As our city government, comprised of the mayor and city council, routinely rule on issues affecting realtors, builders, developers, and building material suppliers, people in those disciplines should not serve in city government. Since active realtors, builders, and developers are entrenched in elected local offices, we have bad laws which enrich them at the expense of the voters who elected them and all taxpayers and residents.

Christina Walsh of the Castle Coalition, of which I am a member, wrote recently about Clarksville, “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.”

The long-range solution to conflicts of interest is voter education. All qualified candidates for local office who receive $1,000 or more in campaign contributions or spend $1,000 or more on their campaigns must file financial disclosures. These disclosures must identify all contributions and expenditures over $100. Since the local newspaper does not publish these public records, I will do so, on Clarksville online, for future elections, as the candidates file their disclosures. I will highlight, for voter scrutiny, all contributions from realtors, builders, developers, and building material suppliers. I will also attempt, with Clarksville online, to vet all qualified candidates, with special attention, again for voter scrutiny, to active realtors, builders, and developers. Hopefully, through this process, we will eventually achieve a city governent that is dedicated to serving the populace rather than itself.

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

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 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Show as slideshow]

12►

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in response to a complaint filed by the Clarksville NAACP found numerous flaws in the Clarksville Center Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan voted into law by the City Council with full support of Mayor Johnny Piper.

HUD authorities could not find any proposed objectives that would provide protection for low to moderate income residents and their property mentioned in the voted on ordinance.

The Clarksville NAACP first bought these issues to the attention of the U.S. Department of Justice and HUD after feeling that the civil rights and the federally protected rights of the Majority Minority Voting Ward was in jeopardy of being dismantled under this voted on redevelopment plan.

The redevelopment plan offer tax increment financing (tax abatements) to encourage private development, and is focused on the downtown area, Kraft and College Streets. In a comparison with the city’s Five Year Consilidated Plan for Housing and Community Development, HUD field office director William Dirl determined that while the city’s five year plan has a goal of increasing affordable housing, the new redevelopment plan had no “proposed objective to assist with this priority and to provide housing rehabilitation to eligible property owners.”

The consolidated plan is drafted by the city with community input, and approved by HUD. No federal funds can be used for projects lacking HUD approval of falling within HUD parameters.

After an extensive investigation and a thorough review of the Clarksville Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan and after consultation with numerous government agencies, William H. Dirl, Field Office Director for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Nashville was able to determine the flaws of the redevelopment plan and issued a few recommendations to the City of Clarksville in writing.

Clarksville NAACP President Jimmie Garland Sr. had asked HUD to review the plan, citing concerns about the ” detrimental effect” this plan would have on the poor, elderly and (minority) residents” of the downtown district.

Dirl addressed that concern in his response:

“We could not find any proposed objective to assist with this priority and to provide housing rehabilitation to eligible property owners. We will recommend that an objective be included to provide housing rehabilitation assistance to eligible housing units. This should greatly relieve fears that housing units not meeting minimum codes standards will be immediately considered for demolition.”

It is hoped that the Clarksville City Council and Mayor Piper will work diligently to insure that the equal rights and civil rights of all individuals are protected under this ordinance regardless of race, creed, nationality or socially economic status.

This Community Press Release provided courtesy of the Urban Resource Center and Mr. Terry McMoore (931) 378-1999. Any and all questions about the NAACP should be referred to NAACP President Jimmie Garland Sr. (931) 216-6745.

]]> http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/06/04/hud-finds-flaws-in-clarksville-redevelopment-plan/feed/ 2 http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/06/02/serious-discord-continues-between-city-residents-affected-by-redevelopment-plan/ http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/06/02/serious-discord-continues-between-city-residents-affected-by-redevelopment-plan/#comments Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:00:43 +0000 Jimmie Garland, Sr. http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/?p=5388 Jimmie M. Garland, President, NAACP #5582, responds to correspondence from HUD regarding the Downtown Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan. Mr. Garland directed numerous questions about the plan to both HUD and the Justice Department in May.

In response to correspondence received from the Nashville, Tennessee Office of Housing and Urban Development dated May 20, 2008, the Clarksville Tennessee Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) would like to thank the Nashville HUD office for its prompt response.

Although several of our concerns were addressed in their response, we feel there is still serious discord between the intent of the Ordinance as approved by the City Council and the understanding the residents have concerning the impact the redevelopment plan will have on their communities.

