CPRC member Don Sharpe speaks out against redevelopment at "fact-finding" community meeting

“Sued for a half million dollars for speaking out…”

“This ordinance is detrimental to the community…”

“The City Council ‘rubber stamped’ the mayor…”

“I don’t think they have a plan…”

“Our Leadership doesn’t want to listen to us….”

“CHA is a shadow, not a voice…”

“Preying on minority communities…”

“I’ve never been to a public forum where the public couldn’t speak…”

This is what representatives from the United States Department of Justice, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Institute for Justice  heard when they came to Clarksville Thursday to listen to community concerns about the about the city’s controversial redevelopment plans. Seventy people participated in a fact-finding meeting at the New Providence Community Center on Oak Street sponsored by the NAACP and the Urban Resource Center.

Walter Atkinson, Senior Conciliation Specialist with the U.S. Department of Justice Community Relations Service (Southeast Region IV), in stating that the meeting was “to hear community concerns,” said his role was in part to try and avert “litigation.”

“I am here to listen and observe,” Atkinson said, noting that it was letters from NAACP Chapter President Jimmie Garland and Terry McMoore of the Urban Resource Center that focused federal attention on this local issue. Atkinson had been “in communication” with Mayor Johnny Piper and with the Downtown District Partnership Board. Piper, DDP members and most sitting City Councilors did not attend this meeting. Jim Doyle, who was not re-elected to his Ward 8 seat, along with newly elected councilors Candy Johnson, David Allen and Jeff Burkhart did attend the meeting and spoke with the Ward 6 constituency.

The origin of the issue and the center of the controversy, which exploded in November, 2007, is a city ordinance that was quietly developed and passed by the City Council; at its core was section that designated two square miles, 1825 homes and small businesses in the downtown area, including City Hall and the Courthouse, as “blighted,” with the exception of property owned by Austin Peay State University. The ordinance also included an assemblage clause that would allow eminent domain to be used in “assembling” a group of properties to be transferred to private developers who would “maximize” the potential of the land involved.The land in question lies in Ward 6, the city’s only major minority ward, which, according to Garland, may be protected under the Civil Rights Acts of 1964.

In response to the passage of the ordinance, a grassroots activist group was formed: the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition, who staged an initial Standing Room Only meeting at the Hope Center on Legion Street in November, 2007, which attracted 50 people. Several weeks later, a second meeting at the Train Station on 10th Street was not only packed with concerned citizens but had the overflow crowd of 300 spilling out the doors. A postcard campaign was organized and specialists including representatives and lawyers involved in historic preservation and litigation became involved. Subsequent meetings, including one at APSU where the CPRC and others were not allowed to speak or make a presentation to city officials, and another meeting at the Burt School on Eighth Street where a last minute change in building capacity left nearly a hundred people standing in the parking lot, signs in hand, but unable to speak out to officials or hear what being said inside. Piper later admitted that of the written comments from the concerned residents were destroyed.

Joyce Vanderbilt of Kelly's on Riverside Drive displays the controversial ad on redevelopment

With city officials squaring off against Ward 6 residents and business owners, the redevelopment plans became the supercharged issue of 2008; an ad placed in a local newspaper by the CPRC made a case against the ordinance and proposed development, and The case, borne of a highly controversial ordinance passed by the Clarksville City Council in November, 2007, that “blighted” some two square miles of downtown Clarksville, culminated in a libel suit over a newspaper ad taking some city officials to task for their actions in supporting the ordinance that potentially opened the door for taking of properties by eminent domain and for private development.

In that case, Richard Swift, a developer who is a member of the Clarksville City Council, and Wayne Wilkinson, a member of Clarksville’s Downtown District Partnership, sued the CPRC because its members criticized them for supporting Clarksville’s controversial redevelopment plan, which authorizes the use of eminent domain for private development. In a newspaper ad, the CPRC noted that both Swift and Wilkinson are developers and said, “This Redevelopment Plan is of the developers, by the developers, and for the developers.” Virginia’s Institute for Justice represents the CPRC in the case.

