the CBID. Permitted Uses:
   • Convenience retail, general retail and personal services
   • Country clubs
   • General residential
   • Offices
   • Public and private schools and daycare centers
   • Public parks, plazas and playgrounds
   • Churches and other similar places of worship
4. Industrial District: This area is bordered by the Red River and the Corman Railroad tracks. It is desirable that some buildings be renovated or demolished as appropriate or necessary and that vacant or underutilized land is redeveloped with new development encompassing uses permitted by this plan. Redevelopment and restoration projects may involve the assembly of land in order promote a set of comprehensive yet diverse improvements to the area. The intent is to encourage a variety of industrial, warehouse, and compatible land uses and the revitalization of vacant and underutilized industrial properties. Permitted Uses:
   • Warehousing
   • Wholesale sales
   • Light manufacturing
   • General manufacturing
   • Public and private educational facilities
   • Offices -business, governmental, professional, medical, arts, etc.
   • General commercial
   • Medical and health care facilities

b. General Design Regulations and Controls: In order to achieve the objectives of this Plan, design controls and procedural regulations of the Clarksville Zoning Ordinance, the Consolidated Plan for Clarksville and Montgomery County, the Clarksville Land Use Master Plan for the Downtown District Partnership (”CBID Plan“), the Austin Peay State University Master Plan, the Streetscape Master Plan for the CBID, the Clarksville River District Commission Master Plan, the Dog Hill Design Guidelines and the Emerald Hill Historic District Design Guideline, shall apply, as applicable, to land within the Redevelopment Area developed, redeveloped, or improved subsequent to the recording of this Plan in the Register’s Office of Montgomery County. The RDB may recommend the adoption of additional design regulations and controls to be adopted by the appropriate governmental body. The City Council may adopt additional redevelopment/revitalization plans to control and regulate development within the Redevelopment Area.

1. Site PlanTo the extent site plans are required under the general design regulations and controls listed in Section C.2.b., a copy of the site plan shall be submitted to the RDB and where the development is to be accomplished in phases, a construction-phasing schedule shall accompany the site plan. The RDB shall review and provide comments to the governmental agencies with the authority to approve such site plan. Development shall conform to the approved site plan.
2. Landscape Plan To the extent landscape plans are required under the general design regulations and controls listed in Section C.2.b., a copy of the landscape plan shall be submitted to the RDB. The RDB shall review and provide comments to the governmental agencies with the authority to approve such landscape plan. Development shall conform to the approved landscape plan.
3. Exterior Design Control To the extent design guidelines arc required under the general design regulations and controls listed in Section C.2.b., including, but not limited to, building materials, landscaping and paving materials, development shall conform to the approved design guidelines and controls.
4. Historic PreservationTo the extent historic guidelines and controls are required under the general design regulations and controls listed in Section C.2.b., development shall conform to the approved guidelines. A copy of the design plans shall be submitted to the RDB. The RDB shall review and provide comments to the governmental agencies with the authority to approve such design plans. The RDB may recommend the adoption of additional guidelines generally consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Structures to the Governing Body or such other guidelines as the RDB may deem appropriate.
5. EnforcementIn the case of violations of the restrictions contained in this Plan, the RDB may send Notice of Violation to the appropriate code or building official of the City and/or the Clarksville City Attorney who shall be entitled to seek immediate injunctive and other equitable or legal relief to enforce restrictions of this Plan, including pursuing all remedies available at law or in equity, including, without limitation, those that are provided by the Official Code of the City of Clarksville.

c. Duration of Land Use Controls: The provisions of this Plan, specifying the land uses for the Redevelopment Area and the requirements and restrictions with respect thereto, shall commence upon approval of this Plan by the City Council, and, upon being recorded in the Register’s Office of Montgomery County, and shall continue in effect until December 31, 2028.

