Nashville's Online Source for Daily News
Search Site
Music Circle property owner digs in for eminent domain fight
Tuesday, July 22, 2008 at 12:33am
Joy Ford, owner of Country International Records, is ready to fight an eminent domain claim issued by Metro Development and Housing Agency. File
Attorneys for the Music Center East property owner facing an eminent domain claim filed in circuit court Monday an answer to the Notice of Taking issued a month ago.
In a statement released by the Institute of Justice, a national civil liberties law firm, property owner Joy Ford said she intends to fight the eminent domain claim. Ford founded the property in question, which is home to Country International Records, with her late husband in 1974. The Notice of Taking was issued by the Metro Development and Housing Agency.
“I am not interested in selling my property at any price,” Ford said in a statement released by her legal representation. “This isn’t about money for me. This is about principle. I just want to hold on to a business that has meant so much to my family and a lot of other folks in country music. I should have the right to do that in the United States of America.”
In the meantime, Metro Councilman Michael Craddock said a group of “half the Metro Council members” was ready to support a bill that could intercede on Ford’s behalf if necessary.
Craddock did not explain the details of the bill, but said a draft was completed and ready to be filed.
“It’s been prepared,” Craddock said of the bill. “I’m so concerned about what MDHA is doing that I’m looking for any alternative possible to stop them. The bill has been drawn. It has been prepared. I’m waiting for the outcome of this and whether or not MDHA will come to their senses.”
The 23 Music Center East property is part of a redevelopment district instituted by Metro Council in 1999. The redevelopment plan labeled Ford’s Country International Records property as “blighted” and MDHA subsequently sought to negotiate with her to purchase the property. Ford has steadfastly refused.
In order to take the blighted claim off Ford’s property, Council would possibly have to remove the redevelopment district, which is a move Craddock said he did not take lightly.
The adjacent property is being developed by the Houston-based Lionstone Group, which is seeking to build an office tower.
“That’s a possibility,” Craddock said of removing the redevelopment zoning. “It’s not hard, but it is consequential.
“I will never, ever sponsor a redevelopment district because of this one situation. Nor will I vote for one until this is resolved,” Craddock continued.
MDHA released a statement from Director of Development Joe Caine, which laid out an order of events in which it tried to negotiate with Ford about purchasing the property.
“Today it is a vibrant retail and commercial district, with the exception of the block that includes 23 Music Circle East,” Caine’s statement said of the redevelopment district around Music Row. “It is very difficult to redevelop that block without the cooperation of the owner of 23 Music Circle East. After a decade of obstruction by the owner of 23 Music Circle East, we feel compelled to take action for the good of the greater community.”
In the coming months, a right of possession hearing will be held in circuit court to determine the legality of MDHA’s claim.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Technorati
Filed under: City News
You guys are hilarious. Comparing the MDHA to nazis. Funny as hell. I don't know much about this case, but I do know there are numerous structures in the Music Row area that are old and blighted and you will get no argument from any of the anchor tenants on the Row if those properties are seized and demolished. Like Bobby's Idle Hour...I loved that place, had many an after work beer there, but it was a freaking trailer! It needed to go! Same with many of the older buildings in that area. Let them go people. These are not historic buildings, nor is Country International records a historic label. I don't think they even have a website. Out with the old...in with the new.
The property is blighted, and should be taken. It is ugly. This isn't an attractive historical building that the City wants to tear down. There is no sentimental value in a old, block building. They are all over town, and get torn down all the time. This lady is fighting for the sake of a fight. She is impeding on the City to improve itself, earning more tax dollars in the process, making Nashville a better place to live. TAKE HER PROPERTY. She should have sold out when they offered 2x her value.
I am proud of you Joy Ford. Kick butt! Tired of MDHA running everything in this city. It's like living with the MOB or probably worse.I shall pray for you...Fight..Fight..Fight For Your Rights.
She may win the battle but she will certainly lose the war. When public sentiment becomes too strong to fight, the developers will get the right to use the alleyway and build around her. This will plummet her property value. Many only want to seeone sideof this story. They forget what a mess this whole area was jsut a few short years ago. I also do not advocate use of force to take someones property but if you read between the lines (and actually the whole story) you can also see a scenario where Ms. Ford was offered a generous amount of money, more than enough to reconstruct her business in a similar location around music row. Reality is she does not have the authority to stop the rest of the project so I guess she will lose even if she wins...