Christine Walsh of the Institute for Justice

Becky (McMahan) was sued for a half million dollars for speaking out,” said Christina Walsh, Director of Community Organization for the Institute for Justice. “The Clarksville Center Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan violates the rights of home and business owners in the redevelopment area. The saga of how it was passed illustrates perfectly why the abuse of eminent domain is wrong. This plan would not pass muster in many states.”

“We do have the right to speak. We are not a Third World Country. Wake up, Sleeping Clarksville, and realize that this is our community. Question the ordinance and the need for the ordinance, and the potential use for the ordinance… even some of the city councilors did not understand this ordinance, and if they didn’t understand it thow can they vote on it.” — CPRC member

NAACP Chapter President Jimmie Garland Sr.

Jimmie Garland charged the City Council with “rubber stamping” the mayor on this issue and asked where “the plan” for development. “Knoxville showed us a plan and invited the community in; that’s not how it was done here There is no plan here.” Garland said that Clarksville’s present leadership does not want to represent us and “does not want to  listen to us.” (Ed: garland excepted Ward 6 Councilor Marc Harris, who opposed the plan). “Our legislators don’t listen to us.”

“Clearly, the confluence of bad law and politically connected developers here does not bode well for the citizens of Clarksville, who have been virtually abandoned by the very political officials they elected to represent their best interests…Local governments very often disguise their intentions of transferring perfectly fine properties to private developers, declaring so-called “blight removal,” “urban renewal,” or “slum clearance” as the justification for eminent domain. … they hide behind this “public use” concept in their quest to acquire property for the private use of developers.” ~~ Christine Walsh

Walsh noted that Piper himself said the plan “was not written in strict accordance with state law,” at which point the city amended rather than rescind the plan, and took a trip to Knoxville to view that city’s redevelopment  process.

Turner McCullough Jr. speaking about a state law that requires that community bodies must reflect the diversity of the community they represent.

Turner McCullough Jr. said “the mayor himself said there is no plan.” After the APSU public forum in which the “public” could not actively participate, and “when (the public) asked for information, we were told to shut up. We  were not considered.”

Wanda McMoore noted that the ordinance assesses what terms “underutilage” of land, which the Institute for Justice and the CPRC read as property that could rake in more profit and more taxes if uses for something other than what it is (i.e., three homes vs a strip mall, five homes versus and apartment complex, a family-owned restaurant vs waterfront condos).

Edward Vanderbilt of Kelly’s on Riverside Drive questioned why, under eminent domain his land and business could conceivably be taken for a minimum of money that wouldn’t even buy a plot of land somewhere else  while “the mayor sells his land and gets millions” (Mayor Piper owns land along Riverside Drive that is in the redevelopment and marina area).

Kevin Johnson of Veterans Services of America discusses the make-up of redevelopment committees

Kevin Johnson of the Veterans Services of America suggested that beyond stating what they do not want, the residents of the area and members of the CPRC, along with local community leaders, should assess what they do want, what kind of growth and positive change they would like to see in their community, and what they would use in lieu of the present ordinance.

It was noted that legislation passed in 2006 can withhold federal funds to communities that use public money to fund private development.

A theme that ran through many of the statements offered by concerned citizens included the following:

• The assemblage clause is of serious concern
• Eminent domain should not be used for private development. (”Take eminent domain out of this plan.”)
• Elected officials simply do not listen to or want to hear from dissenting constituents
• Developers and real estate people with properties in the affected area should recuse themselves from voting on issues which may benefit them (conflict of interest, ethics)
• The actual authors of the ordinance should be disclosed. (”Who wrote this damned thing?”
• According to law, redevelopment plans in Tennessee must be overseen by a housing authority. A determination of Kevin Johnson of the Veterans Services of America participation in the development and execution of the ordinance and redevelopment efforts should be disclosed (Wanda Mills of the CHA has said publicly the CHA did NOT do a study for this plan)
• Demographics (ethnicity, gender etc) of development and advisory boards should be disclosed and appointees to these public posts should be present at meetings when their appointments are confirmed, rather than simply being “a name on a piece of paper.”
• What are the qualifications of the people who created the ordinance?
• Why aren’t more members, if not all members, of the board from the areas impacted by this law?
• What have HUD and other federal monies really been spent on? Has HUD funding been redirected to other projects outside of the designated districts or parameters?

Walter Atkinson, Senior Conciliation Specialist, U.S.D.O.J.