D. LAND ACQUISITION

In order to achieve the objectives of this Plan, it may be necessary to acquire properties within the Redevelopment Area, with the exception of properties owned by Austin Peay State University and other governmentally-owned properties. Upon the recommendation of the RDB and the approval of the Authority, property may be acquired by eminent domain to provide for the redevelopment of vacant and underutilized land; to eliminate structures which, because of poor initial construction, inadequate maintenance, obsolescence or other conditions, are not suitable for rehabilitation; to eliminate non-conforming land uses which are detrimental to the redevelopment of the Redevelopment Area; to provide for the replatting of land and the development or adjustment of streets, alleys and pedestrian ways; and to assemble suitable tracts for disposition. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no property shall be condemned and/or acquired by eminent domain pursuant to this Plan for the purpose of conveying such property to a third party for redevelopment if the owner of that property has submitted a proposal to redevelopment such property in the manner described and to the extent permitted herein unless such acquisition is first approved by resolution of the City Council and County Commission (if this Plan is approved by the County).

In addition to the potential acquisitions described in the prior paragraph, parcels may also be acquired at the request of the owner or for such valid public purposes as to provide for necessary adjustments in utility easements or street, alley or pedestrian rights-of-way; to provide for the redevelopment of abandoned railroad rights-of-way; to eliminate dilapidated or deteriorated structures which may be found to exist following subsequent surveys of interior conditions where the owner of the property shall have been notified and accorded a reasonable time, in no case less than ninety (90) days from the date of notice, to bring the structure into compliance with applicable building and housing codes: to provide clear and marketable title for vacant or abandoned properties; to eliminate any nonconforming uses in conflict with the permitted uses listed in Section C.2.a. of this Plan or applicable zoning ordinances; if the owner of any said property refuses to comply or reach written agreement with the Authority to abide by the design guidelines of Section C.2.b. of this Plan in the development of or planning of any improvements to be made; or to eliminate buildings which may encroach upon existing or planned rights-of-way whether they be totally or only partially located within the Redevelopment Area.

E. REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AND OBLIGATIONS; LAND USE CONTROLS

The RDB will establish redevelopment priorities within the Redevelopment Area and will make recommendations to the Authority as to those areas within the Redevelopment Area that have the most pressing need for redevelopment. If a particular property is identified for redevelopment by the RDB, the Authority, in consultation with the RDB, will request redevelopment proposals for such property. If the property to be redeveloped is owned by a single owner, the Authority will first request a redevelopment proposal from such property owner in the manner provided below. If the property to be redeveloped is owned by multiple owners, the Authority will request redevelopment proposals from any interested parties. The entity or person whose proposal is selected to redevelop a particular property is referred to herein as the “redeveloper.”

If the RDB and the Authority have identified a particular area for redevelopment that is owned by a single owner, the Authority will request a redevelopment proposal from such owner. Each proposal shall include, in detail, a description of the owner’s proposed redevelopment of the property, the improvements to be made to the property, a proposed budget for such improvements and a timetable for construction. In addition, each owner must demonstrate in its proposal its financial ability to complete any proposed redevelopment project, including evidence of the availability of funds to complete the project. The current property owner will be given at least 90 days to submit a proposal after request from the Authority for a proposal.

The RDB will review proposals submitted by property owners. The RDB will advise the Authority in determining whether a proposal is consistent with this Plan and whether the proposal is feasible. The RDB may discuss an owner’s proposal with the owner in whatever manner the RDB deems appropriate, and the property owner may resubmit a proposal to the RDB and the Authority based upon such discussions. The ultimate approval or rejection of a proposal shall remain with the Authority, however.

If an owner’s proposal to redevelop property is approved by the Authority, the Authority and the owner will enter into a development agreement under which the owner will agree to develop its property as described in its proposal as approved by the Authority. In the event that any such owner fails to redevelop its property in accordance with its development agreement, the Authority may elect to acquire such property and make it available for redevelopment.

If an owner submits a redevelopment proposal, and the Authority does not approve the redevelopment proposal, the Authority shall notify the owner in writing, specifying the reason or reasons why the Authority did not approve the redevelopment proposal. The owner shall have 30 days from receipt of such notification to submit a revised redevelopment proposal responding to the reasons specified in the notification.

