Written by Karen Reynolds
Clarksville City Council – Ward 9
Clarksville, TN – I hope everyone had an enjoyable holiday, despite the weather. I understand that some of our residents may struggle to pay their energy bills in the next few months. If you need assistance, you can contact Community Action Partnership or Grace Assistance, you do not need to be behind on your bills to request assistance. Please share this information as needed.
I would like to thank the residents that answered the “Call to Action” I sent out regarding the requested variance for Broomfield Farms which would have allowed builders to build 56 homes, increasing the total lots to 206 with one entrance/exit. Your letters made a difference and they have agreed to build the subdivision in one phase. They can build 16 homes before connecting to Trenton Road. I requested that the letters be included in the meeting minutes.
I have included the link to the Newsletter regarding this request for a variance.
I understand many of you received responses from County Commissioners and City Council members that they were not the correct point of contact. I also requested that you include both mayors. One reason for this was that the RPC Commissioners don’t have published email. The second reason was to let the council and commissioners know what happens after we approve new zones.
Please read the last item of the newsletter regarding the implementation of License Plate Readers, your opinions are very important, please share with all the members of the city council. You may have to click on the … at the end of the first page to see the complete newsletter.
Have a safe and Happy New Year Holiday. I am grateful for the support and communication that I have with the residents of Ward 9 and others in our community. I will read all your email before our meeting on January 5th, but I may not have time to reply to all of them. My son is serving in the Navy and he is home on leave, I will be getting as much Mom time as he will allow.
Link to Clarksville Area Urban Ministries
Link to Community Action Partnership – Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program
Link to Viewmont Newsletter -Call to Action
Planning Commission – Zoning Ordinance
| AG Agricultural District C-2 General Commercial District C-5: Highway & Arterial Commercial District M-3 Planned Industrial District O-1 Office District |
R-1 Single Family Residential District R-2 Single Family Residential District R-3 Three Family Residential District R-4 Multiple Family Residential District R-6 Single Family Residential District |
1. ORD 59-2022-23 The intersection of Louisiana Ave & Laura Dr from R-2 to R-6
Acreage: 0.69 Ward: 4 Lots/Unit: 4 Population:
There is no R6 in the neighborhood, it is all R2, this is not in the character of the community.
2. ORD 60-2022-Property located at a portion of a tract located north of Tiny Town Rd, east of the Hattington Dr street stub, north of Danbury Dr, east of Barkers Mill Rd & Torrington Ln, west of Sand Piper Dr from R-2 to R-2A RPC: Disapproval/Commissioners – Approval
Acreage: 65.31 Ward: 8 Lots/Unit: Population:
This is an overcrowded area, and they are placing the higher density to the rear of the subdivision. This means that more vehicles must travel to the rear of the community. The RPC indicated that the increased density would be appropriate on the in the front or on the edges of the property.
3. ORD 61-2022-23 Property fronting on the west frontage of Cave St near the northern terminus of Cave St from R-3 to R-4
Acreage: 0.77 Ward: 4 Lots/Unit: 9 Population:24
I researched this request and learned that Reda Home Builders, Inc owns more property in this area to include the lot next door this this request. If you review the maps in the agenda, you will see that this is a lower-income area and there is a great deal of apartments. I am concerned that we will continue to economically segregate our community. To continue to provide a mix of housing opportunities I have concerns about the rezoning request. The road is also narrow and if we continue to address each individual lot rather than the area we will build on a narrow road and not leave enough property to widen the road and add sidewalks.
4. ORD 62-2022-23 property located at two parcels fronting on the north frontage of Duncan St., 135 +/- feet west of the eastern terminus of Duncan St from R-4 to R-6
Acreage: 0.51 Ward: 6 Lots/Unit: 4 Population: 10
5. ORD 63-2022-23 property located at the intersection of Earl Slate Rd & Sanders Rd from R-1 to R-2A – RPC: Disapproval/Commissioners – Disapproval
Acreage: 1.41 Ward: 11 Lots/Unit: 4 Population: 10
The proposed zoning is not consistent with the established neighborhood.
6. ORD 64-2022-23 property located at the intersection of Elder St & E. Union St from R-3 to R-2A
Acreage: 0.77 Ward: 6 Lots/Unit: 3 Population:
This rezoning request is to support Habitat for Humanity.
7. RESOLUTION 41-2022-23 A Resolution approving the abandonment of unimproved right-of-way, south of Warfield Boulevard, east of Stokes Road, and north of Bellamy Lane.
Consent Agenda City Clerk
All items in this portion of the agenda are considered to be routine and non-controversial by the Council and may be approved by one motion; however, a member of the Council may request that an item be removed for separate consideration under the appropriate committee report: I did not pull from consent agande unless noted.