It is factual that Section 13 of the Tennessee Code Annotated clearly states that certain and deliberate steps must be taken to establish a redevelopment district. In developing the local development plan, the Clarksville City Council has apparently ignored the code, cherry picking areas that meet their objectives. It is troubling to know that the redevelopment plan, as written, does not meet all the objectives of the City of Clarksville five-year consolidated plan.Future funding for low to moderate-income residents in Clarksville could be in jeopardy, due to the administrations refusal to abide by the laws established by the state. This insipid approach taken by the city council could affect future state and federal funding.The TCA states “The housing authority is the only entity that can declare property blighted.” This declaration can only be done through a Housing Authority plan, which has to be adopted by the city and county elected officials. The plan has to:

• specifically identify the area;
• define why its blighted;
• specify what measures the governmental body will impose to eliminate the blight and
• declare both how much it will cost and how long it will take to correct the blighted conditions.

The most important part of the plan is to define how it will benefit low to moderate-income persons. The city of Clarksville Redevelopment Plan does not address these elements as specified in section 13, TCA.

The Clarksville Branch of the NAACP is simply asking that TCA be followed. The resolution passed by the city council lacks the quality and detail specified in the code. The city council members who voted in favor of this flawed resolution sadden us. The obvious attempt by the elective body of the city government, minus three, to compel the citizens of the redevelopment area to adhere to their will is repressive and lacks moral ethics. The unity in their show of force should alert citizens of Clarksville to what type of people we have elected to serve our interest.

It is clear, that this issue will most likely not be resolved without the state and federal legislative bodies withholding state and federal funds from the city. Our first choice in resolving this matter would be to have a joint resolution, agreed to by residents of the impacted communities and city government. Reluctantly, this will be our goal until this flawed resolution is either withdrawn or resolved. We feel even these actions will not be enough to get the city legislative body’s attention, since they are so adamant about implementing this non-existent plan.

The Clarksville Branch of the NAACP will continue to address this flawed resolution until all of the residents in the redevelopment area voices are heard and their concerns properly addressed.

Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization. Its members throughout the United States and the world are the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities, conducting voter mobilization and monitoring equal opportunity in the public and private sectors.

Another punch has been thrown in the ongoing battle between the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition and both city officials and the Downtown District Partnership: the CPRC has been slapped with a lawsuit over a dissenting advertisement on the issue of redevelopment.

The suit was filed by Wilkinson and Swift on Friday in the 19th Judicial District, Circuit Court of Montgomery County against the CPRC as an organization and, Pam Vandeveer, individually as CPRC treasurer. You can read the complete text of the lawsuit here at Clarksville Online.

CCRP member Joyce Vanderbilt with the CPRC ad

At issue is the veracity of an ad which ran in the Leaf Chronicle on May 3, prior to the May 8 City Council special session at which the final reading and approval of the highly controversial Downtown Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan occurred. The ad stated that Clarksville Mayor Johnny Piper, Councilman Richard Swift and DDP member Wayne Wilkinson as developers who worked for passage of the comprehensive redevelopment plan that would cover roughly two square miles of down town Clarksville and which designated the area as blighted.

The lawsuit charges that the CPRC ad made “libelous” statements against plaintiffs Wilkinson and Swift when the CPRC ad implied that [the plaintiffs] placed their “development interests” above the wishes of the community and their constituency.

In responding to news of the suit, Becky McMahan, a member of the CPRC Steering Committee, said:

“We believe the libel suit filed by Downtown Development Partnership [DDP] Member and former Chair Wayne Wilkinson and Clarksville City Council Member Richard Swift against the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition is frivolous. All statements regarding Councilman Swift and Mr. Wilkinson made by the CPRC in our advertisement in the May 3rd Leaf-Chronicle were factual and were truthful.

These are public figures. The law simply does not support their claim given the facts here. It appears the plaintiffs are trying to intimidate and scare ordinary citizens from exercising their right of free speech in trying to defend their homes and their businesses from the threat of condemnation for private development, which this redevelopment plan allows.”

The text of the highly-debated ad reads:

“Hundreds of homeowners and property owners have voiced their opposition to this Plan, but our concerns are being ignored. No one supports this Plan except a few in the development community, those who expect to benefit from it. Mayor Piper has done everything possible to exclude opponents from the process. When a public hearing had to be scheduled, the public wasn’t even allowed to speak.

