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.

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/2008/05/09/city-council-returns-to-chambers-with-thunderous-public-slams/ http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/05/09/city-council-returns-to-chambers-with-thunderous-public-slams/#comments Fri, 09 May 2008 23:25:16 +0000 Turner McCullough Jr. http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/?p=5094 Unannounced $524,000 City Hall security package heralds Council’s return to former chambers.

Rejection of resident participation on redevelopment review board slams public demand for representation.

The Clarksville City Council returned to its Council Chambers, delivering two thunderous slaps to the public’s collective face in a single meeting.

Before delivering the back-to-back punches, and with the smell of fresh paint still lingering in the air, city departments, staff and council members were praised for their response to the recent tornado touchdowns in our community. Mayor Pro Temp Barbara Johnson gave city certificates to Council Members Deanna McLaughlin, Geno Grubs and Bill Summers for their personal efforts in aiding with the clean-up.

City Hall security package felt to be urgent! Security concerns came unannounced to Council agenda

Moving to the meeting’s agenda. the council approved a budget amendment of $620,000 for city hall security upgrades. The upgrades would institute rigid controlled access to city hall, cameras in elevators, restricted access to stairways (for exit only) for the public and limited access to city departments. The printed agenda only listed an additional $96,000 for unanticipated maintenance to Public Square properties. The mayor insisted that this action should not be put off until the new fiscal year budget cycle, even though admittedly it will be at least 14 to 16 weeks before actual implementation could begin.

Mayor declares, “No property or development interest in redevelopment area!”

Mayor Piper made a strenuous declaration that he has no property in the redevelopment area. He acknowledged owning a business office property in the area, which is up for sale. He stated he owned no development property in the area, had no stake or interest in any developments in the redevelopment area, in any way, and that stories to contrary were false.

Appointed Review Board to replace residents election of representatives

The Council also approved on second reading the much debated redevelopment ordinance. Discussion was again heated, intense and filled in petty vitriol by some. Bill Summers, Ward 10, offered amendments to clarify resident membership and business owner participation on the review board. Bill Forrester, Ward 11, offered an amendment to eliminate resident participation by election on the review board altogether. Deanna McLaughlin, Ward 2, noted that resident elected participation was included at the behest of “adamant public demand.” Ward 5 Diane Ward questioned the resident election component of the ordinance. The Co-City Attorney clarified that the resident elected participation format was untested in any court review while an appointed board format had been tested and passed court review.

A motion to postpone the vote on the matter was rejected . Only Ward 6 representative Marc Harris and Ward 12 representative Wayne Harrison voted ‘NO’ on the ordinance passage. Jim Doyle and Richard Swift were absent.

Clarksville NAACP President Jimmie Garland, who earlier this week announced he asked requested a review of the new development ordinance by HUD and the Justice Department, said:

“The properties of the affected areas are now in dire jeopardy. Conditions created last evening by eight council members who believe their obligation to the elitist is more of a priority than that of looking out for the residents of wards that do not affect them. We should thank Councilmen, Harris, Harrison, and Doyle in his absence for their compassion for the citizens of Clarksville versus loyalty to the status quo. I wish each of them much success in their future endeavors. By no means…. is this over. Keep the faith!!!”

[Show as slideshow]

At a Special Called Session under heavy police presence, the Clarksville City Council heard from a wide cross-section of the affected redevelopment district and concerned citizens Monday night. Attendance was estimated at over 200 people. Despite pleas for more openness and deletion of the threat of eminent domain against homeowners and property owners, the Council gave first reading approval of Resolution 96-2007-08 with a vote tally of 3 Nays against 9 Yeas.

The agenda presented at the meeting deviated from that released to the public. The previously released agenda stated that the council “desires to delete Ordinance 73-2005-06 in its entirety and amend the same, or replace the same, with the hereafter Clarksville Center Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan.” No explanation was offered for the change-up in agenda criteria. Ordinance 96-2007-08 was listed as “an ordinance adopting the Clarksville Center Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan.

