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

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

McMahan’s points were and continue to be the following:

• There is wide-spread opposition to this Plan throughout the greater Clarksville/Montgomery County community. The CPRC has collected signatures from over 350 property owners representing over 400 parcels in the Plan area in opposition to enactment of the Plan. There is little support for the Plan outside of the development community, who hope to financially benefit from enactment of the Plan.
• No other redevelopment plan in the country includes the entire central business district of a city. The Clarksville Plan does. And most cities do not include residential neighborhoods in their redevelopment plans. For example, in Nashville only one redevelopment plan includes any residentially zoned properties and the plan’s provisions specifically do not apply to those residential properties.
• This Plan authorizes $41.5 million in tax increment financing, or tax breaks for developers.This significant point has not been openly discussed by this Council or presented clearly to the community. With the city facing a tight budget this year, the long-term impact of these tax breaks need to be discussed more thoroughly with the community for an understanding of their full impact.
• Because the City of Clarksville’s current historic zoning ordinance is ineffective containing little, if any, protections for our historic properties and neighborhoods, this Redevelopment Plan places historic properties in the Plan area at greater risk. Clarksville’s has lost so much of its historical fabric as a result of the 1999 tornado, preservation efforts should be strengthened, not weakened.
• This Plan is subject to legal challenge on a number of points and in all likelihood will ultimately involve the City in expensive litigation. The process by which this Plan has been approved has serious due process flaws. A public hearing where the public is not allowed to speak does not meet the legal requirements of a public hearing.
• This Plan potentially violates the Voters Rights Act and the civil rights of the minority residents of Clarksville. The Plan boundaries encompass the only majority minority Council district. The Plan puts the integrity of this district at risk. This is another point of possible litigation for the City of Clarksville.
• This issue has long-term political consequences for the City of Clarksville. Despite what some may hope, this issue is not going to quietly fade away. The majority of the public does not believe that government should have the power to condemn private property and then sell that property to another party for private development.

McMahan continued:

“This issue will be played out in the city elections this November and in 2010. The public is well aware of how the residents and the property owners in the Plan area have been treated by this Administration. The CPRC is not opposed to development. We believe there are areas of Clarksville where a redevelopment plan would be appropriate. But we do not believe the current Plan before you is appropriate.

“The rights and concerns of the affected residents and property owners are being ignored. This Administration has treated the individuals who have raised concerns and objections to this Plan with disdain and contempt. The disrespect shown to these citizens and taxpayers is inexcusable conduct for an elected official.

“This issue is still too divisive for our community. More time, more effort needs to be invested to find greater consensus before a Plan of this impact and consequence for so many residents and property owners is approved.

“I urge you to put the interests of the citizens of our community ahead of those few who are promoting this Plan. This ordinance is flawed. It is not the tool needed to improve our community. We can develop a better alternative, if the community is allowed to participate in a meaningful manner.

McMahan concluded by urging councilors to not support the ordinance in its final reading.

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

The plan as proposed by the Downtown District Partnership deems two square miles, 1800 homes and businesses, city and county buildings, and everything downtown except Austin Peay State University as blighted and subject to eminent domain. That has people worried about the possibility that their homes could be taken and turned over to developers, regardless of the condition of that property. Assemblage is a process by which developers needing to accrue multiple land parcels to complete a project could take any property, regardless of its condition, historic value or worth, to create a larger project/development.

“Audacious,” “bold,” “unprecedented” and “immoral” were terms used to describe this plan, which is the largest such “blanket” designation in the country.

Atty. John Summers (left), who with Dan Brown were panelists at last Friday’s HOPE Center meeting, also spoke at Monday night’s meeting. They noted that all seven of Nashville’s redevelopment projects combined do not equal the size or scope of this plan. Summers said the public outrage is only exceeded by the public call for a complete repeal of this law.

Section 7 of the ordinance reads: “the Plan for the area prescribes certain land uses and controls and authorizes the acquisition by negotiation, condemnation or otherwise of certain properties for public use or for resale by a redeveloper or developers…”

The ordinance also provides for tax increment financing that would ease the tax levy on developers while shifting any new tax burden to homeowners and other taxpayers in the city.