In summing the comments accumulated during the fact finding meeting, Atkinson asked the audience to consider the following?

• If the plan is dropped, what do you want (in your community)?
• What qualifications do you feel people need to participate on redevelopment and related boards?
• What kind of oversight (and by whom) do you need for your community?

As the meeting closed, Terry McMoore noted that he had sent “many, many emails and invitations to people about this meeting, including city officials and Mayor Piper. Given the Mayor’’s lack of response and absence from this session, McMoore requested that Atkinson himself ask the Mayor to attend the next meeting on this issue.

Also attending were Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Representative David H. King, Director, Knoxville Field Office; , Louisville, HUD Fair Housing Equal Opportunity;  County Commissioner Lettie Kendall; CPRC spokesperson Rebecca McMahan; and Tim Harvey, former City Attorney.

[Show as slideshow]

12►

The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will host a fact finding meeting tonight on the controversial downtown redevelopment plan, dubbed “the blight bill,” including its eminent domain and assemblage issues. The meeting will be held at the New Providence Outreach Center, 207 Oak Street, in Clarksville at 7:00 p.m.

The redevelopment plan was first brought to the attention of federal officials this summer, when local NAACP President Jimmie Garland submitted some concerns to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The plan as it was passed contained language that effectively “blighted” the entire downtown business district — two square miles.

Angry residents challenge the redevelopment ordinance at a series of public meetings on the issue

Property owners, in response to this legislation, formed the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition to challenge this ordinance.William Dirl, field office director of the Nashville HUD office, expressed concerns in a letter to Clarksville Mayor Johnny Piper that the redevelopment plan did not emphasize providing housing rehabilitation to existing residents nor did it protect low to moderate home owners from eminent domain abuse.

Representatives from the NAACP, Clarksville Property Rights Coalition and the Institute for Justice a national advocacy group supporting the community will  attend the meeting.

Elected officials, community leaders have been invited to attend. The meeting is also open to interested members of the public and the media.

For more information please contact meeting coordinator Mr. Terry McMoore, Director, Urban Resource Center at (931) 378-1999 or Jimmie Garland, NAACP President, at (931) 216-6745

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.”

The first  reason, and by far the stronger reason, not to go downtown is the abyssimal lack of handicapped parking, Designated handicapped parking.

Let me preface with the statement that I am a huge fan of old-fashioned Main Street shopping. User friendly Main Street shopping. Shops such as Hodgepodge, streets such as Franklin Street,  are a “breath of life” for someone like me, used to and loving huge unique Main Streets with a marvelous diversity of shops,  manageable, accessible parking and park benches galore. I love small locally owned businesses. I avoid malls as if they dispensed bubonic plague.

When Strawberry Alley opened recently, I was dismayed to see a single handicapped parking space. Once I walked (hobbled, actually) from where we had to park, I spent the entire ceremony glued to a chair. The only handicapped parking slot I could see was cordoned off for this street festival occasion (thank you, Clarksville, on behalf of all its handicapped residents). If there were more designated spaces further up toward North Second Street,  I could not see them and was unable to walk that far to check. There are none on Franklin Street, which is where most of my favored  shops, DAC and the Roxy are. There are a few handicapped slots on the river side of City Hall.  Any event held on Franklin Street or Strawberry Alley that blocks off the street automatically blocks off access to many of the disabled.

Having lived for years in a community where parking was at a premium, where “pay and display” was used in oversized parking lots behind the shops and “destinations,” I am all too familiar with the half-a-block or block-long walks to the machine that dispenses a little paper ticket, walking back to put it on your dashboard, and then walking back to the store you wanted to visit. It is aggravating, especially if all you want to do is drop a dime in the meter and dash (well, I don’t dash, but you get the idea) into a store and out again in a hurry.  “Pay and display” is a deal breaker. A mobile  human can do the walking. The minority of disabled or often partially impaired folks not only can’t do the walking, they have few if any dedicated parking slots to work with. Before I applied for and received my new placard, I hadn’t shopped downtown in months, couldn’t walk there from the existing bus station.

