Carla T. Main

Dallas, Texas—The author and publisher of Bulldozed: “Kelo,” Eminent Domain, and the American Lust for Land today asked a Dallas state court to dismiss the defamation lawsuit filed against them by Dallas developer H. Walker Royall. Published in 2007, Bulldozed chronicles events in Freeport, Texas, where Royall signed a development agreement to have the city take land owned by Western Seafood—a generations-old shrimping business—and give that land to Royall’s development company for a luxury yacht marina. Royall sued the book’s author, Carla Main, and its publisher, Encounter Books, in October 2008, seeking monetary damages and a permanent prohibition on further printing or distribution of the book.

Royall’s lawsuit is part of a national trend. Similar suits have been filed in Tennessee, Missouri, Washington and elsewhere by developers and government officials looking to silence critics of eminent domain for private gain. Earlier, when the Gore family—owners of Western Seafood and the original victims of Royall’s eminent domain abuse effort in Freeport—complained against Royall’s actions, he sued them for defamation. In the present lawsuit, Royall has also sued the Galveston newspaper that reviewed the book, along with the book reviewer. Law Professor Richard Epstein, whom Royall also sued, was dismissed from the lawsuit in March.

When asked by Main and Encounter to identify specific passages in Bulldozed that defame him, Royall could point only to Main’s criticism of his involvement in the Freeport marina project and a handful of random statements that fall far short of the legal standard of defamation.

“Mr. Royall does not seem to understand that the First Amendment protects the right of journalists to criticize people who seek to profit from public projects,” said Matt Miller, executive director of the Institute for Justice Texas Chapter (IJ-TX), the nonprofit public interest law firm that is defending Main and her publisher. “Mr. Royall agreed to have the city of Freeport take his neighbors’ land and give it to him so that he could build a luxury yacht marina. Carla Main enjoys the same right all Americans enjoy under the First Amendment, to chronicle and condemn Mr. Royall’s behavior. We asked Mr. Royall to tell us how, exactly, Bulldozed defames him and he came up empty-handed. Carla wrote a hard-hitting exposé of the events in Freeport, but she did not defame Mr. Royall.”

Main is a veteran journalist who was an associate editor of The National Law Journal, where she edited the opinion page and wrote a column on law and society. She wrote for The Wall Street Journal, Policy Review, National Review, The American Lawyer and The New York Sun, among other publications. Before becoming a journalist, Main practiced as an attorney in New York City for ten years. Bulldozed was reviewed in many newspapers, including The Wall Street Journal, was nominated for the Texas Historical Commission’s annual T.R. Fehrenbach Book Award and won a highly competitive independent press award for political science writing.

“The book was a labor of love,” said Main. “I researched it meticulously and gave Mr. Royall multiple opportunities to be interviewed. His primary complaint about the book seems to be that I described him as participating in an economic development taking, which he did.”

“Eminent domain for private gain is the subject of nationwide public debate,” said Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Dana Berliner, who was co-counsel in the Kelo v. New London Supreme Court case, which is addressed at length in Bulldozed. “If Walker Royall doesn’t want anyone to talk about him or his development deals, he shouldn’t enter into deals that involve a city’s condemnation of his neighbors. Today we are asking the court to put an end to Mr. Royall’s lawsuit spree.”

If successful, the motion filed today will result in a complete dismissal of the lawsuit against Main and her publisher.

About the Institute for Justice

Founded in 1991, the Virginia-based Institute for Justice fought the landmark legal battle to protect property rights in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing Kelo v. City of New London in 2005. The Institute has successfully defended eminent domain abuse activists sued for speaking out in St. Louis, Mo., and Clarksville, Tenn.

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.

NASHVILLE, TN:  Legislation protecting the integrity of elections in Tennessee overcame its first hurdle towards passage this week with approval by the Senate State and Local Government Committee.   The bill requires voters to provide photo identification to guard against fraud and assure only U.S. citizens vote.

“Unfortunately, we know that voter fraud exists and that there are people who try to be dishonest in an election,” said Senator Bill Ketron (R-Murfreesboro), Chairman of the Committee and sponsor of the bill.  “This bill aims to curtail such abuse by making sure those persons voting are who they say they are.”
The bill, SB 150, provides for various forms of photo identification to be used including a driver’s license, military identification, a valid passport, government employee identification cards, and any federal and state-issued identification cards that contain photographs of the voter.  The legislation does not apply to those in nursing homes.  It also allows for those who are indigent to sign an affidavit swearing their status as an eligible voter.  In addition, the bill provides for a “provisional ballot” which would only be counted if the election counting board is able to verify current and valid identification of the voter within three days.