MDHA, you should be ashamed of yourselves. You're an embarrassment to the people of Nashville. You leave that poor lady alone and you leave the property rights of everyone else alone. Her property is NOT blighted (you liars), but your reputation is.I'm proud of you too, Joy Ford. MDHA = Thieves and Liars !
I'd have to disagree Producer2. Winning this battle really wins the war. The delay on the project is costing the project dearly in the form of material cost escalation. Weren't they to begin construction last spring? If so, they should have a pretty much fully designed building. Assuming this legal delay last another 3-4 months, and she wins her suit, they would need to redesign, possibly pushing a start off until next spring. Raw material costs are predicted to continue to escalate over the next year significantly. China - their growth, rebuilding after the massive earthquake, and their plant shut down for the Olympics, will cause a big spike in coming months. The other issue for Lionstone. What if the PR mess gets uglier. If there are rallies, concerts and protests. Do the tenants - Colliers, Swensson and others want to be involved? Do their lenders want to be involved? Many banks will not even lend to developers for this type of project. Even if MDHA wins and buys her land, this is still a tough deal for Lionstone to pull off. Many of these tenants may hop over to WES or a new downtown building. There are plenty of other compelling sites.
The Nazis seized land in the mid to late 1930s "for the good of the greater community". I'm not sure if this is much different. Just strike out German Gestapo and type in MDHA.Individual freedom is on the attack right now and this is just one example of a government that needs to be given boundaries. Private property is just that! And, unless there is some overwhelming need for a real public use (highways or utilities), then government should keep their stinking hands off personal property!Mrs. Ford you have my total support!
What a great situation for Lionstone to be in. They have a government agency on a leash doing their bidding for them. I wish we local citizens could get MDHA to do something on behalf of us. Ladies and Gentlemen, you are now seeing why Nashville leaders told us simpletons in the neighborhoods why we should not worry about Kelo. They needed us to not pay attention while they took advantage of the newfound power. This is still another example of the city's diseased focus on the urban core instead of the places people actually live and work.
MDHA should be only in charge of public houseing. It is involved in redevelopment (read spending taxpayer money) where it shouldn't be.As eastnashville and pandabear said they act like a criminal enterprise.Time for the council to "take them out". "Its business" and we have property rights.
Producer2 makes a good point. A few years ago Music Row consisted of a bunch of warehouses; it was dangerous and shady during the day and night. Now Music Row is becoming an area worth bragging about. If Music Row still looked like it did ten years ago, a new development such as Lionstones would have people excited about redeveloping an area that needs redevelopment. On the other hand I have sympathy for Joy Ford because the area obviously means more than $ to her. What she needs to realize is that what is if she wins the right to keep her property, Lionstone has the right to build around her property. That area is just too nice for a warehouse, and she needs to be business smart and relocate before her property value decreases.A blighted area does not give the right for someone to seize the property, but I think that is just the way the world works and Joy Ford needs to act smartly.
I hope they steamroll her. Look at her trying to make it sound like this somehow puts her company out of business. Take the money for the property and move it to a new location, probably somewhere nicer. I seriously can't see any goal on her part other than to be a jack ass.“I am not interested in selling my property at any price,” Ford said in a statement released by her legal representation. “This isn’t about money for me. This is about principle. I just want to hold on to a business that has meant so much to my family and a lot of other folks in country music. I should have the right to do that in the United States of America.”
pandabearHer property is definitely blighted.
In response to Producer 2 -- "She may win the battle but she will certainly lose the war." the only battle and war that she wants to win is to keep her property. Whose ". . . public sentiment becomes too strong to fight . . ." all the public sentiment is on her side at this point. Who is fighting FOR this development? MDHA and the Developer? Can you futher explain this? The propety around her will be improved why that ". . . . plummet her property value."?"They forget what a mess this whole area was just few short years ago." . . . a mess? There are MUCH worse places in town that people would gladly be willing to sell at a fair market value. You say "I also do not advocate use of force to take someones property but if you read between the lines (and actually the whole story) you can also see a scenario where Ms. Ford was offered a generous amount of money, more than enough to reconstruct her business in a similar location around music row." -- why does it matter what amount of money she was or has been offered, if she does NOT want to sell her business, why should the GOVERNMENT FORCE HER to sell??? You say . . . "Reality is she does not have the authority to stop the rest of the project so I guess she will lose even if she wins... " while you may be right in that she MAY not have the authority to stop the rest of the project BUT I would be you that she has more authority NOW because she has the PEOPLE, the TAXPAYERS, the VOTERS pulling for her, and the board of zoning and the other approval authorities do not have to approve just any plan put before them.
threezero6, There are a lot of people in support of the Lionstone project, not just MDHA and the developer. To be frank, her property is ugly, and people want the Lionstone developmernt. I have my sympathies for Joy Ford, but I hope they can reach an agreement where the Lionstone building is built and Joy Ford can either remain there or happily relocate.