While anyone with a disability placard or license plate can park anywhere without worrying about parking tickets, finding a spot to park, much less a handicapped spot, near the shops in downtown Clarksville, is an exercise in futility. Not having a specific handicapped slot on Franklin Street is ludicrous. For someone with a disability, the absence of designated handicapped parking combined with congested downtown parking is a good reason to take their shopping and business dollars elsewhere. For me, that would not  be the mall, but maybe shops in Cadiz, Kentucky, or Paris, Tennessee (a nice road trip and they have a real, old fashioned shoe store that measures and fits your shoes to you).

As a person battling against periodic severe and often mobility-impairing back pain, neuropathy and respiratory issues, I spent much of the past 10 years resisting the urge to seek that disability placard, stubbornly determined to “deal with it.”  I gave in this summer, sort of: I am now the possessor of a bright red temporary card, good for six months. The “six months” is the result of my perpetual guarded optimism. I don’t always use it; it’s use depends on the quality of my day; on some days I can’t walk 50 feet, can’t walk through a grocery store, can’t even stand up to do my dishes in a single shot. People  who see me don’t think I “look” sick, and I work at not showing it; sometimes though, the limp and the hobbling walk are self evident, as is the periodic wincing or involuntary moan from pain.

I hope to feel better, be stronger sooner rather than later. I want to shop on Franklin Street for the holidays.  But in the absence of a designated place to park on Franklin Street, and rarely an empty parking slot to slip into, my options are limited.  My last Roxy excursion involved a plan to be dropped off and and retrieved by a kind friend who made two circuitous trips from his house to mine to downtown to do that so that I could see a show.

By the time my new placard expires in winter, I hope to be much better. I don’t want to have to renew it.  But for now, I, nor anyone with such physical limitations, couldn’t do that little bit of additional walking required to get to downtown from existing handicapped spots.

As part of the push to make downtown both desirable and accessible, the city has to add more than sloping, handicapped curb cuts; designated handicapped parking spaces are critical to that downtown access.

The county’s Redevelopment Ad Hoc Committee met with community spokespersons recently to address concerns about the city’s redevelopment and urban renewal ordinance.

County Mayor Carolyn Bowers, County Commissioners Ron Sokol, Martha Brockman and Mark Banasiak, comprise the ad hoc committee on the redevelopment plan at the county level.

The ad hoc group met with a group of citizens representing minority community concerns. Attending were the meeting organizer, Terry McMoore, executive director of the Urban Resource Center; his wife Wanda McMoore; Turner McCullough Jr., a local community affairs and grassroots activist; Jimmy M. Garland Sr., Clarksville NAACP branch president and 3rd Vice President of the Tennessee State Conference NAACP; Candy Johnson, candidate for City Council Ward 5, and Pastor Timothy Grant, Deliverance Outreach Temple.

Mayor Bowers expressed appreciation for the group meeting with the committee to give input of citizens concerns with the redevelopment initiative underway.“Listening to Montgomery County citizens is the purpose of county government,” said County Mayor Bowers.

A priority for the county is protecting the county tax revenue base. Any TIF (tax incentive financing) funding loss will have to be offset by some form of tax revenue replacement for the county’s tax coffers. Commissioners also expressed concerns about insuring due process and fairness. Accountability of those carrying out this plan and protection of the rights of property owners are all valid concerns that must be addressed.

The group was assured that the county has not signed on to be partnered with the city in this plan. It has heard from other interests, the city, the Downtown District Partnership, business owners, historic district home and property owners. This meeting allows the committee to gain input from the minority community directly.

The group provided the committee members with documentation of complaints filed with city government, federal officials at HUD and the Dept. of Justice, as well as the State Conference and national offices of the NAACP. Additionally, they were given copies of the original Knoxville Redevelopment Plan, The Lonsdale Redevelopment/Renewal Plan of 2005, developed by the Knoxville Community Development Corporation, KCDC. That plan supposedly is the model for Clarksville’s plan.

The Knoxville plan was developed from a HUD approved template model. Turner McCullough pointed to significant differences between the two plans which seriously undermine protections of elements that help provide a ’sense of community’ to any area, such as historic homes or businesses, religious structures, protected voting precincts or wards, and long established common community gathering places. These elements are clearly highlighted and included in all Knoxville redevelopment plans. These elements and their protection are absent in the Clarksville plan. The actual creation of the plan itself was also a subject of consideration. Citizen involvement practices between the two plans also differs greatly.