After motions to delete several items from the agenda, Mayor Johnny Piper gave a slide presentation summarizing the history of the Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan. Acknowledging that the original plan had failed to follow several provisions of state law, Mayor Piper said several steps were taken to correct those flaws. However, repeal of the plan was never pursued.

Consultation with the Knoxville Community Development Corporation (KCDC) aided in revisions being incorporated into a revised plan. During the city council’s trip to Knoxville, KCDC President/CEO Alvin Nance told the council and visiting citizens that, unlike Clarksville, “Knoxville never considered declaring their entire downtown area “a blighted area or district. They utilized several individual projects encompassing varying, smaller sizes within the their downtown area in their overall redevelopment district. Additionally, Knoxville held multiple public hearings to insure public input and continued support as their redevelopment plan progressed. Also, Knoxville had very little displacement of residents in the impacted areas They made concerted efforts to insure long established neighborhoods were not destablized or suffered population make-up shift.”

After reviewing observations from the Knoxville trip, further revisions to the Clarksville Plan were presented to the public at a public hearing on March 27th. One item Mayor Piper stressed was addressing concerns of “taking of private property without full fair market value compensation.” Over 30 comment cards calling for the outright repeal of the plan were recorded as a single repeal comment in the finalized public hearing transcript. The mayor said that the March 27th public hearing on the former ordinance would be used to satisfy legal requirements for such a hearing for the newest ordinance incarnation.

Public Comments Oppose the Plan

Following the mayor’s presentation, the council received public comments.

George Fort, a resident of the Red River District, called for extending the timeframe for obtaining residents understanding of the repercussions of this plan: “It isn’t there yet.” He called for a demonstration project to let the area residents see the plan’s potential impact to their community.

Mrs. Virgina Hatcher, president of the local chapter of the Commission On Religion and Racism (CORR), told the council that people are not pleased with this plan. “Displacing people from their homesteads of many years, or even causing them to unnecessarily fear such displacement via underhanded political manipulations, is wrong. It is unchristian,” she said. She stated she was speaking as both a resident of and for the Red River Community. She asked the council to heed the people’s discontent and reject this plan.

Don Sharpe, called for a show of hands of those in favor of the plan-there was no response. When he called for a show of hands of those opposed to the plan, every audience member raised their hand.

Debbie Hunt of the Property Owners Rights Coalition told the council that this whole process has denied property owners their rights and opportunity to voice objections and have their concerns heard. The abuse of eminent domain has not removed. Assurances of fair market value compensation are not quantified in this new ordinance any more than its predecessor. Assemblage clauses continue to pose a threat to homes that are not “blighted.”

Terry McMoore (left) urged council members “to not let the ultimate puppetmaster, Mayor Johnny Piper, pull your strings. The people, the constituents, are here, and they have spoken. They do not support this plan.” He urged the councilmembers to listen to the people.

Rick Reda of Rick Reda Auto Sales at N. 2nd Street said he favors redevelopment. However, he said, this isn’t a plan. He stated the ordinance lacks any specific spelled out projects as presented in the Knoxville model. “There is no plan, but rather a bunch of rules and regulations not geared towards the residents benefit.”

Samuel Hooker of Hooker Funeral Home, Franklin Street, questioned the wisdom of having paid a $10,000 county tax bill, having a pending city tax bill bill in June, and still be facing city condemnation of his property due to wanton acts of vandalism, under threat of eminent domain. He stated he had already been approached with offers of $750,000 for his business property, but he’s not interested in selling. Yet the city insists there are not already envisioned projects for the area. He asked if the city would give him that amount for his property under this plan. He doesn’t think so. Additionally, a long-time resident of Brandon Hills stated that unlike him, many of his neighbors live on fixed restrictive incomes and cannot absorb the burden of rehabilitation expenses resulting from proposed short corrective allowance timeframes under the new redevelopment plan. He pointed out that local banks are not approving home repair or rehabilitation loans in the area and no assistance has been forthcoming from the city. He urged the council to rethink this plan in its entirety. It is causing undue stress and anguish to people least able to contend with these pressures, he stated.