Last April a U.S. Supreme Court decision validated the right of states to require voters to produce photo identification.  According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, of the 24 states that have a voter-ID requirement, seven states specify a photograph be shown to prove identification, including neighboring states Georgia, Florida, and Louisiana.  In no state is a voter who cannot produce identification turned away from the polls.  All states have some recourse for voters without identification to cast a vote or provide for a provisional ballot.

The voter integrity legislation has been approved for the past several years in Tennessee’s State Senate but has failed in the House of Representatives along party lines with Democrats opposing the bill.

“This legislation makes it clear to everyone that Tennessee has the right to make sure that those voting are legitimately casting their votes, and are U.S. citizens,” added Senator Ketron.  “I am hopeful that this measure, which has been upheld by the courts, will be approved by the full General Assembly this year.”

Also on the agenda…

In other action in the State and Local Government Committee this week, legislation was approved to update the political composition of the State Election Commission which has been dominated by Democrats for generations.  State law currently requires that the political composition of the five-member State Election Commission be three members of the majority party and two members of the minority party.  In 2008, the majority party changed prompting the need to replace one Democrat on the state board with a Republican.  The terms of office for State Election Commission board members, however, are on a four-year cycle, which is in conflict with state law given the shift in power.

“The Republican Party, now holds the largest number of seats in the General Assembly,” said Senate Majority Leader Mark Norris (R-Collierville), sponsor of the bill.  “In order to reflect the new majority and comply with state law, we propose to temporarily add two new Republicans to the mix.  The Democrats are in mid-term and won’t go gracefully.”

Under the bill, SB 547, the new members would rotate off in two years when their terms of office expire.  The make-up of the board would consequently return to a five-member status after that time.

Tennessee law also requires county election commissions to reflect the change in majority status by giving Republicans three members of the five-member boards statewide.  Those terms of office will be up next month.

Finally, the Senate State and Local Government Committee approved legislation sponsored by Senator Doug Overbey (R-Maryville) requiring that a convicted felon must pay all fines and court costs imposed before being eligible to have their voting rights restored.  Currently, a person convicted of a felony must be pardoned, discharged from custody or supervision, and have paid all restitution to the victim of the offense to have their rights of suffrage restored.  This legislation, SB 440, would add the payment of fines incurred as a result of the felony as a condition for restoring the right to vote.

Legislation approved by Judiciary Committee strengthens rights of property owners

The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved legislation sponsored by Senator Randy McNally (R-Oak Ridge) to strengthen the rights of property owners in cases of eminent domain.  The potential for abuse of government power in cases of eminent domain has been a growing concern for citizens nationwide in recent years, particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Kelo v. New London, which opened the floodgates.  The 5-4 high court decision condoned the rights of local governments to take private property for public use in the name of economic development.

After the Kelo case, many state legislatures moved into action in 2006 to improve their eminent domain laws, including Tennessee.  The legislation, SB 521 and SB 522, approved by the Judiciary Committee would further strengthen that law to provide additional checks and balances to protect citizens from abuse.

Tennessee’s 2006 post-Kelo law reiterated that a “taking” must be for “legitimate public use.”  It prohibited land used predominantly for agriculture production from being considered a blighted area.  It increased notification requirements for eminent domain action from 5 to 30 days, allowing land owners to receive a fair hearing in court with time to prepare their case and provided for attorney’s fees if the property owner is successful.  It also required government entities seeking eminent domain action to deposit moving and other expenses into an account for the owner of land seized through eminent domain.   The bill approved by the Committee this week would further strengthen that law by providing that approval must be given for eminent domain “takings” by the locally-elected governing body.  It also gives property owners the right of first refusal to buy back property from an eminent domain taking if it is not used for the purpose for which it was taken within ten years.

“The protection of homes and small businesses and other private property against unreasonable government seizure is a fundamental principle of our form of government,” said Senator McNally.  “These two additional protections will provide the checks and balances needed to make help safeguard against abuse.”

Senate Education Committee hears update on efforts to improve students’ health

The Senate Education Committee heard testimony this week regarding the state’s Coordinated School Health Program’s efforts to improve the health of students in Tennessee.  Coordinated School Health Director Connie Givens told the committee that the program is a national model that is making a significant difference to help Tennessee children make healthy choices and improve student performance.

Tennessee ranks among the highest states in the nation for the incidence of heart disease, stroke and diabetes.  Forty-one percent of students in the state’s schools are overweight or obese.  These adolescents have a 70 percent chance of becoming overweight adults who are subject to these life-threatening health conditions.

