If the total amount spent on those categories is more than your standard deduction, you can usually benefit by itemizing. The standard deduction amounts are based on your filing status and are subject to inflation adjustments each year. For 2009, they are:

• Single $5,700
• Married Filing Jointly $11,400
• Head of Household $8,350
• Married Filing Separately $5,700

Some taxpayers have different standard deductions

The standard deduction is more for taxpayers age 65 or older and for those who are blind. It is generally less for those who can be claimed as a dependent on some other taxpayer’s return.

Limited itemized deductions

Your itemized deductions may be limited if your adjusted gross income is more than $166,800 ($83,400 for Married Filing Separately). This limit applies to all itemized deductions except medical and dental expenses, casualty and theft losses, gambling losses, and investment interest.

Married Filing Separately

When a married couple files separate returns and one spouse itemizes deductions, the other spouse must also itemize and cannot claim the standard deduction.

Some taxpayers are not eligible for the standard deduction

They include nonresident aliens, dual-status aliens, and individuals who file returns for periods of less than 12 months.

Forms to use

To itemize your deductions, use Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, and Schedule A, Itemized Deductions.

“The federal government is too big. Our founding fathers would be appalled at the size and scope of our current federal government. Even Alexander Hamilton (a Federalist), who preferred a strong central government would be appalled that the federal government is considering banning texting while driving – that should be a state rights issue, like speed limits.”

In an attempt to justify their viewpoints both conservative and progressive talk show hosts commonly claim a ideological lineage back to the founding fathers. The hope is to connect their line of thinking to the line of thinking that birthed this great country. I have always been particularly interested in the attempt to link the current conservative philosophy with that of the Federalist. And the most famous federalist is Alexander Hamilton.

Hamilton preferred an Aristocracy not a Democracy. As with most participants of the Constitutional Convention, he felt the Constitution was not the best document but the best compromise among so many competing interests. Most participants left the convention feeling that they had not gotten their preferences and voices heard. Hamilton more so, because of issues with his state’s delegatory make up. Hamilton expressed that he was content with a democracy, in that its weaknesses would eventually give way to his idea of an aristocracy.

A tax collector is tarred and feathered by anti-tax frontiersmen during the Whiskey Rebellion.

Our first Secretary of Treasury was Hamilton. During the Revolutionary War, the federal government could only request states contribute to the federal war chest. Often states would contribute only pennies on a requested dollar. The states did have a somewhat valid excuse because they were funding individual state militias. Hamilton pushed vigorously for federal taxation of states. When his plan to tax alcohol was passed, the citizens rebelled. Hamilton reacted by not merely sending armed troops to arrest the dissenters, but joined them for the mission in what is known as the Whiskey Rebellion.

The idea for a National Bank to be run by the federal government came from Hamilton and met stiff resistance. When others argued that the Constitution did not allow Congress that authority, he argued that it could be done because the Constitution did not prohibit such an action.

Hamilton was anti-regulation, but not in how current conservatives are anti-regulation. Hamilton argued that if the federal government was empowered to regulate activity, it would be far better for the government to just take over the activity and do it itself. He argued regulating watchdogs would be horribly inefficient. Their only power would to be a deterrent to negative activity through threats of punitive fines. Why try to stop bad activity and wait to punish, when the government could just do it right the first time. As part of the government the regulated process would be open, transparent, and accountable directly to Congress.

Hamilton was an immigrant. Most politicians of the time spawned their careers in the states. Hamilton had no such ties/constraints, either financial or political. Being foreign born, his patriotism and motives were often criticized.

So now that we know some facts, read the hosts comments again. The host relies on us not knowing these facts to justify his rational. He stated that “even” a “strong government” advocate would be appalled at our current situation. That is of course impossible to know for sure, but Hamilton was a big government radical back then, what reason do we have for assuming that now his views would be different.

The host then makes a classic radio talk show move, and dumbs down the entire “big government” problem to speed limits and texting while driving. Why doesn’t he mention regulation, national banking system, or federal taxes? Because we already know what Hamilton’s views were on those issues. The host picks minor issues that were non-existent during Hamilton’s time so that he can’t be proven wrong.