The Government controls how, what, and where business is conducted all the time. There is a reason why the Classic cat was forced to close after Hume Fogg opened back up in the late 80's...for the greater good of the community. same with this piece of crap building. It would benefit the community. If Joy Ford truly did care about the Music Row community then she would gladly have her building demolished and go build a new building somewhere else.The next building that needs to go is 44 Music Square East...next to Curb Records. yeah so Hank Sr once took a dump there...big deal...it is a disgusting building that is long past due for removal. And does anyone listen to WNAH? Anyone?
FIRST - how do you define 'blighted'? you may NOT like the LOOK of it but that does NOT make it blighted!SECOND - just because they are OLD or NOT HISTORIC, that still doesnt define them as blighted. THIRD - if she doesnt want to sell, at any price, why should she be FORCED to sell?FOURTH - are you aware of what happened in the KELO case? the land is STILL sitting there blighted, and NOT producting ANY tax money. The developer didnt go through with the deal.
Blighted...IMO...is any building not remaining in within the standards set by the majority of a neighborhood. When one building decreases the value of an adjacent building simply by being there...that is blighted.
Because a building is not in pristine reality TV show condition does not mean it is blighted! And even if the building needs repair, or the area around the building needs “landscaping” does not mean that it should be torn down. There are many, cheaper, easier alternatives that don’t require destruction and replacement with something out of character with an area. And I think that the Classic Cat was torn down to make way for the Convention Center that we currently have. The school issue was a nail to make sure the coffin stayed closed.
In response to KEVIN07: ". . . blighted and should be taken.It is ugly. This isn't an attractive historical building that the City wants to tear down. There is no sentimental value in a old, block building. They are all over town, and get torn down all the time. This lady is fighting for the sake of a fight. She is impeding on the City to improve itself, earning more tax dollars in the process, making Nashville a better place to live. TAKE HER PROPERTY. She should have sold out when they offered 2x her value." Kevin, how is SHE impeeding the city to improve its self. The developer COULD develop the rest of the land without HER section of property. Kevin, what if we thought your HOME or your place of work was UGLY and had no sentimential value? Should the city just take it? Tear it down? The is no law that the business has to be NEW to be generating money. One thing I agree with you on is that there are many ugly buildings around town and IF the owner of those buildings want to sell them, they should AND let this developer build there! It would STILL benefit the community! And allow the city to improve itself. This is by far NOT the worst property in davidson county, there are many, many more! some with people living in them. Should they be torn down too?
Threezero6 is correct. But in this case, the Lionsgate issue is more intrusive. It will encircle her and tower over her as well, should she opt to stay in place. Yes, her property would most likely decrease in value at that point, but it would be her choice. There have, historically speaking, been other cases such as this one, where the owners have stayed in place, yet towering offices and hospitals have gone up around them. And one man's blight is another man's treasure. It's all subjective, isn't it?IMO, you could doze the whole area and most of Nashville would never know or care since we're not into that music genre.
NewYorker1? i am appalled! Even if the project is a $100m project -- WHY does it have to go there? Why does it have to occupy that ONE section of peoperty to be successful? Are the financials so fragile that a $90million project would succeed?
It's easy to look at that area and say it is not blighted now, but how soon we forget how bad it was just a few short years ago. In response to threezero6, IF Lionstone builds around her, and they apparently already have those plans, then by many peoples perspective it will make Ms. Ford property worth far less than the $900,000 already offered in today's marketplace. AS you can see by the responses on this board today, not everyone believes Ms. Ford's objections are purely motivated by anything more than greed on her own part. IF not maybe someone should give her a math lesson. It is easy for those who do not have a monetary stake in this to proclaim that she should hold her ground. Wonder how you would feel if it were your property and you faced the decision to either sell at a major profit and relocate your business or risk not having much of a stake should you hold on. This is not her home, this is a place of business that is hardly open to begin with and would not suffer at all if it was moved to another, nerwer, nicer, location.
girliegirl,You were doing fine until that last statement. Speak for yourself as many people are thrilled the area has been revitilized.