Beginning as a pilot project, the program was implemented statewide in 2006.    That legislation was sponsored by Senator Bill Ketron (R-Murfreesboro), General Welfare, Health and Human Services Chairman Rusty Crowe (R-Johnnson City), Senator Steve Southerland (R-Morristown) and Speaker Pro Tempore Jamie Woodson (R-Knoxville), among others.  It provided for a Physical Education Specialist and a Coordinator of School Health position within the Tennessee Department of Education and called for 90 minutes of physical activity for K-12 students.

There are eight components to the Coordinated School Health Initiative including health education, physical activity, nutrition services, school health services, counseling, a healthy and safe school environment, community involvement and health promotion for school staff.  The program also partners with other health care agencies to provide a vast array of health screening services to accomplish those goals.  Givens said the results of the program have included reduced absenteeism, improved academic performance and higher graduation rates.

Research shows that poor health habits in children are associated with poorer academic achievement.  It also shows schools that offer intense physical activity programs have shown positive effects on student academic achievement.

The Committee, in partnership with the American Heart Association, also honored three Tennessee schools for excellence in implementing the Coordinated School Health Law.  Lincoln County High School received “highest honors” for outstanding achievement by a Tennessee high school, E.O. Coffman Middle School in Lawrence County received the award for excellence in a junior high school, while North Stewart Elementary School in Stewart County topped the list for elementary schools.

Turning the tide on Tennessee’s disturbing health status to help future generations make healthy choices is important not only to improve the health of individuals but also for the economic health of the state due to rising health care costs.

Finance Official updates Senate Finance Committee on federal stimulus money

State Finance Commissioner Dave Goetz appeared before the Senate Finance Committee this week where he continued to urge caution regarding the stimulus money coming to the state through the federal U.S. Economic Recovery Act.  The state has revised its statistics on how much will be coming into Tennessee to $4.5 billion over a two-year period.  Earlier predictions were in the $3.8 billion range.

Goetz said he is cautioning leaders at all levels of government in Tennessee to remind them it is a temporary assistance plan and that if recurring expenses are involved to expect the money to disappear at the end of the two-year period.  He also said the federal government is issuing guidance on how the money must be spent daily and that there is nothing to prohibit the federal government them from changing its mind at any time regarding those rules.

Senate Majority Leader Mark Norris questioned Goetz and Department of Transportation Commissioner Gerald Nicely about the need to implement an orderly process to the lawful expenditures of stimulus funds.

“The State Constitution mandates that all expenditures are subject to appropriation by the Legislature,” said Leader Norris.  “The governor has given us his word that he will comply.”

Issues in Brief

Hunting and fishing rights / SJR 30 — The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a resolution this week to amend Tennessee’s Constitution to protect the rights of citizens to hunt and fish.  The measure will be voted on in the same manner as the “Victim’s Rights Amendment” in 1998, the “State Lottery Scholarship Amendment” of 2002, or the recent amendment to give property tax relief to the elderly.  The measure was approved in the 105th General Assembly but must pass by a two-thirds majority in the current legislature before citizens can expect to see the resolution on the ballot in November 2010.

Abortion / SJR 127 – Legislation was filed on Monday by Senator Diane Black (R-Gallatin) to give Tennesseans the opportunity to restore their voice in determining what state law should be regarding common sense protections for abortions.  SJR 127 passed the State Senate overwhelmingly last year but failed along party lines with Democrats voting against the measure in a House Subcommittee.  The resolution addresses a State Supreme Court decision in 2000 that struck down provisions in Tennessee law allowing women to receive “informed consent” information about the surgery and to wait 48 hours before they receive an abortion, making Tennessee more liberal than the courts required in Roe v. Wade.  The earliest this amendment, if approved, could go to voters is 2014.

Coal Fly Ash – Legislation was presented by Senator Tim Burchett (R-Knoxville) to the Senate Environment Committee this week to ban the future storage of coal fly ash in lagoons.  The bill, SB 1559, would prohibit the State Conservation and Environment Department from issuing a permit for disposal of fly ash in holding ponds.  It also prohibits issuance of a permit in landfills unless they contain a liner for protection of groundwater and are capped properly.  Debate on the bill will continue in the committee next week.

Vacancies / County Commissioners — The full Senate passed legislation this week to correct a problem arising from an interpretation of a 2008 law that revised procedures for filling vacancies by a county commission.  That law required a county commissioner to resign from the county commission if they accept an appointment made by that governing body.  Some attorneys have interpreted this to include any appointments made by the county commission, including internal appointment to boards and committees, such as budget and finance committees, beer boards, ethics committees etc.  The legislation, sponsored by Senator Doug Overbey (R-Maryville) clarifies that it was not the intent of the 2008 law to prevent a county commissioner from serving on any board or commission if he or she could lawfully serve on that board prior to the act.

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research awards this dubious distinction annually to the person or group in Tennessee who, more than any other over the past year, acted as a Grinch to Tennesseans by bah-humbugging the principles of liberty and limited government.