This Redevelopment Plan is about private development. Our City government is controlled by developers. This Redevelopment Plan is of the developers, by the developers, and for the developers. Mayor Johnny Piper, Councilman Richard Swift, and DDP Chair Wayne Wilkerson, are all developers. They all own development property in the Plan area.”

The ad also makes the following claims:

“No other city in the United States has included its entire downtown area in a Redevelopment Plan. But Clarksville’s Redevelopment Plan does.

“Nashville has eight Redevelopment Plans. None of Nashville’s Plans applies to residential homeowners. But Clarksville’s Redevelopment Plan does.”

Ironically, the very action of placing the ad with the Leaf Chronicle became a chess game with the newspaper initially opting not to run the ad, only to later accept it after consulting with their attorney and requiring attribution of the ad to the CPRC. The ad, which CPRC was told had been slated to run on page 4 of the May 3 edition, was in fact placed in the back section of the paper, which is published by Gene Washer, a member of the DDP.

The suit charges that:

“The allegations are intended to convey, and do convey, that Richard Swift and Wayne Wilkinson are engaged in actions to undermine the democratic process undertaken by elected officials. This allegation is false. The allegations are intended to infer that Richard Swift and Wayne Wilkinson ‘control’ City Government because they are ‘developers’.”

The suit further charges that the ad “falsely attacks the good reputations” of both plaintiffs and claims the statements in the ad damage their reputation and public perception. Although named in the ad, Mayor Piper is not one of the plaintiffs.

“Discovery,” the process of investigating these claims, is underway with the understanding that more members of the CPRC will be included in the suit with the names and addresses made part of the public record.

An overflow crowd of CPRC members gather outside a public hearing

The grassroots CPRC organized late last year when they learned of an ordinance that effectively “blighted” their neighborhood in the name of redevelopment. Standing room only meetings were held at the H.O.P.E. center on Legion Street and at the L&N Train Station. Hundreds of residents and small business owners wrote postcards and otherwise contacted their representatives and the city council at large to voice concern, outrage and overall dissent with the original, which was found to be in violation of state law including improper notification of affected citizens. They have remained active and vocal in their opposition to the original and the revised law. At the time of the final vote, some sections of the revised ordinance were changed back to the original form, including an option appoint rather than elect community representatives to the redevelopment board.

McMahan said all Clarksville residents should be “aware” of what is happening downtown since “representatives of the DDP said publicly last year, speaking before the Montgomery County Commission, that they have long-term plans to extend similar redevelopment plans out into other parts of the city.”

McMahan said:

“The first redevelopment plan promoted by the DDP and approved by the Clarksville City Council in 2007 was legally flawed for not following state law. The members of the CPRC believe the redevelopment plan approved last week is also legally flawed under state law. If you can intimidate those affected by the Plan’s provisions, then you can effectively eliminate any challenge to the Plan’s legality.

“Isn’t it ironic that men and women from Ft. Campbell here in Clarksville are putting their lives at risk in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect our rights as Americans, while at the same time citizens from Clarksville weren’t even being allowed to speak at a public hearing called by the City of Clarksville, while trying to protect their homes from condemnation for private development?”

McMahan, speaking for the CPRC, said the group “will vigorously defend against this frivolous claim and pursue whatever legal recourse and remedies may be appropriate.”

The filing of this a lawsuit is one more ingredient in what remains an energized battle over property rights. On May 2, Clarksville NAACP President Jimmie Garland Sr. contacted HUD (Housing and Urban Development) in Nashville and the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. over the potential racial and minority impacts of this legislation on the downtown Clarksville community.

Tennessee has a little known piece of legislation on the books called the Tennessee Anti-SLAPP Act of 1997, SLAPP is shorthand for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” SLAPP lawsuits are designed to “discourage or retaliate for a person or group’s expression of free speech.

According to information available through the Legal Aid Society, such suits are not uncommon in situations where citizens “exercise their rights to make comments in opposition to a proposed corporate initiative or proposed land development. Such suits are used to “silence” or “intimidate” citizens by claiming libel, slander or “interference with business” and may seek redress in the form of substantial financial settlements. Beneath the surface, SLAPP suits are specifically designed to silence members of the public, or retaliate and punish citizens who wish to exercise their right of free speech or their right to a dissenting opinion.