Jimmie Garland informed the group of federal complaints filed through the NAACP questioning the fairness of the city’s actions. Prominent of these is the fact that the redevelopment ordinance is not an actual plan of action. The city has repeatedly told the citizenry that there is no plan as yet. This differs directly from the Knoxville plan model. Also important is the fact that the ordinance’s impact seems set to demolish or eliminate the city’s only majority minority ward. That is a major concern of the Department of Justice Office of Civil Rights. The Voting Rights of 1965 specifies that certain protections must be employed in any redevelopment plan or urban renewal programs that could have a negative impact on existing majority minority wards. The city has not recognized its obligations under these protections.

Another aspect of the initiative which was discussed was the widely held fear of the potential for the abuse of eminent domain in the city’s initiative. Currently, the city’s ordinance does not conform with the TCA’s provisions for restrictive application of eminent domain as well as provisions of HUD guidelines in providing rehabilitation assistance to affected homeowners in communities targeted by redevelopment plans funded with, impacted by or through HUD funding. This usually means communities that receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) or SSBG (Social Services Block Grant) program funding, such as the city of Clarksville.

Candy Johnson addressed the unease and concerns of residents of the Brandon Hills and Red River District about the impact the redevelopment ordinance will have on their communities. Many of Clarksville’s elderly minority homeowners reside in these communities. She spoke on behalf of her own grandmother who resides in the targeted Red River District community. These elderly citizen homeowners and taxpayers have struggled all their lives to acquire and maintain homes and provide for their families. Now they are social security recipients, or retirees seeking to enjoy their golden years with piece of mind and their grandchildren. Instead, they find themselves faced with the threat of the city’s condemnation powers being applied against them in an arbitrary manner to benefit private development. Johnson relayed reports of instances of elderly home and property owners being badgered by insistent and intimidating private developers trying to coerce home/property sales with the threat of having the city condemn the property via eminent domain where the homeowners would receive next to nothing in payment for their properties. The city would then give the property to the developer for their private enterprise development. Efforts to access federal assistance for homeowners rehabilitation or renovation programs under the CDBG program have been denied. They have been told those funds are unavailable, having been reserved for some other pending projects. Commercial home improvement loans at local banks have also been denied.

Provisions which gave citizens a measure of protection and a guarantee of fair play that had been incorporated into the ordinance were stripped out before the city council’s final vote to approve the current ordinance. The power of assemblage, disregard for historic district properties, unilateral application of eminent domain in the furtherance of private enterprise development, denial of provisions for the protection of the majority minority ward, denial of private homeowners rehabilitation/renovation federal assistance and poor sharing of information were all elements discussed with the committee.

The committee members thanked the citizens for their activism, information and willingness to engage their government. The information shared will be become part of their background packet from which they will formulate the county’s position and report back to the full commission. Citizens are encouraged to contact their representatives and ask about the progress of this developing project. The county mayor’s office welcome citizen inquiries about government.

Mayor Piper wields the scissors, cutting the red ribbon to officially open the rebuilt "Strawberry Alley"

The project has tied up traffic, rerouted buses, and clogged streets for several months during the redesign, which included new, wider sidewalks with brick pavers, new plantings, a vintage style clock, and angled parking. The original lighting plan, which was overkill and required the wearing of sunglasses at night when it was first lit, was tampered down, with a number of the new lighting fixtures removes at the 11th hour and re-installed on a section of North Second Street. It was a wise decision, and did a lot to balance the appearance of the street. The much-discussed $100,000 custom  fountain is scheduled to be installed in November, in time for the holiday season.

Strawberry Alley is the westerly portion of the former Legion Street. Officials took the portion of Legion Street from City Hall to North Second Street, renaming it after the wife of former Clarksville Mayor James Elder, whose strawberry patch at that location was paved over as the city expanded.

In her honor, the street has its new name, which is proclaimed on attractive signs attached to each of the vintage double lantern fixture that now light the road.

WVVR FM radio and the APSU POM’s dance team were on hand, along with the band Bump City on the main stage.