Joyce Vanderbilt, owner of Kelly's on Riverside Drive, displays the controversial ad that resulted in a libel suit against the CPRC.

Swift and Wilkinson receive the fourth annual badge of disgrace for leading efforts to take the homes and businesses of Clarksville residents through eminent domain for a private redevelopment scheme that would line their own pockets.

When a group of citizens criticized Swift and Wilkinson for their attack against private property and their conflicts of interest, the shameless duo assaulted the Clarksville residents’ First Amendment rights by filing a frivolous lawsuit attempting to silence the criticism.

The City of Clarksville and the Clarksville Downtown District Partnership, led by Swift and Wilkinson, are threatening hundreds of homes and businesses with the Clarksville Center Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan. The scheme affects  as many as 1,800 homes, businesses and churches, primarily owned by low-income and minority residents, posing a threat of eminent domain. Swift and Wilkinson are both real estate developers positioned to benefit from the redevelopment plan.

Members of the CPRC at a city council meeting

In an attempt to protect their property, a group of Clarksville residents whose homes and businesses are threatened by the redevelopment plan formed the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition. The Coalition ran an ad in the Clarksville Leaf Chronicle criticizing the redevelopment scheme and pointing out that Swift and Wilkinson were  developers positioned to benefit from the city’s land grab.

Six days later, Swift and Wilkinson assaulted the Coalition’s right to free speech by filing a frivolous libel lawsuit against the Clarksville residents, demanding the group pay them $500,000.

“It is disgusting and pathetic that these Scrooges would even imagine suing a group of citizens fighting to keep them from taking their homes and businesses,” Johnson said. “No one in Tennessee deserves to find their stockings filled with coal this Christmas more than Richard Swift and Wayne Wilkinson, the Grinches of Clarksville.”

About the Author: The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through the ideas of liberty. Visit TCPR online at: www.tennesseepolicy.org.

Dallas, Texas:

Royall worked with the city of Freeport, Texas, to try to condemn a generations-old shrimp business owned by the Gore family to make way for a luxury marina.  The project became the subject of the book, Bulldozed: ‘Kelo,’ Eminent Domain, and the American Lust for Land, authored by veteran legal journalist Carla Main. 

Bulldozed tells the story of Freeport’s plan to take the Gore’s waterfront property for Royall’s luxury marina development project.  Only hours after the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous Kelo v. City of New London eminent domain abuse decision, the city instructed its attorneys to redouble their efforts to seize the Gore family business.  Bulldozed unravels why, after years of litigation, the threat of condemnation continues to hang over the Gores.  The book was reviewed in many newspapers, including The Wall Street Journal, was nominated for the Texas Historical Commission’s annual T.R. Fehrenbach Book Award and it won a highly competitive independent press award for political science writing.

After journalist Main wrote her book exposing the Freeport land grab, Royall sued her as well as her publisher, Encounter Books, for defamation.  He even sued nationally renowned Law Professor Richard Epstein who wrote a blurb for the book’s dust jacket.  When someone reviewed the book, he sued him.  When two newspapers published that review, he sued them.

On Wednesday, December 10, 2008, the Institute for Justice Texas Chapter (IJ-TX) filed a notice of appearance with the Dallas County District Court in order to vindicate the right of author Main, her publisher and Professor Epstein to freely debate eminent domain abuse.

“Rather than try to defend his indefensible effort to have the government take someone’s land for his private development project, H. Walker Royall sues and sues and sues and sues,” said Matt Miller, executive director of the Institute for Justice Texas Chapter, which is defending the book’s author, the publisher and law professor Epstein.

Earlier, when the Gores—the original victims of Royall’s eminent domain abuse effort in Freeport—complained against Royall’s actions, he sued them for defamation.  That lawsuit is ongoing.

Main is a veteran journalist who was an associate editor of The National Law Journal, where she edited the opinion page and wrote a column on law and society.  She wrote for The Wall Street Journal, Policy Review, National Review, The American Lawyer and The New York Sun, among other publications.  Before becoming a journalist, Main practiced as an attorney in New York City for ten years.

Author Carla T. Main

“The book was a labor of love,” said Main.  “I researched it meticulously and gave Mr. Royall multiple opportunities to be interviewed.  His primary complaint about the book seems to be that I described him as participating in an economic development taking, which he did.”

Richard Epstein is the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School, where he has taught since 1972.  He also teaches at the New York University School of Law.  Epstein has published 14 books.  His Torts and Cases and Materials on Torts textbooks are widely used in law schools across the country.

In 1985, Epstein published Takings: Private Property and Eminent Domain, a book about the Fifth Amendment and the limits of the government’s power to use eminent domain to take private property.  The book has been cited four times by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Takings is an essential book in the debate about eminent domain and property rights in America.