In researching the legislation, Summers noted that while the redevelopment plan was purportedly based on studies conducted by the Clarksville Housing Authority that declared the area blighted.

“We asked to see the studies and the Housing Authority said they never made any studies. The Housing Authority officials said they ‘attended meetings’ but could not say where any such reports might be or who declared the area blighted. Where are the studies this plan is based upon? As long as this ordinance stands, everyone is subject to eminent domain.” 

–Atty. John Summers

Historic Preservationist Dan Brown (left) of the Tennessee Preservation Trust called the project gigantic and monstrous, noting that were no details, just “page after page of unanswered questions.” The powers of “assemblage” in this law give extraordinary powers, Brown said. “This just doesn’t pass the smell test,” Brown said. “There is no project with this plan.”

Both Summers and Brown urged the city to justify redevelopment on a project by project basis. “This [ordinance] is not fair and it is immoral,” Summers said. He urged the coalition to seek a repeal of the law. As it is written, it allows [city/developers] to eliminate entire blocks and entire communities.

Though this ordinance was also cited as a social justice issue, race was not issue to the irate citizens; property rights and property values were the common, unifying cause. City Councilors Deanna McLaughlin and Marc Harris attended the meeting, getting an earful from irate property owners and a taste of what kind of a battle an angry constituency would launch.

Harris (at right) noted that this plan has been quietly moving in the political pipeline since 2006, and said he has been a dissenting voice on most votes pertaining to this issue. “I have been the roadblock on this law,” he said, his own ‘nay’ votes on the issue over the course of 18 months.

Pasty Sharpe said that the coalition of homeowners would continue the fight to repeal the ordinance, and were prepared to take that fight to the ballot box of the next election if necessary. Sharpe and her fellow homeowners gathered signatures for submission to the City Council and the County Commissioners.

“Right now this is a political action, not a legal action,” Summers said, voicing the hope that the City Council would take seriously the displeasure of their constituency. “As long as this ordinance stands, everyone is subject to eminent domain.

For more information on the issue ands the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition, call Patsy Sharpe at 931-647-5317, Debbie Denton at 931-572-0603, Kathy Ondras at 931-436-0536 or Debbie McMahan at 931-980-2387. The coalition can also be reached by mail at P.O. Box 183, Clarksville TN 37041-0183.

The Land Use Master Plan as developed by the Downtown District Partnership (September 2002) details proposals for the re-shaping of downtown Clarksville including the Riverfront areas and residential neighborhoods adjacent to the immediate downtown area and APSU. Much of the area covered in this plan is the same area affected by the current ordinance and blighted designation. By carefully scrutinizing the maps in this plan, which was developed five years ago, homeowners can get a sense of which areas are most likely to be affected by a redevelopment effort of this kind. This is a proposed plan, but the correlations to the areas now designated as “blight” are easily discernible.

Photo Gallery for the Train Station meeting follow the text of the ordinance.

Ordinance 73-2005-06

This is the full text of the Ordinance in question

ORDINANCE 73-2005-06
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING
THE CLARKSVILLE CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PLAN

WHEREAS; the Clarksville, Tennessee Housing Authority (“the Authority”) has completed studies and prepared an Plan for redevelopment, entitled “Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan,” (herein refereed to as. the “Plan”) consisting of a text, Redevelopment Plan and Exhibit “A” attached thereto, all dated ___________, 2006, which have been filed with and referred to the City Council of Clarksville, Tennessee and the Montgomery County Commission, Montgomery County, Tennessee (herein referred to as the “Governing Bodies,”) for review-and approval; andWHEREAS, the Authority has examined the area proposed for inclusion in the redevelopment project and determined that, with the exception of those properties presently owned and maintained by Austin Peay State University, it is a blighted area with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use, or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals or welfare of the community and that such conditions should be eliminated to promote the public interest and, the members of these Governing Bodies have been duly apprised and are aware of these conditions; and