Jim Durrett of the mayor’s office described the rebuilding of the street as “part of a vision” for downtown. Durrett noted that during the excavation a wall and an old building were found. Mayor Johnny Piper thanked City Councilors and the builders of the project for “a job well done” and cited the importance of creating an attractive downtown as part of the tools to market the city to new business, industry and tourism.

A wreath was laid at the site to honor the veterans, who still have a a portion of Legion Street named in their honor.

With Strawberry Alley closed to traffic, creating a pedestrian mall, local businesses set tables and chairs outside, serving customers who enjoyed the event in a refershingly cool breeze.

A costumed renactor recreated the role of Mrs. Elder, circulating through the crown with two baskets of icy cold fresh strawberries. A multi-tiered chocolate fountain spilled dark chocolate over skewered strawberries, and free strawberry sodas were served as well.

If there remains a criticism, it is that even with all the new angle parking created on Strawberry Alley, only one spot, in the middle of the new parking spaces, is designated for handicapped access. There are none on neighboring Franklin Street.

We offer you a view of the Strawberry Alley festivities:

[Show as slideshow]

123►

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 City of Clarksville Mayor Johnny Piper.

The plan, which effectively “blights” two square miles of downtown Clarksville, has been a center of controversy and triggered the formation of the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition, which is lobbying for its repeal. The ordinance allows for use of eminent domain and provides an assemblage clause for developers seeking to acquire neded propoerties for redevelopment and /or urban renewal.

In a letter requesting an audience with this committee, Urban Resource Center Director, Terry McMoore, stressed the following:

“We are very concerned that this plan in its current form does not protect low income homeowners from losing their homes and that it also violates the voting and civil rights of the citizens of Clarksville – Montgomery County’s only Majority Minority voting ward and district”.

Mayor Bowers commissioned this review committee to look into whether Montgomery County government should partner with the City of Clarksville in this Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan.

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.

Referring to his candidacy, he says he is “your vote for change.” Topping his list of issues is redevelopment, which he maintains “should not be done on the backs of the public,” and he particularly the use of eminent domain as a tool ripe for abuse. TIF (Tax Incentive Financing), a critical component of the city’s redevelopment strategy, “is a serious mistake; each dollar diverted must be replaced by the people.” The whole process of eminent domain should not be done so that the city can maximize taxes, Baggett said.

Baggett takes issue with the “revisiting” of passed legislation that is subsequently found to be flawed, as the original redevelopment ordinance was. “If you don’t know (or aren’t sure), postpone.” He chastised city officials for not doing their homework before passing new legislation.

In his position statement, Baggett advocates:

• City Charter change to require a runoff election for City Mayor if the leading candidate wins by less than 50% of the vote
• Eminent domain should be used sparingly and only for Government facilities such as roads, schools, and utilities easements.
• Focus on the maintenance of high stanbdards of honesty, integrity, impartiality and conduct by employees and agents of the city (full/part time, paid and unpaid, elected or appointed to any board, commission, council, authority, corporation or other body sanctioned by the city)
• Retention of ward representation (he opposes “at large” council representation)
• Placing all boards and groups such as DDP (Downtown District Partnership) under the “Regional Planning Commission” since planning is their chartered responsibility.
• Consolidated government and streamlining government to maximize efficiency and productivity. “A consolidated government built around Constitutional officers.”

Baggett is a two-term former County Commissioner, and came in second to County Mayor  Bowers in the 2006 election.

[Show as slideshow]

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.

With the CPRC vindicated just last week, Montgomery Court now says it made “a mistake.” The libel suit against the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition has been resurrected, with motions, discovery on August 4.

Last week the Montgomery County Circuit Court dismissed a libel suit filed against the grassroots Clarksville Property Rights Coalition regarding downtown redevelopment, but late today 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 will in fact be heard on Monday, August 4.

The Institute for Justice has just been informed by the clerk’s office of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, that a mistake in that office led to the accidental signing of an order granting IJ’s motion to dismiss a libel lawsuit brought against members of the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition (CPRC). As a result, that order will be rescinded and Judge Ross Hicks will hear oral argument on IJ’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit on Monday, August 11. The court will also conduct a discovery hearing on Monday, August 4.

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

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.

CPRC members: visible and vocal about redevelopment plans

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.)