Epstein was sued by Royall over a small blurb on the back cover of Bulldozed.  Epstein said, “It is a sad day in the life of America when a powerful individual like H. Walker Royall, who has complete access to the media, thinks that the appropriate response to criticism is to remain silent and then to bring a defamation action against those who comment on his deeds.”  Writing an admiring blurb is not something Epstein ever expected would get him sued.  “There are few times in my professional career when I’ve been flabbergasted and this is definitely one of them,” said Epstein, who has been a law professor for more than 40 years.  Epstein’s blurb reads, in its entirety:

“Like a Greek tragedy unfolding, Carla Main’s book chronicles the eminent domain struggles in Freeport, Texas, which pitted the Gore family, with its longtime shrimp business, against the machinations of an unholy alliance between city politicians and avaricious developers. If you have ever shared the Supreme Court’s unquestioned deference to the public planning process that shaped its ill-fated Kelo decision, you’ll surely change your mind as you follow this sordid saga to its bitter end. You’ll never look at eminent domain in the same way again.”

Encounter Books is a non-profit publisher that promotes democratic culture with a catalogue of award-winning and important books.  Encounter Books has more than 100 titles on topics including religion, military affairs, Greek civilization and current events.  Roger Kimball, president and publisher of Encounter Books, also publishes The New Criterion magazine.  Kimball said, “There is the First Amendment, which I think is very much at stake in this case.  There is also the broader issue of public education.”

“Eminent domain for private gain is the subject of nationwide public debate,” said senior attorney Dana Berliner, who was co-counsel in the Kelo case and who will help direct this litigation.  “If Walker Royall didn’t want anyone to talk about him or his development deals, he shouldn’t have made a deal to develop a private marina using public money and someone else’s land.  The Constitution protects people who talk about important issues like eminent domain abuse by governments and private developers.  If developers don’t want people writing about them, then they shouldn’t be involved with government’s abuse of eminent domain.”

The freedom to learn about eminent domain abuse is also at stake because Royall is asking the court to stop the presses on Bulldozed, preventing anyone else from reading the book.  “Mr. Royall should tell the public why he doesn’t like Carla Main’s book, rather than try to censor it,” said Wesley Hottot, an IJ-TX staff attorney.

About the Author: Founded in 1991, the Virginia-based Institute for Justice fought the landmark legal battle to protect property rights in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing Kelo v. City of New London in 2005.  The Institute has successfully defended eminent domain abuse activists sued for speaking out in St. Louis, Mo., Clarksville, Tenn., and Renton, Wash.

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 original Community Town Hall Meeting format was discarded in favor of this new agenda. Elected officials, community leaders and civic organizations have been invited to attend. The meeting is also open to interested members of the public.

Organizers felt this meeting format will best help identify to USDOJ and HUD the issues and non-compliance that will and have already come about since this redevelopment plan was put together. A letter from HUD concerning these issues of non-compliance along with some recommendations were sent to the office of Mayor Johnny Piper several months ago.

The USDOJ and HUD will use the information gathered at this meeting to determine the best possible way to effectively engage the community in thnext phase of this process.  Please RSVP to Terry McMoore at the Urban Resource Center, 931-378-1999.

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.

Progressive cities also don’t have car dealerships and acres of single-level church parking lots at their core. They make certain that ample handicapped accessible parking slots are available on every downtown street, that parking (garages) are both plentiful and convenient for all citizens.

In downtown Clarksville, a parking garage is admittedly needed; that is a fact. It is also a fact that the Transit Center has outgrown its location. But even if a city builds/expands said parking garage, it stil needs to provide designated handicapped slots on each of its downtown streets: Franklin Street is one example of non-handicapped acessible streets. When Strawberry Alley has a street festival, its’ handicapped slot are usually behind the boundary line for special events, off limits to vehicles, with no other provisions for handicapped access to parking. Thanks, Johnny.

I keep hearing about the relocation of the CTA transit center to a new but “undisclosed” location. Why “undisclosed?” If there is more than one possible site, why not let the people (CTA ridership and prospective transit center neighbors) know about it. The answer in one local editorial was to insure that the price of the transit center site in question doesn’t rise to unrealistic levels. Yeah, right. An asinine answer if there ever was one. The need for secrecy and behind the scenes activity on this issue is questionable. Who owns the land parcels under consideration? How many homeowners will be angered by the proximity of CTA buses to their homes?

Isn’t this, for the first time in memorable downtown history, a realistic, practical and responsible use for eminent domain? To build something in the public interest? To build something that will be used by and for the public? Isn’t it time to do the requisite planning with public input rather than presenting said public with a “fait accompli?”