The liberal radio hosts do the same thing, only in reverse. They champion Hamilton as a forward thinking progressive that would argue for national banking, for increased government take over of crucial industries, and for more taxes. It is the the other side of the same coin….the exact same coin.

There is no way to tell what Hamilton would say about our current government. Speculating about it, by actively ignoring the facts, is manipulation and disinformation.

With citizens in all walks of life losing their jobs and needing hope, some officials more concerned about grandstanding they hope will lead themselves to higher political office than to addressing the suffering of the people who elected them.

When people need hope, more money in their pockets, possibility of new jobs opening up for which they are qualified, we are unfortunately faced with some politicians who are more interested in spreading lies than in solving problems.

Yes, we all have to support our government through taxes. Yes, we need to be as frugal as possible with public money. Yes, we need to cut pork out of all budgets—federal, state, local or personal.

But first we need to bail ourselves out of the mess we’re in.

Will Durant said, “Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.”

We taxpayers have blithely believed that we could allow bankers, Wall Street, and our financial system to police itself. We forgot that these people have only one agenda—to make themselves as rich as possible with no regard for anyone else’s welfare.

Bankers who gave out loans as “sub prime” lending knew that they were going to raise interest rates on these poor unfortunates to the point that they would lose their houses. The banker didn’t care because he knew he would get his commission on the loan and eventually the bank would get the house. Amazingly, he forgot that banks aren’t in the business of holding astronomical numbers of houses on their balance sheets in order to resell them at a future date—especially when the bottom falls out of the real estate market.

Wall Street has encouraged average Americans who know absolutely nothing about the risks of investing in stocks to put their life savings into buying stocks. The old adage, “What goes up ultimately goes down,” works well in the stock market. If you can’t afford to lose every penny you invest, you have no business gambling in the stock market—because that’s what it is—gambling!

Oversight agencies in the government didn’t bother to check out some of the Ponzi scheme brokers so their clients are now poverty stricken.

The bottom line is that unless you are well educated about finances, you can get taken for the horror ride of your life.

Vernon Law

Education for whatever faces you in life is not always presented prior to its need. Vernon Law said, “Experience is the hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterward.”

We’ve had the lesson. Our country and many of its citizens are scalding in hot water. We now need to stop focusing on our fears and educate ourselves into a becoming a more productive society.

We have the capacity to get our society back on kilter. We have the energy to help each other in times of trouble. We have the know-how to reinvest in ourselves, our children and a more equitable distribution of resources in this country.

Listen to people who have a positive message. Support those who are trying to bail us out. Solve today’s problems and the future will take care of itself.

This country has spent trillions on wars during the past. It is necessary to defend ourselves at times of threat. We are now challenged to spend trillions on revamping our own infrastructure. We are resilient enough to spend where it is necessary, cut back on frivolous pursuits, and restructure our society so that our children have a better life.

Samuel Clemens - Mark Twain

Mark Twain said, “Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great.” H. G. Wells asserted that “History is a race between education and catastrophe.”

Educating yourself on the current situation means choosing messages that are sent from those without a personal agenda for blowing one’s own horn at the expense of the good of all.

Our system allows for fools to shout as loudly as the wise. It is up to each of us to judge which message we wish to hear and to act accordingly.

Personally, I choose hope, because the alternative is unthinkable.

NASHVILLE – If you’re considering buying a main home or a new vehicle, the Internal Revenue Service wants you to know you may qualify for a tax credit or a deduction after the purchase.

“Qualifying homebuyers generally can file for the First-Time Homebuyer Credit immediately after they purchase a home,” said IRS spokesman Dan Boone. “However, the deduction for buying a new vehicle is taken when you file your 2009 tax return next year.”

Homebuyers can get a tax credit, while new vehicle buyers can get a tax deduction. A tax credit comes directly off the taxes you owe, while a deduction lowers your taxable income, indirectly reducing your taxes.

Tax Credit for Purchase of Home

A house for sale in Clarksville, TN by Tim Cash of Crye-Leike reality

For purposes of the homebuyer credit, you are considered to be a first-time homebuyer if you, and your spouse if you are married, did not own any other main home during the three-year period ending on the date of purchase.

Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, qualifying taxpayers who purchase a home before Dec. 1, 2009 can receive a tax credit of 10 percent of the purchase price, up to $8,000 ($4,000 for married individuals filing separately). You can claim the credit either on your 2008 tax return or on your 2009 tax return next year.

The credit may not be claimed before the closing date of the purchase. But, if the closing occurs after your 2008 return is filed, you can still claim it on your 2008 tax return by filing an amended return, Form 1040X.

The deduction is phased out for taxpayers whose modified adjusted gross income is between $75,000 and $95,000 for individual filers and between $150,000 and $170,000 for joint filers.

Tax Deduction for Purchase of New Vehicle

Wyatt-Johnson Subaru & Hyundai in Clarksville Tennessee

If you buy a brand new passenger vehicle this year, you may be entitled to deduct state and local sales and excise taxes paid on the purchase on your 2009 tax return next year.

The deduction is limited to the state and local sales and excise taxes paid on up to $49,500 of the purchase price of a qualified new car, light truck, motor home or motorcycle.

The deduction is phased out for taxpayers whose modified adjusted gross income is between $125,000 and $135,000 for individual filers and between $250,000 and $260,000 for joint filers.

The vehicle must be purchased after Feb. 16, 2009, and before Jan. 1, 2010, to qualify for the deduction. The special deduction is available regardless of whether you itemize deductions on your 2009 return but may not be taken on your 2008 tax return.

To learn more about the tax provisions of the Recovery Act, visit www.irs.gov.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today hailed a Senate vote rejecting tax funding for religious facilities in the economic recovery package.

“The Senate has voted to reaffirm an important American principle that religious groups should pay their own way and not expect funding from the taxpayer,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United.

The 54-43 vote came after Religious Right groups began complaining that the proposed economic recovery bill (H.R. 1) was hostile to religion. In fact, the legislation merely states that tax funds used for school construction and rehabilitation may not be diverted to religious institutions.Church-state experts said such language has traditionally been part of legislation that deals with building projects and infrastructure. It’s necessary, they note, because the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution bars use of public funds to build or renovate houses of worship and other religious facilities.

During the past few days, Religious Right groups have been asserting that the language will bar student religious groups from meeting at universities. Americans United pointed out that the provision has nothing to do with such meetings.

AU noted that the Supreme Court ruled in 1981 that public universities must give the same access to facilities to religious groups that is granted to non-religious ones.

U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), an ally of the Religious Right, attempted to remove language in the bill that bans tax funding of religious facilities. AU and other organizations quickly pointed out that the DeMint provision is unconstitutional and unnecessary.

In a letter to all 100 senators, AU Legislative Director Aaron Schuham wrote, “The best and most important way our Founding Fathers sought to protect and promote religion was to ensure that government does not interfere with it. This language is just one more way that our laws reflect this constitutional requirement and important national tradition.”

Lynn expressed delight over the vote, the first up-or-down tally on a church-state issue in many years.

“Religion has traditionally paid for its own buildings and projects in America, and we’ve been better off for that,” Lynn said. “I’m thankful that the Senate has rejected this misguided and reckless gambit to sneak government-funded religion in through the back door.”

About the author: Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

The threat of raising taxes precipitates anger. Be it sales, property or wheel tax increases, we get upset and resentful at even the discussion of such action. We are quite normal as we resist and resent tax increases. It’s our responsibility to make searing but polite inquiry into what our tax dollars are supporting.

The majority of Clarksville residents acknowledge the need and benefits derived from a fair tax system; it’s a way of providing and supporting services needed in a growing community. This is the system by which we provide public education, fire and police protection, and compensation for city, county, state and federal employees.

While standing in line waiting to vote I overheard a conversation by an elderly couple. They voiced their opinion to a friend that since they had no children in school it was unfair to tax them for public education. I speculate this venerable couple lived on a meager social security pension. On their fixed income, it was a terrorizing challenge covering their monthly expenses. They were really implying that they live in financial straits on a weekly basis.