Blighted is defined by the State of Tennessee as follows:(a) “Blighted areas” are areas (including slum areas) with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, deleterious land use, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community. "Welfare of the community" does not include solely a loss of property value to surrounding properties nor does it include the need for increased tax revenues.Reference TCA 13-20-201Alright everyone, show that this property is blighted as defined by law.
What about "leasing" the property? Has the developer approached that avenue? What about incorporating the current estabishment within the proposed development? What about buying or leasing the 'air space' above the property and let the business continue 'as is'?
DRAGON - Thank you for the definition. I am quite sure that if that definition was used to 'score' every single property home or business in nashville and then rank based on score, that there would be more than 1/2 the city that would have to be torn down. but that is just my personal opinion.
Dragon, as per former Metro Council Members: When the city voted to stop Metro's right to overtly raise property taxes, they forced Metro to look at other revenue sources, including situations such as these. If the city finds that demolition and revitalization of said property will increase revenues to city coffers, "it's a done deal" much to your disliking. And that could apply ANYWHERE in Metro. Just about the only exception I could come up with at the moment was property deemed of historical significance. Scary, eh? Hell, just drive down any street and you're going to envision a "possible future eminent domain" parcel. We have a revenue shortfall, thanks to oil and economic slowdown, it's going to affect us all, including Ms. Ford.
Producer2 - this ONE peice of property IS NOT keeping the area from being revitalized. The area SHOULD be revitalized, BUT it should be HER decision to revitalize her property or not! The DEVELOPER wants to buy this property, they DO NOT have to have it to make a revitilization impact! MY POINT IS - That OUR GOVERNMENT should not be in the business of 'taking' property from ONE PERSON and hand it over to another just because someone wants to do something different than is being done with the property.
threezero6,But the property was part of the overall picture when it was designated as a blighted area a few years ago. Is it fair to everyone else who moved, or were relocated in order to make this area better to now allow the last person to stay? Also Deja Vu falls into this zone. Are you going to have a problem if they ask them to relocate as well?
The developer should build around and over her property and diminish its value. This woman is crazy not to sell her blighted eyesore property.
The Classic Cat was on 8th...and that property was not used in the Convention Center construction. It is now a Central parking lot I believe.If I have a neighbor who's property is reducing the value of my property I should have some sort of legal recourse in order to stop the bleeding. We live in tight quarters...you must run with the herd or get trampled. If you want to live in a shack then move out into BFE and do it, but here in an urban community you must, to a decent extent, keep up with the Joneses.
For those of you who are unaware what has been going on at this property for the last 10 years, it has been a run down block building largely unused which has been the home of homeless people and is surrounded by barbed wire. It was amusing this weekend watching the crews of people cleaning up around the building, putting up a flag pole and adding plants to make the building look better for their press conference yesterday. There have been millions of dollars invested in the area by the City, developers and businesses to redevelop a blighted and underused area of town. Don't let a little paint and cheap plants influence what has definitely added to the blight of the area for years, Ms. Ford has hidden for long enough, and I am glad that MDHA has stepped in to make her realize what her blighted property has done to hurt the area.
Notwithstanding the fact that the area and this building are not the most attractive OUR GOVERNMENT agency should NOT be in the business of TAKING to one and giving to another! PERIOD! I REMIND you the KELO case in Conn. the DEVELOPER wanted the property and wanted to redevelop it so OUR GOVERNMENT forced the people to sell -- and now. . . THE DEVELOPER did NOT move forward. Alas, even less taxes for the government, an EVEN MORE blighted area. All for what? To have the land sit there for 3 years, blighted, an eyesore! My question to each of you . . . what happens if the Lionstone developer gets the property at the approximate $1 million and they decide the project is NOT viable???
Threezero6, they have signed leases of the space and are ready to start construction. The KELO case involved a large area which was going to be developed over time, not all at once. Here is a link to the actual development of the Pfizer facility which is pumping millions of $$ to the local economy. Of course some of it is sitting vacant, but you can't build a development of this magnitude in a day, but the entire area was needed for the plan...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fort_Trumbull_one.jpg
Then someone else steps in a snatches that property up. That area is booming. Comparing it to KELO is silly.
NEWYORKER1: get with the program . . . "appalled - to overcome with consternation, shock, or dismay" I CANNOT belive you would wish someone would die! Come on!