CPRC member opposes eminent domain in downtown Clarksville

Arlington, Va.— Eminent domain will not be used against Nashville music entrepreneur Joy Ford in a hotly contested battle about the abuse of government for a developer’s private gain.  In an agreement signed Tuesday night, September 30, Ford, who has fought eminent domain since June of this year, keeps both her building and obtains more land adjacent to her building along Nashville’s storied Music Row while agreeing to give up land behind her office.

“This agreement is a magnificent victory for Joy Ford and all Tennessee home and small business owners,” said Scott Bullock, senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represented Ford and fights eminent domain abuse nationwide.  “By challenging eminent domain abuse, Joy Ford obtained a landmark agreement where she keeps her building and gets more and better land next to it.”

Under the agreement, Ford will exchange a portion of her back parking lot measuring 50 feet wide and 73 feet deep for a parcel adjacent to the eastern (right) side of her building measuring 49 feet wide and 105 feet deep.  Nashville’s Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency (MDHA) did not participate in the negotiations between Ford and Lionstone.

“This agreement demonstrates what can happen when private parties sit down to work something out without the government.” ~~ Scott Bullock.

The Institute, along with Nashville eminent domain attorney Jim Fisher of Lassiter Tidwell, represented Joy Ford throughout the controversy, including negotiations over the agreement.

Clarksville eyes have been watching this case, given that the city has implemented a redevelopment ordinance in which an assemblage clause could conceivably see land or homes taken from residents to complete deals with private developers. It is one of several sticking points that Clarksville’s Property Rights Coalition had been fighting. the city’s ordinance essentially declares two square miles (1800 home sand businesses) as blighted and ripe for re-development.

In June, the MDHA filed an eminent domain action against Ford to obtain her entire parcel of land so that it could be given to a Houston-based private developer, Lionstone Group, to construct an office building.  Under pressure, MDHA in August dropped its eminent domain suit against Ford’s building but demanded that Ford settle by giving up virtually the entire back portion of her long, narrow parcel of property.  Ford rejected this demand, but came up with an alternative proposal:  she would exchange a portion of the back of her property for more accessible land on the east side of her building owned by Lionstone.  After weeks of intense negotiations, Lionstone agreed to the proposal.  The agreement is solely a swap of land.  No money was exchanged.

“I am elated with this agreement. This battle was never about money.  It was about protecting my rights and keeping my family’s legacy on Music Row.  Now I will have a more accessible and better parking area for my clients’ cars, trucks and buses while they are visiting Country International.” ~~ Joy Ford.

Although Ford achieved victory in her battle, she is not done with her fight against eminent domain abuse, pledging to work with other property owners and Metro and state legislators to stop eminent domain abuse.  “I will not rest until eminent domain is stopped being used on behalf of private interests.”

Ward 8 City Council Candidate David Cutting

City Code Section 1-204(c), as copied below, is anti-democracy, and the new members, hopefully including this writer, must vote to repeal it.

A public comment period is conducted prior to each regular session of the city council from 7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.. Any person wishing to address the council shall make such request to the city clerk by noon on Wednesday prior to the regular session and shall submit their name and the topic of said comments. Each person shall be allowed a maximum of five minutes to speak during the comment period. No public comments concerning any zoning amendment to be considered by the city council at such regular session shall be received during this period.

We must encourage, not restrict, resident participation in our city government. It should suffice for persons to sign up for comments between 7:15 and 7:30, as they enter the meeting, and to do so without stating a topic. The council should hear the five-minute comments, in the order in which people signed in, at the end of the regular session. This will help ensure that the public will have the opportunity to address items of current concern, rather than stale issues that may already be resolved.

The current council chambers, and on-site parking, are not ample for enough residents to attend, especially when topics of major interest, such as public safety and taxation, are on the agenda. However, rather than wasting taxpayer dollars on a proposed new city council building, an enormous expense which would receive only occasional use, we must consider appropriate space that is currently available. The former Gateway Hospital on Madison should be perfect, with its large parking lot and large open areas, including the former cafeteria. Another possibility, for occasional use, is the large meeting room on the second floor of the Montgomery County Health Department on Pageant Lane.

The election process for six new council seats every two years must include opportunities for the voters to learn about the candidates, so they may vote intelligently. This should include, as a minimum, one question and answer session, to which all qualified candidates are invited. The questioning should be by a neutral entity, perhaps from Austin Peay State University, and the candidates should not have advance access to the questions. The venue should be large enough to hold all interested voters, and have ample parking. Appropriate sites could include the former Gateway Hospital on Madison, the Media Center at Austin Peay State University, or the large meeting room on the second floor of the Montgomery County Health Department on Pageant Lane. To reach even more voters, we should televise the question and answer session. When we elect our city councilors based solely on who spent more money on yard signs and billboards, we do not necessarily achieve good government.