John Summers (above), Clarksville Property Owners Rights Coalition (CPRC) attorney, called the plan a blatant property grab. He characterized it as “a developer’s wet dream.” The spokesman for the Tennessee Historical Society repeated its criticism of the plan, characterizing it as a developer’s wish list. “There is no plan, no specified projects.” This plan contains the largest unrestricted application of eminent domain anywhere in the United States. “The national headquarters has called this plan audacious.”

The Council Moves to Vote

Following the public comment period, an unclarified amendment to the ordinance was approved with a vote of 10 to 2. Afterwards, several areas of concern for clarification were voiced by council members, including:

• vacant properties criteria uncertainties should be resolved
• property owners not residing in the district should understand they will only exercise one vote, despite the number of properties owned
• review the language of having a business representative serve on review board
• reconsider the six month restriction to correct code violations for longer corrective timeframe. These are adverse economic times and we should be cognizant of unforeseeable personal hardships impacting our community.

Councilman Jim Doyle, noting first that government’s highest purpose is to serve the people, reviewed the entire redevelopment plan creation process. He noted that a litany of mistakes have befallen this process and lamented that corrective steps, in support of local government actually fulfilling its duty to serve the people, have not been pursued.

Councilman Marc Harris (above) asked for deferral of the ordinance. The motion failed, No-8, Yes-4. Following Councilman Harris’s imploring council to heed the tenets of the Gold Rule, the vote on the ordinance proceeded. The vote to approve the first reading was called and passed 9-Yes and 3-No. At this point, the meeting was adjourned.

At a community meeting meeting held Friday, April 4, sponsored by Marc Harris, residents were also concerned with language in the new ordinance that allowed only “titled property owners” be eligible for appointment to a supervisory board, a move that excludes long time neighborhood residents who are renters from having a voice in the future of their own neighborhoods.

Debbie Harris (at left) also spoke at Harris’ meeting, is infuriated with the lack of response shown by the council to their constituency, voicing concerned that property around her home is being bought up by people anticipating approval of this plan and that her home will be taken under the “assemblage” clause in this ordinance. “Assemblage” was a major issue in the original ordinance, and remains a strategic part of the new plan. She was also angered by the fact that letters to property owners about the special Monday session were delivered by mail with a time frame of only 2-3 days before the first reading. It was no surprise to her that the revised document passed.

The rally featured Christina Walsh , Clarksville Property Rights Coalition Spokesman John Summers, Dan Brown of the Tennessee Preservation Trust and others. They addressed plan opponents and members of the press on the issues they perceive in the current version of Clarksville’s Redevelopment Plan. Summers and Brown have been frequent speakers at CPRC meetings.

Click here to view the embedded video.

After the rally, the public forum began in the Burt School Cafeteria. with Mayor Piper making the first statement. The program continued with a presentation by Knoxville’s KCDC President Alvin Nance, followed by Downtown District Partnership board member and recent appointee to the Clarksville Housing Authority Frank Lott. The presentation given was identical to the KCDC video on the “Our view: The updated redevelopment plan still has major flaws” article; watching that video provided all the same information as last night’s forum.

Laws mean exactly what they say on paper; it does not matter what those who created it intended for it to say. What counts is in the actual letter of the law. Members of the City Council do not see any issues with the plan they approved, even though a common sense reading shows that this plan is faulty, open to major abuse, and was clearly intended to make it easier for developers to take private property from its owner and then profit from it. Mayor Piper and the council have denied that, but that is exactly how the currently plan reads.

Counting heads, the Fire Marshall allowed only 180 people inside the hall for the meeting, with another estimated 150 people turned away. [Editor's note: At the Train Station meeting in December, more than 300 people turned out to oppose this plan.] CPRC members provided a list of the names and addresses of people who were denied access to this public forum: page after page was full of names and addresses.