Our tax dollars uare used to benefit the community and are a necessity. However, as taxpayers, we need to have boldness to shout when such dollars are misused.  This moment our tax dollars are channeled into religious activities: President Bush’s Faith Initiative Program is giving tens of thousands of dollars to faith bodies to promote their ministry.

In the Faith Initiative Program, funds are given to religious organizations and they are then exempted from crucial principals that come with such donations. For instance, in our neighboring state of Kentucky, a judge drew the line on public tax money being diverted to a religious institution. A Kentucky state court ruled that an $11 million appropriation for a Baptist university violated the state constitution. In striking down such aid, Franklin County Circuit Court Judge Roger Crittenden ruled, “There is no question that the appropriation… is a direct payment to a non-public religious school…this type of direct expenditure is not permitted by the constitution of Kentucky.”

Using tax dollars to support and promote religious principles is unwarranted. It’s grossly unfair to take taxes paid by Mormons, Methodists, Catholics and others to support any denominational institution, such as the above university.

In Clarksville one can raise up the objection to integrate a religious symbol, such as the manger scene at the Christmas on the Cumberland light display. It is unfair to integrate only Christian symbols in such a public attraction.

In the remainder of 2008, be vigilant, sensitive and educated on how our city is spending our tax dollars. In my eight years as a taxpayer in Clarksville, I seldom hear of misuse of tax dollars in promoting religion. With due oversight, this admirable trait will continue.

This is obviously a different kind of Joe from the “Joe Sixpack” from Sarah Palin’s disastrous, wink-wink performance in the Vice Presidential debate. In the third Presidential debate last week, McCain invoked the Iowa plumber, who asked Obama if his taxes would increase if he bought a business that had an income of $250,000.

Obama’s response was that any revenue over $250,000 would be taxed at 39 percent instead of 35 percent.

This conversation lasted for more than five minutes. One much-maligned comment was, as McCain summed it up, that Obama said we should “spread the wealth around.” Naturally, this phrase immediately invoked a battle cry of anti-socialist rhetoric from republican pundits. However, when the statement is put back into context, it helps to explain Obama’s point of view.

“My attitude is this, if the economy is good for the folks on the bottom-up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, then you’re going to be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. Right now, everybody is so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when we spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Watch the full video below.

Click here to view the embedded video.

He later told that Wurzelbacher that he’d remove the capital gains taxes for small business, and as a result could possibly pay less taxes than he would now. But that’s not the point. Those who malign Obama’s tax policy speak of the “income” of small businesses like that of Mr. Wurzelbacher’s potential buy-out.

Here’s the question: Would that $250,000 be gross income, or net profit?

And yes, there IS a difference. There’s a simple fact of Federal tax plans, and it’s this: the proposed 39% tax bracket is for net profit. Even a simple review of the required forms illustrates just what is really taxed under Obama’s or any other tax plan.

So what’s the “net profit?” Simple. If an S-Corporation files form 1120-S as they’re required by the IRS to do, then they enter their gross receipts on line 1c. Once the appropriate deductions are applied (including inventory, payroll, advertising, interest, rent, the final amount is applied on line 22a. The taxes are then determined by the figure on line 22a, NOT the total gross income, which is on line 1c.

Since this article is a little dry with its number crunching, let’s break it down. An S-corporation (which many small businesses are) must pay federal taxes on its net profit — or final profit — not its gross receipts. It’s state and local governments. Quite simply, the cost of running a business is deducted from your total receipts.

Put simply, if a business has total gross receipts of $250,000, then they’d deduct their “Cost of Goods Sold,” and then finally their business expenses. The remaining amount could be as little as $40,000 or $60,000. That would be the amount taxed, not the quarter of a million dollars that was taken in.

Profit is exactly that – profit. It’s what’s left over after all other expenses are paid, and that’s what is taxed. Not the gross receipts. In fact, there’s a very good chance that the S-Corp’s owner has his salary already deducted from the receipts.

If the American public would take the time to research the issue, then we’d all know the clear truth that the Obama tax plan proposes an increase of a whopping three percent tax increase for those who generally wouldn’t miss it. How much would a person (or business) pay if they have that kind of a net income? Right now, at 36%, it’s 90,000. If it’s raised to 39%, then it goes up to $97,500.