The anti-SLAPP legislation is designed to protect citizens and within its provisions allows for citizens sued for exercising their right to “free speech” to ask the court for the corporation/municipality to pay defense fees and court costs.

Editor’s Note: to view development plans, news stories, and other documents related to this story, click the black “Blightville” box on the left side of the Clarksville Online front page.

Ordinance 96-2007-08, a.k.a. “the blight bill,” is coming before the City Council in back-to-back meetings for a second reading AND a vote to adopt the controversial ordinance tonight starting at 4:30 p.m. in the City Hall Conference Room at 1 Public Square in downtown Clarksville. At a recent meeting on this issue on the APSU campus, Mayor Johnny Piper assured concerned residents affected by this ordinance, titled Clarksville Center Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan, that it would NOT come up before the Council “until May.” Today is April 24.

The first item under new business for the special session reads as follows:

1. ORDINANCE 96-2007-08 (Second Reading) Adopting the Clarksville Center Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan

The ordinance in its original form deemed approximately two square miles of downtown Clarksville as blighted, subject to eminent domain, under a Clarksville Redevelopment Plan. That plan was flawed in content and the process used to present it to the affected residents and business owners. A re-worked version which has some improvements, added the words “urban renewal” to “redevelopment” but still carried many of the same problems including eminent domain and an assemblage clause that Clarksville Property Rights Coalition (CPRC) attorney Attorney John Summers called “audacious.”

Here’s the game plan: The City Council will meet in a non-voting Executive Session first, at 4:30 p.m., in the conference room, with an extensive agenda that includes a second reading of the ordinance as the first item under new business, a move which caught members of the coalition members off-guard, but not for long. That Executive Session agenda lists time for “Public Comment” at the END of each meeting. The Executive Session will be immediately followed by a “Special Called Voting Session” at which a full agenda of items including the Redevelopment Plan will be presented. (See complete Special Session and Executive Session agendas at the end of this article). The Special Called Meeting will also only accept public comment only AFTER the meeting.

In anticipation of the May vote on this issue, the Coalition had been planning to run an ad opposing the ordinance in the Leaf Chronicle. That plan is on hold as they re-organize in light of the upcoming voting session, and they are questioning the legality and timing of the voting session, which contains a number of the same issues that torpedoed the original ordinance. With barely a day’s notice, and the late “suppertime” and “rush hour” timing of the meeting, interested parties are scrambling to arrange to attend what they see as a vital meeting.

At all prior hearings, an overwhelming majority of public comments were strongly opposed to this ordinance in both its first and second incarnations. Given the numbers of concerned citizens who have turned out for prior meetings, which necessitated special planning but often still attracted overflow crowds, it will be interesting to see how many of that voter/taxpayer/property owner constituency can be accommodated for today’s meeting.

Clarksville NAACP President Jimmie Garland (at left) said the plan is about to “destroy the only minority ward in the city” and was appalled at the cavalier attitude exhibited by elected city officials on this issue. Noting that in the very public forum at APSU the mayor assured the public of a different timetable on this vote, Garland said simply, “He [Piper] lied.”

“Where is the redevelopment plan,” Garland asked, citing the specific construction strategies and plans for redevelopment districts.”We have no plan.” Garland joined Coalition members in asking how a city can adopt such an ordinance without a defined and specific plan to put before the people.

What is the reason for this madness, asked Turner McCullough, a former City Council candidate, who also said it was his understanding that special called sessions required lengthier notification times and were limited to a single vote on a specific issue, not an entire agenda. “I think they will be in trouble with the law on this.”

If the City Council acts to pass this plan, they will do so against public opinion and against the wishes of a large contingent of voters who reside in the targeted area.

Concerned residents attend a Council meeting on the redevelopment plan

Here is a bit of background on the APSU and other meetings, along with a lengthy list of verbatim public comments drawn from the 60 printed comments assembled by the Mayor’s office (and which were to be published here prior to the assured Council vote in May):

City residents may not always have a chance to speak to the City Council, the Mayor, and others involved in the controversial Downtown Revitalization Plan, but many of them took the time to express their views on “Public Comment” cards made available at recent hearings. The redevelopment plan as initially passed in November designed two square miles of downtown Clarksville — with the exception of Austin Peay State University — as ‘blighted.”