Clarksville’s new election sign ordinance, requiring $25 permits for each sign on commercial property, places challengers without name recognition at a disadvantage. We must repeal this ordinance, designed to keep incumbents in office, as it mocks democracy. Written permission of the property owner should be the only requirement for short-term election signs on commercial property.

Most important to democracy, whenever the city government feels it has the need or the right to take real property from residents, whether owners or tenants, it must include those residents in all deliberations affecting their housing. In no event should the city government seize private real property without first ascertaining that all displaced residents have adequate replacement housing, with which they are well satisfied.

To implement these progressive reforms, we voters must change the current membership of the Clarksville City Council. This includes replacing one of my opponents, the incumbent Ward 8 councilor.

UPDATE: This morning [Thursday, August 28, 2008], the Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency (MDHA) removed its motion for judgment on the pleadings from the court’s calendar in Joy Ford’s fight to save her Nashville music business from eminent domain abuse. As a result, the hearing originally scheduled for Friday at 9 a.m. before Judge Barbara Haynes will not take place. In its letter, MDHA notified the court that it will re-set the motion at a later date.The original story follows:

On Friday, August 29, at 9 a.m., Joy Ford will appear in Nashville court for the first time, along with her lawyers from the Institute for Justice, to fight to save her small country music recording and publishing business from an illegal and unconstitutional eminent domain action.

The Institute for Justice is also representing the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition in defending a libel action in Montgomery County courts that is rooted in this city’s redevelopment plan and its potential for the use of eminent domain via an “assemblage” clause in that controversial redevelopment ordinance.

In June 2008, Nashville’s redevelopment agency, Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency (MDHA), filed a condemnation petition against Country International Records located on storied Music Row.  MDHA wants to give the property to a Houston-based private developer to put up a generic office building.

Now, in an audacious and unfounded move, MDHA’s lawyers, who are being paid by the private developer that will benefit from the condemnation. have filed a “motion for judgment on the pleadings,” asking the court to hand over Ford’s property on the basis of the four-page condemnation petition filed by the agency.  MDHA seeks to deny Ford any discovery in the case and wants the judge to order possession immediately rather than hold a trial and hear evidence.

“If MDHA gets its way, it will become impossible for any home or small business owner in Tennessee to prevail against an abuse of eminent domain,” said Scott Bullock, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, a national non-profit, public interest law firm located in Arlington, Va., that serves as the nation’s leading legal advocate against eminent domain abuse.

Bullock added, “Courts should actually review evidence in eminent domain cases rather than merely rubber-stamping what the agency wants.  We are confident MDHA’s motion will fail.”  Bullock argued the Kelo v. New London eminent domain case before the U.S. Supreme Court and was co-counsel in the first post-Kelo state supreme court case that ended eminent domain for private gain in Ohio.

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.

On the steps of our historic County Courthouse, a group of grassroots advocate citizens gave voice to an exercise that the founding fathers would have cherished. Members of the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition (CPRC), stood on the courthouse steps to declare their intent to protect their First Amendment Right of Free Speech in their criticism of government.

Bert Gall, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, stood with the group to announce that The Institute for Justice has risen to coalition’s defense in a defamation lawsuit following publication of an ad by the group that stated that the plaintiffs, Richard Swift and Wayne Wilkinson, are developers and that as developers, they are using the power of government to benefit developers. Gall said that the lawsuit is frivolous on its face and it represents a callous attempt by government officials to silence and intimidate critics among the general public and the affected community in particular.

The Institute for Justice is a non-profit public interest law firm that litigates on behalf of individuals whose rights are being violated by the government. Bert litigates property rights cases across the country. Most recently he represented home and business owners in Norwood v. Horney, the first eminent domain abuse case to be argued in front of and decided by a state supreme court in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous decision in Kelo v. City of New London.

In the Norwood case, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected the Kelo decision and held that the City of Norwood could not use eminent domain to take ordinary homes and businesses for private development. Also, through litigation and grassroots efforts, Bert helped a neighborhood in Lakewood, Ohio, gets its blight designation reversed. From August 2005 to August 2006, he directed the legislative, grassroots and education activities of the Castle Coalition’s “Hands Off My Home” campaign. The campaign’s goal is to achieve real reform that will protect ordinary Americans against the abuse of eminent domain.