Earlier today (Tuesday, July 29),the Institute for Justice received notice that Judge Ross Hicks of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County vindicated the right to protest government abuse by dismissing the libel lawsuit brought by Richard Swift, a developer who is a 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.

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.” IJ represents the CPRC in the case. Jerry Martin of Barrett, Johnston & Parsley in Nashville serves as IJ’s local counsel.

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.

Laboring under the the initial report of victory for the CPRC, Atty. Bert Gall had said:

“The court’s decision is a tremendous victory for everyone who speaks out against the abuse of eminent domain. 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.”

– Bert Gall, an IJ senior attorney

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.

The national battle against eminent domain abuse is now focused in Tennessee. Not only did the CPRC stand up against an attempt to intimidate them from speaking out against the abuse of eminent domain in their city, but Joy Ford, the owner of a small country music business on storied Music Row in Nashville, is fighting the attempts of Nashville’s redevelopment agency to condemn her business and turn it over to a private developer who wants to build an office building. On July 21, the Institute announced that it would join Joy’s fight to save her business.

On the Road in America is an occasional and serendipitous column about people, places and observations, with publishing predicated on the random availability of internet access or lack thereof.

Being On the Road in America can sometimes be a bore.

Oh, there’s a great deal of beauty to be seen, from the Green Mountains of Vermont to the rolling farmlands across Ohio, from the rugged Rockies and the dramatic coastline of California’s 17-mile drive. That’s not the issue.

As implied in Josh Neuman’s Lemmings (right) ,what is troubling is the growing lack of identity, of uniqueness, of individuality, as one moves from state to state. North, south, east or west makes not a whit of difference. Commerce in America is cloning itself at breakneck pace, mass-producing blueprints for hotels, motels, box stores, shopping malls and restaurants that increasingly lack a sense of their own identity and certainly have no ties to community heritage or culture.

I’m on the road again, as Willie Nelson would sing, and I am heading for one of the few bastions of non-traditional development — via the central midwest to the rural northeast, home of green mountains, clothing optional backwoods beaches, interstate bike paths, and those perpetual golden arches relegated to the outermost borders of some cities.

The “Main Street” of Norman Rockwell fame in Stockbridge MA (Pine is the cross street). Photo by Christine Anne Piesyk

Travelers seeking “something different” often have to search out small little “Main Streets” in small little cities and towns, taking that “road less traveled” literally, if they hope to find any sense of the individuality that America was once famous for. Yes, Norman Rockwell’s Main Street in Stockbridge remains essentially the same — I’ve had mulled cider at the Red Lion Inn there many times, and sat beside their fireplace with its chain of antique keys hanging from the mantle. Some small towns retain and cultivate their Main Streets specifically to draw in tourists and travelers with unique architecture and themes that either reflect their history or re-create themselves as a new destination, as a place people WANT to be. Paducah, Kentucky, just a few hours from Clarksville, has done this, and done it well, redefining itself and its development with art. Yet today, in most cases, moving from point to point across America is to journey through a litter of mass produced economy.

Day by day, America’s unique local vistas are being enveloped in rubber-stamped malls with the same rubber-stamped stores: JC Penney’s, Sears, Blockbuster, Circuit City, Best Buy, Avenue, Gap (and Baby Gap), Macy’s, Kohl’s, Fashion Bug, Foot Locker, and such. It’s not just the Smiths keeping up with the Jone’s anymore; we can’t tell the Smiths from the Joneses.

Not that you can’t find good merchandise or big sales in these stores; bulk buying and and blockbuster sales can produce great deals. It is the lack of uniqueness, the absence of originality and creativity, that quickly becomes boring. This lack of diversity in the cloning of America converts shoppers into clones of one another. My own take on this: if everybody has it, I don’t want it.

It’s the same with eateries; McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, Subway (I do favor Subway), and Arby’s are epidemic. Applebees, Cracker Barrel, Pizza Hut, Ruby Tuesday, Chicago Pizza, Pizzaria Uno and others in a slightly higher price range are everywhere. When I travel, I don’t opt for a sure thing — I know what I have had. If I wanted more of the same I could stay home.