Naturally, someone who has a net income of $250,000 would be a little stung by that extra $7,500, but the reality is that anyone with a competent accountant would be able to live very comfortably off that amount, especially assuming that they’ve itemized their deductions (like interest paid on their primary mortgage), etc. This would be a total increase of $625 per month… which is pocket change for those in that higher tax bracket.

Let’s be fair. The Obama tax plan would benefit well over eighty percent of the general public, and would put money back into the pockets of those of us who actually shop for groceries, and might need to replace an old washer and dryer… which is a major purchase for nearly all of us, presumably even Joe the Plumber.

Sadly, the McCain campaign will distort these simple facts as it has so many others. Maybe a little truth will start to break through to reveal some common sense.

Senator Obama’s complete tax plan can be viewed here.

Periodically we need to investigate how our taxes are being spent and the organizations that are being supported by our taxes. It is our duty and responsibility to pay our taxes but also our obligation to not just request but demand and expect accountability. It is our duty to demand publication of who receives our taxes, and those religious organizations receiving tax dollars for their ministries must be expected to keep within the laws that guide how tax dollars are expended.

The “Faith-based” initiative promoted by the Bush administration has the mission of channeling funding into religious organizations. Taxes paid by Methodists, Unitarians, Mormons, Baptists, American Muslims, members of the Jewish faith are all supporting ministries selected by the federal government.

One problem with faith-based approach is that someone has to decide which faith gets the “initiative.” Thus religious ministries receiving tax dollars agree with the administration’s conservative theological view. They are receiving the bulk of tax funding.

The watchdog organization Americans United, through their newsletter Church and State, is daily working to educate and alert us to abuse of such funding for ministries. AU announced two cases of this misappropriation of our tax dollars as reported by the Rev. Barry Lynn.

AU, in a suit against a marriage counseling program in Washington State, the Justice Department:

…”saw no problem funding a program that counseled women that Christ was the head of the church, so the husband was the head of the family.

“However, another faith-based counseling group failed to get a grant because during its counseling sessions it stated the objectively true fact that some women do not find it easy to leave abusive relationships precisely because they believe they adhere to a ‘ husband-rules-the-roost’ philosophy based on their own earlier biblical instruction.”

AU noted that is was not surprising but sad to see foreign assistance is also being directed to groups with particular religious philosophies., even those that promote discrimination and whose policies end up harming the very people they were intended to serve.

According to AU, Franklin Graham’s Samaritan’s Purse received millions in government aid including a grant to build a new hospital in warring Angola, though the Boston Globe has reported that Graham’s hospital is hardly neutral territory. It will not allow Catholic Chaplains to visit the sick, and refuses to hire nurses who are not evangelical Christians.

Since there are many public health institutions that could benefit from US assistance, it must be questioned why a group with such noxious policies was moved to the top of the list. Imagine if some American hospital hired only fundamentalist Christian and the staff preached conservative theology to every patient?

AU lifts a prophetic voice so we can be better informed and have a more developed viewpoint on how our tax dollars are spent by religious ministries. I believe in the multitude of faith ministries; they do good work. However, let each of them support themselves whether in America or overseas. These ministries are obligated to follow federal regulations.

All illustrated here become examples for the conscience of America. The erosion of the Constitution in recent years is disturbing, and the laxness in enforcement and the granting of exceptions to government regulations is deplorable, even and perhaps for faith groups.

Let’s express our opinions when we object to such abuses in the use of our tax dollars.

Of the $9.4 million budgeted for capital projects, $4.2 million were mandated by a lawsuit to bring the sidewalks into ADA compliance. That leaves $5.2 million being spent on projects such as the marina, fountain and river walk. All of these amenities are very nice and many people around the community desperately want them. That being said, there’s a huge difference between wants and needs.

I recently brought up the fact on the Leaf-Chronicle website that according to the US Department of Labor Bureau of Statistics, the City of Clarksville’s Firefighters annual median wage was $32,800 in 2005. The national annual median wage for firefighters in 2007 was $43,170. I realize there’s a two year difference, but since the firefighters haven’t gotten a raise since then, I’m sure it’s still pretty close. That means they are underpaid by 24%!