If an owner of property identified for redevelopment fails to submit a redevelopment proposal, fails to receive approval of its redevelopment proposal or fails to redevelop its property in compliance with its proposal, the Authority intends to solicit proposals from third parties to redevelop such property and to acquire such property. Responses to such proposals shall also be submitted to the RDB for its review and any recommended proposals shall be submitted to the Authority for approval or disapproval. Such responses shall include at least the same information required of property owners. The Authority will enter into a development agreement with any person or entity whose proposal is approved by the Authority in order to ensure compliance with the proposal and the requirements of this Plan.

The Authority, in disposing of any land in the Redevelopment Area to be redeveloped or in connection with entering into a development agreement, will, in its contract and deed or other instruments of conveyance and/or the development agreement, include such terms and condition as in the judgment of the Authority will be necessary or advisable to ensure redevelopment of the Redevelopment Area and its use thereafter, in accordance with this Plan, and to prevent recurrence of the condition of blight or inappropriate land uses in this area. Such provisions will be contained in such contracts, deeds or other instruments of conveyance irrespective of whether they duplicate, in whole or in part, requirements of existing or proposed zoning ordinances or other local laws, ordinances or regulations with respect to the Redevelopment Area, so that such obligations may operate independently of such zoning or other laws, ordinances or regulations. In all instances, the improvements in the Redevelopment Area will be made in accordance with the applicable zoning ordinances, building, electrical, plumbing and other local codes and ordinances, the requirements of this Plan, and such other requirements as may be set forth in the contracts between the Authority and the redevelopers.

Any contract or agreement for conveyance or redevelopment of property in the Redevelopment Area by the Authority or the City, as well as the deed or deeds to the land, shall contain a covenant that the redeveloper and its successors and assigns shall not discriminate upon the basis of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, or national origin in the sale, lease, or rental, or in the use or occupancy of the property or any improvements erected or to be erected thereon. It is intended by this Plan that the Authority and the City are the beneficiaries of all such covenants and obligations and that each shall be entitled to represent the interests and to act on behalf of the community in enforcing any covenants and obligations as to the redevelopment and continued uses of the Redevelopment Area in accordance with this Plan. Such contracts, deeds, or other instruments of conveyance and/or development agreements, in addition to including such other terms and conditions as the Authority may find desirable in order to implement and effectuate the objectives of this Plan, or as are recommended by the RDB, will obligate the purchasers and redevelopers of property in the Redevelopment Area and their successors in interest to:

1. Devote the parcels owned by them to, and only to, uses and controls specified in this Plan;
2. Diligently pursue the construction of the improvements as provided in a development agreement, and to begin and complete such improvements within a reasonable time as provided by the contract;
3. Make no changes, additions or alterations in such improvements after completion of their construction that are not approved by RDB as being in conformity with this Plan, or as it may be changed or amended; and
4. Not reassign contract rights, resell or otherwise transfer the land or any part thereof of interests therein purchased by them prior to the completion of the improvements thereon without the approval of the Authority and except in cases satisfactory with the Authority, and not to speculate in or with respect to such land.

F. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE

In the event any individuals and businesses are permanently or temporarily displaced by the Authority in connection with the implementation of this Plan, assistance will be offered in accordance with the Tennessee’s Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1972, or other applicable federal, state or local laws and regulations that may be in effect at the time even though no State or Federal funds may be involved with a particular project. No residents are expected to be permanently relocated as a part of this Plan. Since many of the planned developments incorporated in this Plan are to occur on vacant land or through the renovation of existing unused or underutilized structures, it is expected that relocation of businesses will be minimal.

G. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING

Total property taxes receivable from land and leaseholds in the Redevelopment Area are currently estimated at around $4.26 million based on a total assessed value of approximately $207 million. The projected future increase in the value of property developed in conjunction with this Plan on land leased or sold by the Authority is estimated to exceed $200 million, which is the estimated cost of the redevelopment project. The total net annual increase of approximately $4.15 million in property taxes so generated in the Redevelopment Area will not occur without the redevelopment activities of the Authority and the RDB. This net annual increase would support approximately $41.5 million of tax increment financing to be issued on one or more series or emissions and secured by all or a portion of the incremental tax revenues generated by the Redevelopment Area, to assist with the financing of redevelopment projects in the Redevelopment Area. By approving this Plan, the City and the County (if the County approves this Plan) are hereby by authorizing the allocation of incremental taxes in the Redevelopment Area as provided in the Act for the purposes provided herein.

Given the blighting elements in the Redevelopment Area as well as the difficulty of development presented by poor access and the diversity of ownership of individual tracts evident in the Redevelopment Area, private investment and redevelopment is unlikely to occur without public assistance. The activities of the RDB and the Authority will make the area conducive to new private development and result in increased tax revenues to the City and the County. The estimated principal amount of debt payable from incremental tax revenues described above and provided for by this Plan is expected to require less than 50% percent of the projected net new property taxes generated by the Redevelopment Area if redevelopment can be induced to occur as anticipated by this Plan. Therefore, the City and the County, as the taxing agencies within the Redevelopment Area, are expected to realize substantial revenues from the Redevelopment Area and will not be substantially impacted by the tax increment financing authorized by this Plan. However, based upon current property tax rates, the estimated annual impact to the City and the County of applying the approximately $4.15 million of incremental property tax revenues as provided herein would be $1.25 million or 30% to the City and $2.9 million or 70% to the County. If the County does not approve this Plan, the entire impact would be on the City.

The estimated amount of bonds or other indebtedness backed by tax increment revenues issued pursuant to this Plan is $41.5 million. The final maturity date on any bonds or other indebtedness backed by the tax increment revenues from the Redevelopment Area shall be on or before 20 years from the date the redevelopment project being financed is expected to be completed. Upon retirement of all bonds or other indebtedness incurred and payable from tax increment funds or at such time as moneys on deposit in the tax increment fund or funds are sufficient for such purpose, all property taxes resulting from the development of the Redevelopment Area shall be retained by the City and the County. Activities or improvements eligible for tax increment funding shall include all permitted projects that may be financed as part of a redevelopment project or urban renewal project pursuant to the Act. Sources of revenue to finance the costs of redevelopment projects, in addition to tax increment financing, include private equity and loans.

If this Plan is not approved by County, the tax increment financing provisions contained herein shall still be effective as to incremental City property tax revenues provided the City furnishes to the County an agreement, as permitted by the Act, exempting the County’s property tax levy from these tax increment financing provisions.

H. DELEGATION TO NEGOTIATE PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES

The Clarksville-Montgomery County Industrial Development Board (”IDB”), pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated, § 7-53-305, is hereby authorized and delegated the authority to negotiate and accept from the IDB’s lessees located within the Redevelopment Area, payments in lieu of ad valorem taxes upon the IDB’s finding that such payments further the IDB’s public purposes and the purposes of this Plan. The IDB is requested to establish appropriate and necessary guidelines that will promote redevelopment and further both the public purposes of the IDB and the Redevelopment Area. The Authority is also hereby authorized and delegated the authority to negotiate and accept payment in lieu of ad valorem taxes with respect to low-income housing property in accordance with the Act. If this Plan is not approved by the County, the delegation in this Section H shall only apply to City property taxes.

I. REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT BOARD

Pursuant to the Act, the Authority shall establish an advisory board to assist with the implementation of this Plan, which shall be known as the Redevelopment District Board (the “RDB”). The Chairman of the Authority shall serve as a member and chairman of the RDB and will appoint twelve additional members to the RDB as follows:

• one (1) member to be recommended by the County Mayor for an initial 3-year term (if the County does not approve this Plan, this member shall be recommended by the City Mayor),
• one (1) member to be recommended by the City Mayor for an initial 3-year term,
• the Director or one (1) representative of the Clarksville Office of Housing and Community Development to serve for an initial 3-year term,
• the President of the Lincoln Homes Residents Council or one (1) other member who resides in public housing in the Redevelopment Area to be recommended by the Authority as a public housing representative for an initial 2-year term,
• one (1) member of the Downtown District Partnership to be recommended by the Downtown District Partnership for an initial 2-year term,
• one (1) member of the Clarksville/Montgomery County Regional Planning Commission to be recommended by the Clarksville/Montgomery County Regional Planning Commission for an initial 3-year term,
• one (1) voting member as a representative of Austin Peay State University as recommended by the President of the university for an initial 2-year term,
• one (1) member with real estate, financial, and/or development background, recommended by the City Mayor for an initial 2-year term, and
• one (1) member for each of the four residential neighborhoods who resides in the Emerald Hills, Dog Hill, Red River, and Brandon Hills neighborhood for an initial 2-year term. The four neighborhood members shall be jointly recommended by the City Mayor and County Mayor (if the County approves this Plan).

Thereafter, all members shall serve 3-year terms. The RDB shall review redevelopment projects as being in conformance with this Plan and any applicable design guidelines, and zoning and code requirements, approve developer agreements, recommend tax increment financing transactions to the Authority, recommend to the Regional Planning Commission the rezoning of property, if necessary, recommend the adoption of additional land use regulations, if needed, and recommend acquisition of property by the Authority, if necessary.

J. ADMINISTRATION

The City Council and the County Commission of the County (the “County Commission”) (if this plan is approved by the County), on behalf of the City and the County, hereby authorize the Authority to enter into inter-local agreements with the City and/or the County or any division or instrumentality thereof and the RDB to perform any and all of the administrative functions designated herein including, but not limited to negotiating developer agreements, providing review and comment on proposed development within the Redevelopment Area, recommending additional design guidelines or land use controls to the appropriate legislative and administrative bodies, negotiating the acquisition, sale or lease of property and carrying out relocation assistance functions.

K. AMENDMENTS; TERM

This Plan may be modified, changed or amended by the Authority, with the subsequent approval of the City Council and the County Commission (if initially approved by the County Commission) in the same manner as this Plan was originally approve, provided, however, that in no event will the provisions of this Plan be modified in any manner which will adversely affect any as yet not fully developed land in the Redevelopment Area that has been sold or leased by the Authority, or as to which a sales contract has been entered into by the Authority, except with the written consent of the then owners of such land or of the parties to such contract, or their successors in interest.

This Plan shall remain in effect until terminated by appropriate resolution or ordinance of the City and the County (if the County has approved this Plan).

L. SEVERABILITY

The invalidation of any one or more of the foregoing provisions of this Plan or any part thereof by judgment of any Court of competent jurisdiction shall not in any way affect the validity of any other of such provisions of this Plan but the same shall remain in full force and effect.

I would like to address the upcoming talks on the controversial Redevelopment Plan that blights the entire downtown. The idea of involving the residents and business owners in the affected area is, of course, the only right thing to do. They should have been notified from the beginning and one can only speculate as to why they were excluded, referring to the Emerald Hill and Dog Hill residents. The Brandon Hills and Red River residents were notified. If proper procedure is followed, there will be a series of meetings and discussions on how redevelopment should proceed and all should have a voice in the matter. For the record, we are not anti-redevelopment. We just want redevelopment that is fair and beneficial to the residents as well as to the city.

While the mayor has stated that citizen’s input is important and everyone will have a chance to voice their concerns, ideas and thoughts on how redevelopment should be done, I anticipate a problem. Our mayor does not handle opposition well. People are removed from committees if they oppose him and organizations are threatened. The only people in good standing are people with like ideas and agendas.

We live in a democracy, so I thought. In a democracy, everyone has a voice. Not just those close to the mayor. Our country is rich in diversity and our individuality makes for colorful personalities that ultimately enrich our own lives and those around us. What a pity it would be to squelch those voices. What a pity that one person, or a group of people, can be the controlling factor in a city and make monumental changes that the majority are against. How can we let this happen without a fight?