This was a purported “public” forum, where some but not all interested members of the public were allowed inside, due to insufficient space, despite the fact that public interest in this issue and the turnout for prior meetings on this issue warranted larger quarters. Limiting attendance may have been a primary consideration due to the fact that there are three nearby locations with significantly more capacity: Burt school’s own gym, APSU’s Clement Auditorium, and the Dunn Center. The public were denied their right to speak. Many members of the audience wore red tape over their mouths as a visible protest over the acts that silenced them. The city could have but did not allow each person who wished to do so to address the City Council and the Mayor. The public was not allowed to ask questions, questions which should have been clearly answered.

When the forum ended, a number of attendees described it as “a farce,” “a dog and pony show,” “a joke,” and “just plain sad.” It was a public forum without public participation.

During a interview with Mayor Piper, News Channel 2 asked the mayor if the locations was chosen to limit public participation. Piper said “no,” then removed his microphone and terminated the interview. The Channel 2 newscast, in broadcasting this interview, cut away immediately following Piper’s “no.”

One gentleman was placed in handcuffs by the Clarksville Police for protesting the trampling of his rights by the city a little too vigorously (watch the video). He was released without any charges.

With such a large number of people opposing Clarksville’s redevelopment (eminent domain) plan, and the lengths the city is apparently ready to go to in order to enact it, one must ask who is the power behind the throne on this issue, who or what is giving Mayor Piper and the City Council the impetus to defy the clearly expressed will of the public.

The actions regarding the development plans, when combined with statements by city officials at other meetings and events, are clear examples of the contempt and disregard that Clarksville’s elected and appointed officials have for the wishes of their constituency.

An irony of urban redevelopment is that the purported goal of economic development is usually hampered by government’s insistence on retaining the power of eminent domain for a project. Forest City, a developer infamous for its Atlantic Yards dispute in New York, is involved in just such a situation in Fresno, Calif. Fresno decided in 2005 that the area south of Chukchansi Park, home of the city’s minor league baseball team, should be “revitalized.” The next year, the city hired mega-developer Forest City to begin the downtown redevelopment; unfortunately, the very plan designed to revitalize Fresno’s downtown is draining the area of not only its current tax base but hampering other future investments in that area.

Forest City’s plan for the 85-acre South Stadium area, which calls for a new shopping district and 700 new homes, has threatened more than 40 properties with eminent domain for private gain. ¹ Two years after the plan was first proposed, property owners and city officials alike are still waiting for development to begin. According to The Fresno Bee, Forest City must still conduct a yearlong environmental review and the city still has not come up with a public financing scheme for the project.

The Bee’s editorial summed up the situation: “The problem is that property owners in the area, and small business owners who wish to move in or expand in existing locations, are left on hold while the big developer jumps through the regulatory hoops. Few want to take a chance on an investment that might be swept away by some grander vision for downtown. Owners find it difficult to rent or see properties because of the uncertainty.” ²

The threat of eminent domain stifles native efforts to revitalize apart from the plan because entrepreneurs will not invest in a business that may not be around for more than a couple of years. Randy Miller and Robert Toman are two entrepreneurs in the area who want to open up a brewpub in a former furniture store owned by the family of Miller’s wife. Miller and Toman find themselves in limbo: because there is no council-approved plan, the city will not tell them whether it will be necessary to take the property for the Forest City development.

“It would be nice if they said, ‘We’re going to demolish you and move you,’ or, ‘You can stay here,” Miller told The Bee. ³

However, the potential threat or eminent domain is driving away businesses already established in the area. Pat Cody, who has owned Wilson’s Motorcycles for 18 years, could not even find a realtor to list his property after he decided that the survival of business depended on moving somewhere where his future prospects were more stable. Cody said realtors considered his property “a waste of their time.” Even though the city most likely would have bought the property, it cannot do so yet because the city council has not officially given approval for the final project.

Property owners are also having difficulty renting out properties to tenants because the city could come and condemn the property at any point once the final plan is approved. Octavia Diener told The Bee that the city actually discourages prospective renters.