The data for the patrol officers includes the county, but in 2007 for cops its $34,460, yet the national median wage was $49,630 and that’s an astounding 30%! Now if the cops and firemen are underpaid $10K-$15K, there must be a reason, right? Many of the mayor’s supporters began making the excuse that the median household income for Clarksville was less than the national average. So, I did some research and low and behold, according to the US Department of Labor and US Census Bureau, the median household income in 2006 was $48,200 per year(2007 numbers won’t come out until August). According to Clarksville’s own website, the median household income for the city in 2008 (estimated) was $48,630.

After that myth was laid to rest, many continued to make excuses for the city budget and low pay for the protective services. The next excuse given was that the tax burden in Clarksville was lower than the rest of the nation. I then asked for proof and found some startling figures.

The tax burden for the entire state of Tennessee is indeed lower than the median. Its 2.5% lower to be exact, according to the Tax Foundation. In an effort to be fair, the tax burden represents the ENTIRE tax burden placed upon an area including federal, state and local so it is logical to consider this when making such an assessment. The problem is that 2.5% represents the entire state, not solely Clarksville. So, I compared Clarksville/Montgomery county property taxes with that of other areas in the state, and here’s where it got interesting.

According to the Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Clarksville’s property taxes are $3.14 for the county and then $1.31 for the city per $100 assessed land value. The residents of Clarksville are paying $4.45; in Nashville/Davidson County it is $4.69. All of the communities within Nashville that set their own rates are lower than Clarksville’s city tax. Chattanooga is $5.35, Knoxville is $5.50, Memphis is a whopping $7.47, Springfield/Robertson Co. was $3.13, Dickson $3.53, Dover $3.78 and Ashland City $3.74. It seems to me Clarksville is about right for a city this size except when compared to Nashville. Since many people in the community are always comparing the lack of high end retail outlets, I looked at Williamson County. Brentwood is $2.75 and Franklin was $3.50.

Now, nothing about the taxes in Clarksville jumps out at me in comparison to national levels, but it seems a little high compared to Nashville and Franklin. Now if the tax burden for the area is only 2.5% below the median, and Clarksville is definitely higher than most of Tennessee, it would seem reasonable that the 2.5% is not quite as far from the national average as the rest of the state across the board. So, if we deduct 2.5% for arguments sake, we are still at 21.5% for the firefighters and 27% for the cops below the national median.

When presented with these figures, they moved onto the next phase which is cost of living. Now there are many problems when factoring in the cost of living in terms of setting pay. Some said Clarksville was 15% lower, and I have seen it listed as 22% lower than the national average cost of living index. Since the cost of living accounts as a comparison for the entire nation, it’s very difficult, if not impossible to include communities of lesser populations, or communities that don’t have fire departments or police departments and get an accurate evaluation for pay scale purposes. Many cost of living indicators such as housing, transportation, utilities and health care can vary greatly within very small areas.

Clarksville firefighters swap out at a structure fire in Lincoln Homes

To provide an example, I used my town, Cedar Hill, and compared it to Clarksville for cost of living. Naturally, I assumed Cedar Hill would be slightly less. Boy was I in for a shock! According to a comparative website, Sperling’s best places, Cedar Hill is 19-24% MORE expensive than Clarksville. Housing was the main factor. I agree with using the cost of living for pay setting purposes to a degree, but if the COL varies THAT much within relatively small areas, there are too many circumstances to use it as a major component or rule of thumb. Though it needs to be considered, I would tend to use the median incomes for the area and compare them to national averages to get a better and more accurate assessment.

After much research and study, I don’t think there’s any question that our cops and firefighters are underpaid, and I believe it to be a travesty that the elected officials of Clarksville again, found something more important to spend taxpayer money on, rather than reward and honorable profession with honorable pay.

I’m not against the government spending money on improvements. Lord knows a fountain, marina and river walk extension are very nice amenities and the city should be able to provide such improvements on a regular basis. The main problem I have in this “tight” budget year is that $9.4 million was budgeted for capital projects. After the $4.2 mandatory sidewalk deduction, that leaves $5.2 million that was spent on these improvements. If the roughly 400 cops and firemen were just given a $10K raise each, that’s $4 million. It would still leave $1.2 million which I believe would give the rest of the city employees their step raises, OR put in a fountain.