WHEREAS: the need for a coordinated effort for the redevelopment of the area proposed for inclusion in the project is further evidenced by the exemplary efforts of residents in the Red River and Brandon Hills neighborhoods, who have seen a similar need for redevelopment efforts in those areas, and have begun work on a revitalization plan which, upon completion, will be incorporated as a valuable resource for implementation of the overall redevelopment Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Plan for redevelopment is to be undertaken by the Authority in accordance with and in furtherance of the objectives of Article 1, Sections 8 and 21 and Article II, Section 28 of the Constitution of Tennessee: The Housing Authorities Law, Chapters 20 and 45; Public Acts of Tennessee of 1935 (1st Extraordinary Session); as amended; Chapter 114 of Public Acts of Tennessee of 1945, as amended; Chapter 181 of Public Acts of Tennessee of 1955 (said statutes now codified in Tennessee Code Annotated Sections 13-20-201 through 13-20-216); and

WHEREAS, the Plan for the area provides for the utilization of the tax increment financing pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated 13-20-205 in furtherance of redevelopment within the District; and

WHEREAS, the Plan for the area prescribes certain land uses and controls and authorizes the acquisition by negotiation, condemnation or otherwise of certain properties for public use or for resale by a redeveloper or redevelopers; and

WHEREAS, the members of the Governing Bodies have carefully considered and reviewed the proposal for redevelopment, including the relocation of businesses, if any, that may be displaced; and

WHEREAS, in order to implement the Plan, the Governing Bodies must approve and authorize certain actions;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, TENNESSEE:

Section 1. That it is hereby found and determined that the redevelopment area defined by the Plan entitled “Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan,” dated _________, 2006, with the exception of those properties presently owned and maintained by Austin Peay State University, is a blighted area as defined in and in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated Sections 13-20-201 through 13-20-216; further the area is blighted as a result of a relevant findings of blight documented within the Plan; and that conditions existing in the Plan area are detrimental to the safety, health, morals or welfare of the people of Clarksville and Montgomery County, Tennessee, that said area or such portions thereof as deemed necessary for acquisition by the Authority by negotiation, condemnation or otherwise, as provided by Tennessee Code Annotated 13-20-104 and 13-20-202, and so designated pursuant to the Plan, or any amendment or amendments thereto, should be so acquired by the Authority; and that such blighted conditions should be eliminated provided that no such area or portions thereof shall be condemned and/or acquired by eminent domain unless and until the intent to pursue such acquisition is first presented for discussion in a public hearing, after which the acquisition must be approved by ordinance/resolution of the governing bodies.

Section 2. That the Plan entitled “Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan,” consisting of text, a Redevelopment Plan Map, and Exhibit “A” attached thereto, all dated _____,2006 as filed with the City Clerk, is hereby in all respects approved.

Section 3. That it is hereby found and determined that the Plan for the project area conforms to the Consolidated Plan for Clarksville as published by the Office of Housing and Community Development of the City of Clarksville.

Section 4. That the use of tax increment funding pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated, § 13-20-205, is hereby approved for undertaking activities specified in the Plan.

Section 5. That the Clarksville/Montgomery County Industrial Development Board is hereby authorized to negotiate payment in lieu of tax agreements on property owned by the Industrial Development Board pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated, § 7-53-305 for undertaking redevelopment approved by the Plan;

Section 6. That it is hereby found and determined that, in addition to the elimination of blight from the project area, the undertaking of the project in such area will further promote the public welfare and proper development of the community.

Section 7. 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.

Section 8. That the City Clerk is directed to file this Ordinance together with the Plan referred to herein as a part of the minutes of this meeting.

Section 9. That this Ordinance shall take effect from and after its adoption, the welfare of the City requiring it.
_______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
PUBLIC HEARING: March 20, 2006
FIRST READING: March 2, 2006
SECOND READING:
EFFECTIVE DATE:

Photo Gallery: Faces of the Concerned…

Editor’s Note: More pictures from this event will appear in various articles over the next few days.