Numerous public hearings and public information meeting have been held, with and without public comment allowed. While the city has made some laudable adjustments to their plan and held a hearing last week to review the proposed amendments to the plan, there are still numerous questions to answer, and not all residents — apart from not being afforded a chance to speak and question the presenters — have not had their concerns addressed. Those concerns involved eminent domain and the “assemblage” issue, a means of bundling together properties that may or may not be blighted in order to meet the needs of developers.

The public hearing designed to mitigate concerns and introduce revisions was held at Burt School on Eighth Street in an auditorium that had been certified for 220 people but within a day of the hearing was re-certified by the Fire Marshall to accommodate 180, leaving an overflow crowd of nearly 100 people standing outside. City officials held the next hearing in “larger” space at the Customs House Museum, which accommodated 190 people.

At the APSU meeting, Clarksville Online obtained a photocopied collection assembled by the city of public comments on this plan. We now offer our readers a broad look at the some of the comments on the ordinance received by city officials in writing. A photocopied packet of those responses was made available to Clarksville Online by the city, and we present them here as public information:

“I made a request to the Mayor and the City Council at the 3/20/08 public hearing regarding the redevelopment and urban renewal plan but I was denied the opportunity to speak. I am opposed to my property being included the plan boundary which makes it subject to condemnation for public development. I have spent lots of money to to preserve my home, to improve it. I hereby request that the plan be repealed or that my property be removed from the plan area. — Annette Simon

“I requested to speak at the Public Hearing but was denied the opportunity to speak at the public hearing. I am the attorney representing the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition, a group of residents and property owners opposed to the redevelopment plan.” — John Summers

“If this “redevelopment plan” is not designed purposely to aid developers, why is the word “assemblage” mentioned eight times in the plan? The ability to put together packages of land seems to me to be solely for developers to create large amounts of land for the purposes of putting up developments.” — Lucinda Marczak

Eyeing a copy of the original ordinance at the SRO L&M Train Station meeting in Deccember, 2007.

“Eminent domain for private development must be specifically prohibited, as the current administration and council cannot possibly make promises for future administrations and councils. This is by far the single most important issue of this ordinance. Also, the designation of “blight” is offensive to residents and homeowners. Finally, the concept of a public hearing where the public is not heard is contrary to basic American and Constitutional principles. Is Clarksville no longer a democracy? Holding public “hearings” after the fact instead of declaring the ordinance invalidated due to illegal procedure is still not correcting the problem at hand. Obviously the DDP [Ed: Downtown District Partnership] has dealt in “misinformation from the very beginning of this ordinance as they “assured” the Mayor and the City Council the affected residents had been properly notified and placated. This is and was a blatant lie, as the first time I heard of this ordinance was late November of 2007, two months after the ordinance was passed.” — Katrina Gunn

“Unfair to the people who have been unable to actually hear what was said in this meeting. I was left outside and in the dark again about what was really going on. The untruth of this plan continues and we as a community are uninformed, unheard, and disgusted by the way we are being treated.” — Carmen Cross

L&M Train Station attendees (12/07) apparently can’t believe what they are hearing…

“Need to tell the truth about what the City of Clarksville is really doing about the redevelopment plan and Urban Renewal Plan. I speak for almost everyone…let us know and stop telling everyone lies. We will not let them take our houses and and business for nothing; we understand about growing Clarkville but just to take and sneak around…don’t tell anyone for over a year about what you are doing…” — Nettie Johnson

“I am opposed to anything I don’t have a say in. You cannot take my property from me without my say so.” — Rosemary Black

“Piper is crooked. He stands to get money like the rest on this plan. My home was bought thru slaves who worked for the community and bought their land for their children … will have a place to home. The whole community knows they are all wrong for putting families out of their property, push them off, so they can build what they want to. Go. Be gone. Leave ours alone.” — Nanette Michelle Atkins

“Our rental property at 330 Main Street is a very special property to us. As an income-producing parcel, it is a concern to us that “urban renewal” would be allowed to take this from us, or raise our property taxes.” — Stanley and Sherry Bumpus

“This meeting was a joke. It does not resemble anything democratic. I requested the right to speak and was denied the opportunity.” — Dorman Vaughn

“District 8 is asking that we change our own representation. We don’t live in Knoxville. Our problem can’t be address by Knoxville Redevelopment Plans. We do not know their population. How many black people live in those projects?” — Virginia Hatcher