I suppose the city government has made their decision and the men and women who risk their lives daily will be put on the back burner, once again. It just seems sad to me, when the priorities are so out of whack that people would rather have things like a marina so they can go out and float around in raw sewage, rather than pay the protective services what they deserve. Clarksville is so concerned with what other communities are doing in terms of beautification and economic development, yet turn a blind eye to the people that provide security and protection. It just amazes me.

The nearly $20 million price tag, is only the projected budget, anyone want to bet it goes over? Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for attracting businesses to the state, but what kind of a message are we sending here? The first highly hypocritical aspect is the state being forced to cut 2,000 jobs to meet the budget constraints next year. Would someone please tell me how this is supposed to work? We cut jobs, so we can spend $20 million on a banquet hall, so we can attract development in hopes of creating jobs?

If that’s the purpose, we could start by rehiring the 2,000 jobs cut, that’s creates 2,000 jobs right there. Well, perhaps these 2,000 jobs aren’t necessary, and if that’s the case that should have been done years ago by an efficient government. I guess it will all work out, for now the Governor can add the fact that we have 2,000 more people in the unemployment sector to entice new business. I suppose he could use the angle that Tennesseans are hungry to work, literally.

The next area to be cut is higher education which will be cut by $55 million, but not to worry, a tuition hike is the remedey for that. I recall a $315 million dollar surplus a couple of years ago and it seemed our elected officials couldn’t wait to spend it. Now the projected budget exceeds the projected revenue and cuts are being made to compensate. I would like to propse the concept of prioritization to our elected officials. Make a list, in order of priority, the most essential services the government provides. When you start getting close to the bottom of the list, especially in years of increased costs and lower revenues, the underground party bunkers can be put on hold or eliminated completely.

I truly believe most Tennesseans believe that’s a better solution than higher taxes or cutting education budgets. Why should the kids, or any other group for that matter, have to suffer from what appears to be a tyrannical state government, unwilling to consider the immediate interests of its people? Instead, we get a ballroom with promises of luring big businesses here in hopes of creating high dollar jobs. Personally, I’d rather have a job than than hope one is just around the corner, and I think many Tennesseans share that sentiment.

The following guidelines constitute legitimate advice on donations that can save you hundreds of dollars.

If you have a Certified Public Accountant or tax prepare, you can save money by having all your deductions organized and ready ahead of time. Don’t show up with a shoebox of tangled receipts. Preparers often charge by the hour, so do the as much preparation as possible ahead of time.

File as early as possible. This means an early appointment with your preparer. All your paperwork from employers, banks and other sources must by law be in your hands by January 31; this puts control in your hands. There is no reason to wait until April 1 to see your preparer.

I reiterate: collect and sort all receipts and statements if you are going to itemize.

Money Advisor, a monthly bulletin of finance, says “your tax preparer isn’t an auditor, so you don’t have to show him all your receipts for business expenses, charitable contributions and other deductible costs. Instead, bring a list if these items organized by category.” Afterwards, place these documents (and the original receipts) in a safe place where they are readily available in case of an audit.

The goal of the U.S. government and the IRS is make tax preparation less stressful and for us not to pay more than our fair share. Early preparation by you will make the process easier. For more information, read Money Advisor [2.08 pg 6]. Copies are available at the Clarksville Public Library.

dollars

House Democrats Bring Home Schools First Funding, nearly $184 million in additional K-12 funds expected next year.

This week House Democrats were presented with the 2008 – 2009 projected BEP 2.0 funding numbers which show that, thanks to the Schools First Initiative passed last year, Tennessee’s local schools are estimated to receive $183.2 million in additional funding.

“When we first began the task of improving our K-12 schools in Tennessee, we wanted to do it in a way that wouldn’t put undo burdens on local governments,” said Speaker of the House Jimmy Naifeh (D-Covington). “Thanks to the Schools First Initiative, we were able to increase education funding by over $340 million last year and nearly $184 million this year, while at the same time reducing the pressure on counties to have to raise their property taxes.”