1. ORD 50-2022-23 (Postponed 12/1/22] Property fronting the western terminus of Prewitt Ln south of Prewitt Ln & west of Whitfield Rd from AG to R-4
2. ORD 51-2022-23 (Second Reading) An Ord authorizing the Mayor, or his designee, to enter into an agreement and acquire property for a public purpose for expansion of Dixon Park and to swap and convey City of Clarksville property in exchange therefore
3. ORD 52-2022-23 located at the intersection of Cumberland Dr & Charlotte St from C-2 to R-6.
We have heard from several residents regarding this rezoning request, this property has drainage issues.
4. ORD 53-2022-23 located at the intersection of Airport Rd & Cinderella Ln from R-1 to R-2A.
5. ORD 54-2022-23 located at a parcel fronting on the south frontage of Vine St at the terminus of Vine St and an adjacent parcel fronting on the north frontage of Cedar St at the terminus of Cedar St from C-1 to R-6.
This area is in the Red River we are waiting for the results of the study conducted by neighborhood services. The initial study indicated that the area should have a new zone with a lot size between R6 and R2.
6. RESOLUTION 44-2022-23 Resolution approving appointments to the Designations Board, Parking Commission and Regional Planning Commission
New Business
ORD 57-2022-23 An Ord authorizing the Mayor, through the City Attorney or his designee, to conduct negotiations and enter into an agreement for the purchase of certain property to be used as a fire station.
ORD 58-2022-23 An Ord authorizing the Mayor, through the City Attorney, or his designee, to conduct negotiations and to enter an agreement to acquire property for expansion of Dixon Park, or should negotiations fail, to pursue condemnation through use of eminent domain for acquisition of property for a public purpose for expansion and development of Dixon
At the meeting we were informed that the fair market value for the property would be set aside and would be paid once the court decided who the rightful heirs are.
ORD 65-2022-23 An Ord amending the operating budgets for Fiscal Year 2023 for Governmental Funds (Ord 146-2021-22) to add additional funding to the Capital Projects Fund and General Fund, amend the Pandemic Relief Fund and the Vehicle Replacement Fund.
This is not adding to the budget, it is moving money around. You can click on the link in the agenda and there is a complete explanation of the budget items.
RESOLUTION 42-2022-23 A Resolution authorizing the retirement of a Patrol Service Dog “Vader” from K-9 unit and donation to Police Officer Casey Stanton
RESOLUTION 43-2022-23 A Resolution expressing support for a License Plate Reader (LPR), equipment acquisition and program Public Safety: Approval
As a member of the Public Safety Committee, I vote NO on this resolution.
The basic reasons for the cameras include safety for our residents, the ability to locate missing persons, and track vehicle crimes.
The Clarksville Police Department will utilize the state contract for the equipment provided by Motorola. The name of the product is @Vigilant.
Clarksville is one of the safest cities in the state of Tennessee and our police force does a terrific job of keeping the residents safe in our community. I want to be clear that I support the police force, but I am struggling with the balance of our right to privacy (collecting data on our residents that have not committed a crime) and the use of this equipment
I believe that residents should be equal partners in any decision regarding the use of LPR technology. We need to know what it will really cost — both in dollars and in individual rights. We need to be certain that any proposal includes strong mechanisms for transparency, accountability, and oversight. At the very least I believe we should have a citizen oversight committee for the LPR use and data.
The Fourth Amendment guards our privacy against the government, and it provides that we shall be secure in our persons, places, effects and homes from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that when warrants issue, they must be based on probable cause and be particular in their description of the places to be searched and the things to be seized. The goal of this provision is to protect people’s right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable intrusions by the government.
The city lawyer has supplied information regarding the legality of LPR’s but I contend they are an invasion of our privacy and in many countries they are used to control the population.
While the current administration indicates they will be transparent, without well written documents the cameras could be placed near gun shows, political rallies, or women’s health clinics to track individuals.
There is not a requirement to obtain a warrant to access the data.
There is no requirement to report how and when the data is shared.
Drivers have no control over whether their vehicle displays a license plate because the government requires drivers to display license plates in public view. LPRs are used to track and record the movements of ordinary people, even though the overwhelming majority are not connected to a crime.
Data privacy has always been important to me.I have always worked in healthcare, and I have been actively involved as we integrated computers. I started in Army Pharmacy, and I remember a budget fight to upgrade to an electric typewriter. In 1982 I remember when the Chief of Pharmacy brought in his new Apple computer, fast forward to conversations where internet upgrades and strengthening our systems firewalls took precedent over the construction of an additional operating room suite. Throughout my career it has been my responsibility to protect patients’ privacy and their healthcare data. There have been many instances of data breaches or employees accessing patients’ records without a need to know. In 2022, data security and privacy are an issue in all aspects of individuals lives.
My concerns for LPR’s are below:
1. The initial purchase of the equipment and programming is paid for by the state, but the city will assume the responsibility of managing, protecting, and storing the equipment and data. We were not provided with an exact amount.
2. Management and storage of the Data: The data will be stored in the cloud and the chief indicated we would have control over who could access the data. It will be retained for 90 days.
3. Above is the current state law, but they could easily change the rules or take control of the data by simply changing the laws.
4. Currently the software does not include facial recognition, but the ability exists, and the upgrade could be implemented without a vote or public knowledge