“I am opposed to my property being included in the plan boundary. I am widowed and this is my only means of income and also my sons. we have owned three properties there since the late 1960s. I feel it is very unfair and more like an act of communism. I hereby request that the plan be replaced or (or that I) be removed from the plan area.” — Maxine Smith

“I made a request to speak to the Mayor and City Council at the Public Hearing on march 20 [2008] about the Clarksville Center redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan but was denied the opportunity to speak. I am owner and operator of Kraft Street Muffler and Brakes, a family owned business since 1988. We lease our building and plan on being there 20 more years. Who will pay for our loss of income?” — Terry D. Snuggs

The city needs this plan! the sooner the better!” — Charlsie Lankford, DDP Chairwoman

“I was denied access to this public meeting by the police until it was over. This is not right.” — James Taylor

“I was denied a chance to speak at the so-called Public Meeting on March 20. So let me say: I am opposed to my property being included in the planned boundary, which means my property is subject to condemnation for private development. I would like to see the plan repealed. — Lynne Gavito

“I think this city needs this plan in a hurry.” — Kenneth Keesee

“Aren’t both sides of a story supposed to be heard at a public hearing? Only one voice is being heard. When does the public get to ask questions? I love Clarksville, but I am very disgusted by this ‘presentation.’ ” — Andrea Keen

“Knoxville [Ed.: Clarksville officials went to Knoxville to explore that city's approach to redevelopment] is not our city or our government reps.” — Arthur Carter

“I made a request to speak to the mayor and City Council at the Public Hearing Ed: Burt School hearing 3.20.08]…but was denied the opportunity to speak. What about the business owners (me and my husband have been working on Kraft Street for 20 years)! What do we do for a living?” — Laurie A. Buggs 158 Kraft St

1. If a resident cannot afford to make changes to their property due to lack of funds, does it mean their property will be acquired through legal means? 2. Will the contractor be responsible for getting their loans or will they be financed by city/county government? 3. How do you plant to implement the “assemblage of properties?” 4. We could have had this briefing via phone!!!”– Jimmie M. Garland

The public affected should be made aware of all the issues and have a right to vote on its acceptance. The presentation did not [ ]which individual property owners would be cheated.” — Steve Batie Rockwoods HWY

“Do not take my home. I am opposed to my property being included in this plan. I want my property to be removed from this plan area. APSU property is not in this plan. Why is mine? Repeal the ordinance — not amend it.” — Alfred Rogers

“If eminent domain is not going to be used, as several councilmen, Joe Pitts and others say, why can’t it be taken out? Eminent domain for public use is understood, the redevelopment plan is audacious. The plan has not been fixed. Our property rights are non-existent under this plan. The RBD needs to have at least half residents to insure a fair balance.” — Patsy Sharpe

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

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

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

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

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

Public Comments Oppose the Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Council Moves to Vote

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

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

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

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

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

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

Though some communities use tax dollars to fund such actions, in the late 1980’s one northern city and its then 27-year-old newly elected mayor, Daniel J. Szostkiewicz, opted to launch a clean up the dregs of a decaying city landscape and move urban renewal giant steps forward by obtaining a federal grant for the walloping sum of two million dollars — for clean up. There was a lot to clean up.

The Western Massachusetts city of Holyoke at that time was the referred to as the “arson capitol of the world” for the number of vacant, abandoned and burned out buildings that littered its landscape. Once an industrial capitol, the “Paper City,” known for its manufacturing of paper and textiles, ran on river power and an innovative and extensive canal system that harnessed water power. Nearly a hundred years later, Holyoke became a city of boarded up five- and six-story brick blocks and abandoned, burned out factories frequently used by drug dealers as squats, lookouts, and places for their nefarious business. Holyoke after the 1960s was a city of empty, rubble-filled lots, the remains of dozens of fires that destroyed many of these buildings. Piles of charred debris were left behind. It was not a nice place, though it retained roots and a fascinating civic and industrial history.

In the once vibrant downtown shopping district, business shifted from the heart of the city to its outskirts via malls and industrial or business parks, the core of the city became, to put it mildly, little more than a slum of empty storefronts in a high crime district, a city with debris-laden empty space not unlike Clarksville in the aftermath of the tornado. Gaping holes formed in the economy and former vibrancy of downtown. So began the audacious plan to clean it up.

Szostkiewicz’ then famous words went something like this: “I’d rather see a vacant lot leveled and planted over with grass, a few trees and some park benches, anything but this pile of rubble. ” He applied the same opinion to boarding up buildings and fire rubble.