The projected funding numbers are expected to increase average teacher salaries to $39,000, while the burden on local governments to raise property taxes will continue to be reduced. The total percentage of instructional cost contributed to local school systems by the state will increase next year to 71.5%.

“Thanks to the hard work and effort of legislators, on both sides of the aisle, we were able to pass new legislation that allows lower and middle class students the opportunity to see improvements in their local schools,” said House Education Chairman Les Winningham (D-Huntsville). “We must continue to improve our public education system here in Tennessee, so that every child in our state has a chance at the best education possible.”

Expanding Pre-K to All Children in Tennessee Continues to be a Priority

In addition to increasing K-12 funding by over $340 million, lawmakers last year also added over $25 million for additional pre-kindergarten classrooms, raising the total number of classrooms across the state to 934. Currently over 17,000 students are enrolled in pre-K programs in Tennessee, and this year the House plans to expand classes even further with another $25 million in funding, offering pre-K instruction to all of the over 78,000 four-year-olds in Tennessee.

“We expanded college education through the Tennessee Lottery Hope Scholarship, we continue to expand funding for K-12 schools and this year we hope to give every child in Tennessee, regardless of background, the opportunity to get off on the right foot with pre-K,” said Winningham. “Education is the foundation of a successful life in this country and I will continue to strive to make sure a quality education is available to every student and family in Tennessee.”

The House Education Committee is scheduled to discuss education funding later next week.

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

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

Click here to view the embedded video.

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

Click here to view the embedded video.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CLARKSVILLE CENTER REDEVELOPMENT AND URBAN RENEWAL PLAN

March 4, 2008

A. INTRODUCTION

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

B. DESCRIPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT AREA

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

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

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

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

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

1. BOUNDARIES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA

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

2. PLAN OBJECTIVES

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

a.

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

b.

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

c.

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

d.

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

e.

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

f.

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

g.

To eliminate and prevent the recurrence of blight.

h.

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

i.

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

j.

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

k.

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

l.

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

m.

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

3. PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT ACTIONS

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

a.

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

b.

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

c.

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

d.

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

e.

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

f.

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

g.

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

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

h.

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

C. LAND USE PLAN

1. LAND USE MAP

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

2. LAND USE PROVISIONS AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. LAND ACQUISITION

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

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

E. REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AND OBLIGATIONS; LAND USE CONTROLS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE

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

G. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING

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

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

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

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

H. DELEGATION TO NEGOTIATE PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES

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

I. REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT BOARD

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

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

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

J. ADMINISTRATION

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

K. AMENDMENTS; TERM

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

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

L. SEVERABILITY

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

Let’s say I am deep in debt. Would you suggest I borrow more money? That seems to be what the US government is doing. Our huge US trade deficit spending cannot go on forever. Eventually, someone will have to pay.

Giving $50 billion to businesses is lunacy. CEO’s ‘legally’ steal billions every year using ’stock options’. They buy company shares at $5 and sell them the same day for $50. For some details on this immoral behavior see: http://www.corpwatch.org/ . Where does this money come from? It can’t just appear out of thin air. It must be related to low worker pay and lack of benefits – such as health care.

I know the opposition will lament: business rebates will create jobs. I think the ‘trickle down’ theory basically means ‘you can eat the crumbs that might happen to fall under my table’. Will any jobs created be decent paying careers for Americans? US Capitalism should not degrade into merely platinum collar theft.

A lack of drinking water also seems to be a very serious problem many states are facing. How about boosting the economy by creating some new and cleaner water systems? Why does the used water from my shower and washer go down the drain when it could be recycled to save dying trees in my yard?

Consumer spending simply creates more waste which must eventually be dealt with. Putting more TV’s and other electronic gadgets in our landfills is not what a tax rebate should go to support.

In a related note, it is very sad to see all the current TV commercials to money-strapped individuals: “get your tax refund today!”. They should really say, “give us a chunk of your tax refund today”. I’m sure these types of businesses are pushing and lobbying for small rebates across the board.