According to their press release, The Institute for Justice seeks to vindicate the group’s right to protest eminent domain abuse. The CRPC is a grassroots citizens group who joined together to fight a redevelopment plan that threatened to subject their city to eminent domain for private gain. To better inform the public about the plan and its danger, they ran an ad in the local newspaper criticizing elected officials and developers for abusing eminent domain. For exercising their right of free speech and grassroots activism, they got sued.  Six days after the ad appeared and the City Council had voted to approve the final striped down revision of the ordinance, Swift, who is a member of the Clarksville City Council and a developer, and Wilkinson, a member of the Clarksville Downtown District Partnership and also a developer, together filed a defamation lawsuit against the group and its members, seeking $500,0oo in damages.

In short, Swift and Wilkinson are developers, using the power of government to benefit developers and they sued citizens for saying so. For home and small business owners in Clarksville and nationwide, the ability to protect what they own depends on their right to speak freely, especially after the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to eminent domain abuse in its infamous Kelo decision. Since the Kelo ruling, protest is the most effective way for property owners to defend what is rightfully theirs.

The Institute for Justice contends that politicians and developers across the nation accused of abusing eminent domain for private gain are trying, through the threat of litigation, to muzzle property owners who speak out to defend their neighborhood. “If politicians and public figures could sue anyone who criticized them, everyone in America would need a lawyer.” As the institute declares, “Under the First Amendment, you shouldn’t need a lawyer to speak out about politics.”

Dr. Rebecca Slayden-McMahan said she’s “insulted by the behavior of our elected officials and ashamed of their conduct.” She noted that with the approaching anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and 4th of July, here we are “having to defend ourselves from the very government that was designed to protect and defend us as citizens. The ability to protect what is rightfully ours depends on the right to speak freely.”

“The Leaf Chronicle ad was an attempt by CPRC to communicate with the people of Clarksville and urge them to contact their council representatives and voice their opinion regarding the redevelopment plan and the enabling legislation of the ordinance.” In her own remarks, she declared that “the information in the ad is accurate and factual. This lawsuit is frivolous and threatens our civil liberties and First Amendment Rights.”

As citizens, we all have a First Amendment right to speak out against government abuses without being sued for exercising that speech by the very people whose actions we are protesting. Characterizing the city government structure as a developer-driven government, Dr. Slayden-McMahan regards the council as a bunch of thin-skinned bullies that “don’t want anyone else playing in their sandbox, …and attempt to silence their critics with frivolous litigation; …we are involved because is not only our right but our obligation to be enlightened and engaged citizens.”

In closing her remarks, she quoted U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, “To stand in silence ,when they should protest, makes cowards of men.” And in reference to the lawsuit’s accusation of defamation, Dr. Slayden-McMahan again deferred to Lincoln, quoting, “What kills a skunk is the publicity it gives itself.”

[Show as slideshow]

12►

The Institute for Justice will stand with the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition on Monday, June 30, at 11 a.m. on the steps of the Montgomery County Courthouse at Millenium Plaza [corner of 2nd and Commerce Streets], to announce their legal plan to fight back against what they see as a “frivolous” defamation lawsuit filed by Clarksville City Councilmember Richard Swift and Wayne Wilkinson, a member of Clarksville’s Downtown Development Partnership. ”

Making the announcement will be Bert Gall, Senior Attorney for the Institute for Justice, and CPRC members Debbie Hunt, a homeowner, Joyce Vanderbilt, owner of Kelly’s Big Burger, and Dr. Rebecca Slayden-McMahan.

IJ is a non-profit, public interest law firm that has a long and successful history of defending property rights and First Amendment freedoms nationwide.

The CPRC, a grassroots group, was formed in November, 2007, to fight the abuse of eminent domain after a controversial redevelopment and urban renewal plan was passed by the Clarksville City Council. The plan designated two square miles of downtown property as “blighted.”

CPRC member Joyce Vanderbilt, owners of Kelly’s Big Burger, with the controversial ad that is the subject of a pending lawsuit

CPRC members joined together to fight the plan, which threatens their city with eminent domain for private gain. To better inform the public about the plan and its dangers, they ran an ad in the local newspaper criticizing elected officials and developers, including Swift and Wilkinson, for abusing eminent domain.

The ad, noting that both Swift and Wilkinson are developers, said, “This Redevelopment Plan is of the developers, by the developers, and for the developers.” Six days after the ad appeared, Swift and Wilkinson sued the group and its members and demanded $500,000.

But all citizens have a First Amendment right to speak out against government abuse—without getting sued for their speech by the very people whose actions they are protesting. To ensure that right, the Institute for Justice is stepping in to defend the members of the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition from Swift and Wilkinson’s heavy-handed attempt to silence and intimidate their critics.

For more information on the redevelopment plan, the CPRC, and the lawsuit, click the “black box” on the right hand column of this page. All Clarksville Online stories, photos and videotape on this issue are archived there.

For more information on this breaking story, call Lisa Knepper, Director of Communications, at (703) 682-9320.