Patsy Sharpe

Clarksville, TN

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.

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.

The mayor said Wednesday he would seek amendments to the ordinance, but the CPRC and City Councilor Mark Harris, and other community leaders are called for a repeal of the entire measure, citing a “broken trust” between residents and the DDP.

Harris (at left) supported repeal of the ordinance in its entirety. He added that “at least ten” City Council members were supporting the mayor in terms of amendments to the ordinance.

Harris said he was ” shocked at the lack of support from fellow Council members, knowing how much I emphasized the problem that affects the residents in my ward.” He said Jim Doyle is the only other Council member to fully support rescinding the ordinance.

CPRC organizer Debbie Hunt asked that anyone who wants to help should:

• Sign the survey or canvass card to express opposition to the Plan.
• Volunteer to help the Coalition collect signatures of other property owners on the survey/canvass cards
• And of course, join the coalition. She’s collecting email addresses. Anyone interested can join the coalition. It is not limited to residents in the affected area. Residents who live outside that area can certainly be a part of their efforts.

Nashville Attorney John Summers and Tennessee Preservation Trust Executive Director Dan Brown joined Clarksville NAACP President Jimmie Garland in addressing the group, reviewing the ordinance, and explaining the most recent action by Mayor Piper to put the ordinance under a microscope. On Wednesday, Piper cancelled a city-sponsored meeting at APSU intended to “clarify misconceptions” about the ordinance, but a fact-finding trip to Knoxville and a review of the process required to create and implement such an ordinance were found to be lacking “due diligence” and was possibly “in violation of state law” concerning notification of residents in the districts to be affected.

John Summers speaking for the CPRC

Ordinance 73-2005-07 was passed with little fanfare by the Clarksville City Council in November, but as its details emerged, it drew the ire of some 1800 property owners whose downtown homes and business fell under a blanket designation of “blighted.” Grassroots meeting on Dec. 14 at the HOPE Center on Legion Street and on Dec. 17 at the Historic L&N Train Station drew overflow crowds and united people of all ages, economic status and ethnic backgrounds in a fight for the secure ownership of their homes and property.

The faces of citizen concern :

Human Relations Commissioner George Forth

Dan Brown, Executive Director, Tennessee Preservation Trust

County Commissioner Mark Kelly

Coalition group to meet 6 p.m. today in APSU’s Clement Auditorium, in lieu of the previously planned city meeting…City Council members invited to attend…

Clarksville Mayor Johnny Piper, has taken a bold step and reversed direction on the “blight” ordinance. He has decided to cancel a community meeting that was scheduled for Thursday evening at Austin Peay State University, where members of the Downtown District Partnership were to review the Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan. The meeting was planned to allow the DDP the opportunity to inform property owners in the redevelopment area about the plan that they developed and recommended to the City Council.

“I have great concerns about how this was handled and presented to the City Council by the DDP,” Mayor Piper

The Mayor’s office has received many phone calls and comments from concerned residents over the past few weeks on this issue. In addition, the formation of the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition (CPRC), fueled by angry residents of the downtown area, and two standing room-only grassroots public meetings, provided a highly visible evidence of public discontent with the ordinance and the way it was developed and presented.

Piper had been asked to allow a statement of concerns from affected property owners to be read at that hearing but denied that request. Tonight he announced the cancellation of the meeting and suggested errors in the planning and the passage of this ordinance:

“I began studying this issue when the concerns from the property owners were first raised. I looked at other redevelopment districts across the state and today I visited with government leaders in Knoxville, where over 20 redevelopment plans have been created and adopted, to discuss how theirs were created.” — Mayor Piper

The Mayor’s research shows that the previous leadership of the DDP and other participants did not follow due diligence in the way they prepared and presented the Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan. In addition, there may be some instances where they did not follow state law. Tennessee state law requires that a public hearing be held on all redevelopment districts and that property owners be notified in advance and in writing.

Speaking on behalf of the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition, Atty. John Summers (seen below right speaking with residents at the 12.17.07 CPRC meeting) said:

“The members of the Steering Committee of the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition feel somewhat vindicated by the Mayor’s admission that the Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan as adopted is legally flawed, something they have been stating for weeks.”