I deliberately seek out the non-chains, the mom-and-pop hole-in-the-wall places where the locals eat, a long narrow diner, or a small country inn with unique menus and local foods. It’s why I’ve bought lobsters directly off the boat on Cape Cod, savored deep fried wild turkey tenders, Moose steak, caught my own 23 pound catfish on Lake Champlain, mulled over the taste of venison in a hunter’s stew in northern New England, and savored clam chowder on (again) Cape Cod.

It’s why I like those funky purple potatoes that now grow abundantly in Maine (I first tried them in the Andes of Peru), and the taste of Hadley (MA) asparagus fresh picked from the field. And then there is French Onion soup dressed with fresh apples, or sea scallops on the pier in Monterey Bay (CA). Or chunks of cheddar cheese cut off huge aged rounds (at the Granville Country Store in the Berkshires) as I watch.

Besides grabbing some locally grown fresh fruit for the road, Atkins Fruit Farm also has home-baked goods such as warm Apple Cider Donuts, pure Maple Syrup, and a selection of goodies from regional farms. (Photo by Christine Anne Piesyk.

Loca’Vore (commonly spelled “localvore”) is the Oxford University word of the year, a term coined in San Francisco that defines a commitment to consuming only foods grown within a hundred miles radius. Now that easier to achieve in some parts of the country than others, but where there is an abundance of local produce (including jams, jellies, breads, cheeses, meats) it is a also a strategy for supporting local growers and farmers in a local economy. The products used are always unique to the region. It’s what I look for wherever and whenever I travel. Long trips, regional trips, or just ambling around town.

As for chain hotels and motels, they assure a fairly certain standard of comfort, and for those who need that kind of security or standardization, by all means be their guest…but checking into Red Roof Inn is not half as much fun as walking through a small Canadian village pool hall, paying ten dollars for a third floor walk up room (upstairs from that French-speaking pool hall/country store/post office/feed store) — a fine old room with a bath down the hall, latched but not locked doors, handmade rag rugs, feather quilts and pillows on a an old iron bed and a view of the St. Lawrence River from my window. It is not the same as finding that little cluster of cottages with a lake view to the east and a mountain view to the west and home-cooked community meals with fellow fishermen on the great lakes. It’s not as good an seaside inn on the California coast. Or a rooming house in old Quebec City. Or any small locally owned motel or bed and breakfast.

Along America’s highways, the view is increasingly the same: Motel 6, Red Roof Inn, Hometown Suites, Holiday Inn (not from the Bing Crosby musical), Hyatt, … you get the idea. Get out that rubber stamp.

I see these cloned hotels, malls and eateries as dots on the corporate maps, bottom lines on the corporate profit statements, a push toward standardization that saps individuality from the highways and main streets of America communities, funneling the competition of small business into oblivion.

Don’t “reach out.” Hang up!

It’s hard for some people to get a handle on traveling without a cell phone, not having access to internet, not being connected. It’s hard for some to get a handle on not accessing “the familiar,” not constantly being able to “reach out and touch someone.” It’s hard for some to step back from the manic pace of modern living, to turn off the music and the television and simply be, or be silent. It’s hard for some to turn the key to a hotel or hostel or cabin door and commit themselves the unfamiliar. It’s hard for some to imagine the night without a backlit afterglow of streep lamps, to imagine that the only light on a moonless night comes from the stars, that there is such a thing as “nightblack” — a completely black night.

These cloned corporate chains, this connectedness to technology, this fierce need to be bigger, faster, better, and perpetually linked are ties that bind us to work and home, precluding the kind of getaways in which we really “get away.” It isolates us, and keeps us from experiencing something new. Something different. It keeps us from knowing ourselves, and getting to know the people in other parts of our world.

As I move about the country, I become increasingly determined (moving quickly into adamant) to skip the mainstream, refuse the redundant, and seek out those places and people I don’t know yet … but want to meet. I want to slow down long enough to experience the heritage, the local color and culture,the values, the texture and taste of community. No spoon-fed culture, thanks. I like that “road less traveled.”

We cannot and probably should not always retain or re-create yesterday’s atmosphere exactly as it was. We can take the best of our history, or traditions, our cultural quirks and with careful planning redefine them in a way that anchors us to our heritage and history while moving us forward. That heritage is what gives our cities and towns solidity, and a “destination”stamp that actually means something.