“They go to the city,” said Diener. “And the first thing the city tells them is, ‘That’s under this redevelopment plan.’” ⁴

With businesses moving away, renters staying away, and potential new businesses unable to contribute to revitalization, the city of Fresno’s potential threat of eminent domain is creating the very blight factors that officials say they wish to remedy. Unfortunately, for small business owners and independent developers, city officials have chosen their favored developer, Forest City, and city officials will not allow anything other than Forest City’s vision in the area. Unlike nearly every other neighborhood that developed organically, with many neighbors creating the spirit and content of the area, Fresno is insisting on a centrally planned model for what should take place in this district.

City Council Member Larry Westerlund, who is also the chairman of the Redevelopment Agency board, defends Forest city this way: Forest City, “has always expressed an interest in working with property owners, if there’s a way to do so and make a project that’s unique and authentic.” ⁵

The fact that most redevelopments tend to be neither unique nor authentic aside, it is ironic that the city may not consider private residents and business owners of Fresno “unique” or “authentic” enough for the plan imposed upon the area by a Cleveland-area developer.

Given those circumstances, it is not surprising that city officials seem to be indifferent to the deleterious effects of their redevelopment procedures. Fresno citizens, who are already established and committed to the area and who sincerely wish to contribute to the economic revitalization of the area are being turned away because they do not conform to the city’s visions of the future, a future that may not ever materialize.

• 1. Jeff St. John, “Keeping the city on hold,” The Fresno Bee, February 11, 2008
• 2. The Fresno Bee, “Downtown visions collide in proposed Forest City area; Big projects and smaller efforts are crucial to revitalized success,” The Fresno Bee, February 13, 2008.
• 3. St. John
• 4. Ibid.
• 5. Ibid.

About CastleWatch

CastleWatch is the online publication of the Castle Coalition, the Institute for Justice’s nationwide grassroots property rights activism project. The Castle Coalition helps home and small business owners fight eminent domain abuse through the public and political processes and this is our way of letting you know what’s happening.

Progressive Citizens Advocates membership is largely made up of ministers and progressive movers and shakers within the African American Community. The meeting  will attempt to address the questions and issues surrounding the Downtown District Partnership’s Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan. The meeting is open to the public and will feature a question and answer period. 

For more information contact PCA president Rev. Frank Washington (931) 980-1918 (cell).

The citizens of Clarksville continue to oppose an ordinance approved by the Clarksville City Council that declared most of the downtown area and surrounding neighborhoods as “blighted.” This writer views “blighted” as the new buzz word for eminent domain.

The Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan, orchestrated by the Downtown District Partnership, has the potential to place over 1300 acres of land and over 1800 homes, churches, businesses, which may also include the Historic County Courthouse, in danger of seizure by the city for redevelopment.

Some believe that under this plan, developers could receive significant tax incentives for their participation in any projects developed as a result of the “blighted” designation.

A public forum and debate on eminent domain and how it relates to this controversial “Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan” will be held Friday, December 14, 2007 at 7 PM at the H.O.P.E. Resource Center, 120-A Legion Street in Clarksville.

Affected residents and business owners of these “blighted” areas are calling on the Clarksville City Council members to rescind their support and ask that the redevelopment plan ordinance and its wording be restructured to protect the people and their property rights.

Under state law, the city is only allowed to take property by emininent domain for infrastructure development, while the county can take land for any purpose. The use of a “blighted” declaration is specifically prohibited for the purpose of taking land for development to increase tax revenues.

I believe the current ordinance is too vague, giving city administrators a blank check to do as they please. In its present form, the plan seems to mask an attempt to leverage property for maximum potential tax revenues.

At the last public meeting on this issue, over 60 residents opposing this plan wore buttons saying No Blight Without A Fight. The debate on this issue will continue at this event.

Bring your questions, concerns, comments and complaints to this event, which is free and open to all concerned citizens. For more information, contact Terry McMoore at (931) 378-1999.