Summers said “the claims by the Downtown District Partnership that the information put forth by the CPRC was “blatantly false and misleading” have been proven to be inaccurate” and the CPRC was justified in its concerns.

“But the responsibility for enacting the Redevelopment Plan falls squarely on this Mayor and this Council, because they were the ones that enacted the ordinance. It is their responsibility to enact ordinances that comply with state law and protects the rights of citizens and they did neither in this case.”

“Once enacted it became the city’s plan and their plan. They have a duty to ensure that the plan meets the requirements from the state and protects the citizens of the city. We strongly urge the council to repeal this plan, as soon as possible, in it’s entirety. There is no justification for leaving it on the books as it is null and void. What needs to occur before any other redevelopment plan is considered is to have a full and open and thorough discussion of all of its aspects.” — John Summers

Mayor Piper said he will make a recommendation to the City Council to amend the ordinance and to also hold a public hearing so that those affected can voice their opinions and concerns.

Summers, stating that the “only fair way to solve this divisive issue is to repeal the current Plan in its entirety,” rebutted the idea of amending the plan. He said:

“Consideration of any new redevelopment proposal should only occur after there has been open and extensive community meetings where the impact, boundaries, and other issues are relating to the Plan have been fully presented and some consensus has been reached in support of it by those directly impacted by the Plan. To try to simply patch up the current Plan ordinance in a effort to correct its legal flaws will only increase the distrust and anger in the community and will result in costly litigation. “

NAACP President and civil rights advocate Jimmie Garland, a panelist at the first grassroots meeting [HOPE Center] organized around this issue, said he was pleasantly surprised to hear that Mayor Piper had canceled the meeting and said “there should not have been a need to meet in the first place. Ever since I became aware of this issue I have sensed the flaws associated with both the authoring and implementation of the PLAN.” He also made clear that the Clarksville NAACP had their own issues with the plan as codified:

“…felt the plan would be devastating to the minority population of Ward 6. Why? Because the PLAN, as written and approved, would have ultimately rendered the downtown void of a large percentage of its current minority population. Especially since it is the only super minority majority Ward within the city of Clarksville. That being so, it would be unethical for our city leaders to allow personal greed to pre-empt their responsibility to protect the voting rights citizens of Lincoln Homes, Red River District and select portions of Dog Hill communities.

Garland (at left) expressed relief that the process is being placed in a position of reconsideration and voiced hope that the City Council will rescind the biased ordinance and focus on other areas within the city that truly needs their attention. He cited crime, homelessness, and bringing more diversity into city government.

“If Clarksville intends to measure up to our slogan, “The Gateway to the New South”, she needs to start by becoming inclusive,” Garland concluded.

Terry McMoore (right), Director of the Urban Resource Center and sponsor of the Dec. 14 HOPE Center meeting, said “the community response has been very strong and I am sure that the high percentage of bloggers on various media outlets local and statewide sent a message to City Hall that the people won’t be intimidated into turning over their property rights.”

McMoore urged caution, though:

“…let’s not start the celebration too soon. Let’s not forget that this is the same administration that accused the people of putting out misleading information and that they, the City, were abiding by all state laws when they voted for this ordinance.

“Are they, the city, willing to take this small defeat in hopes that we, the people, will put down our guards, stop fighting, go home and sit in front of the TV eating ice cream while they come around the corner on us with a new plan that still takes our property rights away. The battle is still on people, so we don’t have time to sleep.”

The issue of redevelopment is not over, CPRC spokesman John Summers cautioned. The Coalition (CPRC) will conduct their own informational and organizational meeting in place of the DDP meeting and urges all residents to attend and become better informed about the issue, its potential impact, and what may transpire as the ordinance is reviewed, amended or rescinded. (at left, photo of Train Station hearing, 12.17.07)

The CPRC meeting will be held 6 p.m. today in APSU’s Clement Auditorium