“Civic Livability”

Szostkiewicz, who brought the city to a finalist position for “Civic Livability” in 1988, applied for and won a grant to take decayed properties abandoned by absentee landlords and level them, scour them out, clean them up. Within a year, a year of bulldozers razing irrevocably damaged buildings and dump trucks laden with debris, a dozen patches of green space sprung up around the city, some used as mini parks, some as small playgrounds with modern playscapes for young children. The lots cleaned up the look of the neighborhood, and began the slow process of inspiring not just a new sense of pride but a renewal of community. Greenspace tends to create that trickle-down effect for positive change.

Szostkiewicz believed the investment in this clean-up of vacant lots would pay long term dividends. It did. In a spurt of renewed energy, an incubator business group began developing affordable housing that created pride of owner and a renewed community in a former slum. The housing authority tore down decaying buildings known as Jackson parkway, replacing them with Churchill Homes, a new Victorian style mixed income apartments and owner-occupied units in a row house style (at right) that went with significantly tightened and enforced standards for occupancy of public housing. The new homes and apartments have stayed in prime condition.

Community collaboration…

In the area of South Holyoke and “The Flats,” where blocks once housed the workers for the paper mills, empty lots began filling up with small owner-occupied duplexes, first one, then another, until a decade later a new and energized neighborhood emerged. In neighborhoods of old homes, small parks appeared in vacant lots, and people began using these mini- parks. Given the size of the community’s Hispanic population, community involvement and the involvement of non-profits such as Nueva Esperanza became a critical component of this renewal. It began with a little thing called “clean up.”

“Nueva Esperanza is a community development corporation that was born, like a phoenix, out of flames. In the early 1980s, Holyoke was averaging nearly one arson per week. Oftentimes, property owners were setting fire to their own buildings to cash in on their insurance policies and, simultaneously, rid themselves of the responsibility of maintaining deteriorating buildings. Unfortunately, many buildings were occupied at the time of the fires: a dozen people were killed, and 600 others were displaced. Nueva Esperanza was developed by activists and concerned citizens in the Puerto Rican community of Holyoke to fight the arson, and to restore the neighborhood, both physically and socially.

Nueva has used Community Development Block Grants, Low Income Housing Tax Credits, and other funding mechanisms to create 400 units of affordable housing since its inception. Most of these units are in buildings built around the turn of the last century, buildings that are virtually irreplaceable in today’s economy. One architect familiar with Nueva’s work estimated that it would cost at least twice as much as the cost of rehab to build a new building with the same level of architectural detail and quality. In addition to rehabbing the buildings, Nueva Esperanza worked with the city to plant street trees and widen sidewalks on some of the residential streets, resulting in a very pleasant, pedestrian-friendly environment.

– Chris Holme, M.R.P., American Planning Association, Spring 2004

One former factory now houses a state-of-the art children’s museum. Vintage trains offer foliage runs and other tours from the former and now refurbished train depot. Another factory is now a complex for artists and artisans. A historic merry-go-round was rescued from a deteriorated amusement park. Now, completely refurbished, it graces a city park. Imagination unleashed.

Marshalling community resources…

Nueva Esperanza is a prime example of a community/municipality collaboration that worked. Holyoke has a unique history linked to it’s major waterway, the Connecticut River, not unlike Clarksville and its historical relationship the Cumberland River. It’s a resource to be tapped, waiting to be utilized to its full potential. Clarksville has many charming homes and cottage/bungalow style homes in the older sections of town that are worthy of renewal rather than replacement, an act that would retain the city’s unique and historic look rather than replace it with cookie cutter condos and apartments.

In thinking about the clean-up and the potential installation of greenspaces, the city might also look to business sponsorships in the same way that business and civic organizations sponsor traffic islands.

As Clarksville looks to cleaning up its vacant lots, it should seek revitalization grants (the term for what was “urban renewal” in the 60’s) to fund this specific effort. Just as there are Main Street monies available, there are “clean up” grants floating around out there. Mandate that owners clean up these abandoned sites; if they don’t, place a lien on it and clean it up anyway — using renewal grant funds.

Greenspace, that sought after space of cool grass, a sheltering tree or two, park benches and maybe a small playscape or two is an infinitely wiser move that letting vacant lots lay fallow. It is a baby step, albeit a prized one, on the path to revitalization.