WOW,I am thinking our normal naysayers are not getting quite the respones they are looking for! Seems there are rational people in Nashville after all...LOL!
producer2 - can you expand on what you mean when you say 'I am thinking our normal naysayers are not getting quite the respones they are looking for! Seems there are rational people in Nashville after all...LOL!" I have only commented on here once before so I am not sure what you are getting at.
Unless people have examined the property & read the eminent domain claim, they cannot have an opinion on this matter. This story is a good springboard for readers to do more work. Of course, THE CITY PAPER could print the eminent domain claim and perform a thorough examination of Joy Ford’s property, but it isn’t required to do so.People seem to voice their prejudices & reactions here, though, without doing the work to form opinions.
Not directed at you threezero6, those folks know who they are. People diagreeing is fine and part of normal discourse. there are a few who only like to post when they feel they are in the majority on the board.Today it seems there are a number of people on both sides of the fence, hence I do not see them posting much.
Nashtransplant - just so i am clear. IF I put together a plan, I include property that I dont own, I get signed leases and committments - then i should expect the government to intervean on my behalf? to force a property owner, who had blighted or ugly propety to sell??? And that is OK? Anywhere in Davidson County? Then why is this not being done on the other side of the river, where the recyceling facility sits? there was a developer, who had a plan, who had signed committments, but the property owner didnt want to sell.
threezero6,See MJB above...
MJB -- All Tennesseans have basic rights that protect their property: the right not to have it taken for private use and the right to speak out against government abuse, without getting sued by the very people whose actions they are protesting.Why am I not informed?I ask you is the property owner breaking any laws? The building is up to codes. The use of the facility is within the Zoning restrictions and requirements. She pays her property taxes and sales taxes. What law is she breaking that affords OUR GOVERNMENT the right to take a property? Then hand over, at a market rate, to another PRIVATE property owner. "The TCA of the term blighted is NOT met. Blighted is defined by the State of Tennessee as follows:(a) “Blighted areas” are areas (including slum areas) with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, deleterious land use, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community. "Welfare of the community" does not include solely a loss of property value to surrounding properties nor does it include the need for increased tax revenues."What about THIS propety is determental to " . . . the safety, health, morals, welfare of the community"???
Kevin07 - she has a right to be irrational. . . that is the point!!! There is NOT a law against IRRATIONALITY. There is not even a law against stupidity, unless you do something that breaks a law.It is so subjective as to whether or not she is rational AND it is subjective as to whether or not she is stupid. Would you or I have sold, maybe, or atleast negotiated a deal that would be lucrative to us. . . . I think most people would. But not EVERYONE. WHY is THIS ONE peice of property STOPPING the DEVELOPMENT?
threezero6,These are your opinions. The area was put into a redevelopment district several years ago and considered blighted. All this was done according to law, not just at a whim. Here is the link to the bill if you want to read it yourself:http://www.nashville.gov/mc/ordinances/term_2007_2011/bl2007_46.html Section C, letter C should be of special interest.
producer2 - yes, these are my opinions regarding whether or not she is irrational or stupid. BUT it is fact that no laws have been broken. It is not my opinion that a property owner has rights as defined by law. In reading the link you posted i didnt find a section C i saw a section 6 - c. ALSO - In 2006 this developer admitted in that it did not need the property in order to build the office building?The law you are referring to is that MDHA is relying on a 1999 “blight” designation to justify its taking of Country International. The Tennessee legislature changed the law in 2006 in the wake of the Kelo ruling to make it more difficult for cities to concoct "blight" designations like this one. MDHA must comply with Tennessee’s NEW eminent domain law; it may not condemn a property by relying on an older and invalid blight designation.
No one said any laws were broken. I am merely pointing out that this entire area INCLUDING Ms. Ford's property was encompasssed in the designation. Now it has come down to just her property left. I think it will be up to the court to decide if MDHA can use it's pre-existing designation or not. I am also curious as to your opinion that the entire area was an invalid blight designation. How was that determined? Again you are correct that Lionstone could build around her. The only problem is she is trying to block them from doing that as well. So what gives her the right to stop development on land she does not own? I applaud your passion for this case, but it does not mean that there is only one side to the story. The only way we know the ending is to watch it play out.
She can, by law, stay (court and Metro Council Members willing) in place while they develop around her, "as long as" they do not interfere with her access to the property. I for one, am willing to donate some landscaping if it will shut up Reba McEntire's mouthpiece that is verbally attacking Ford now. This elitism mentality is not acceptible.
Reba's mouthpiece? Mighty big statement for someone who is claiming elitism. I guess you must run in those circles if that is your observation of Mr. Blackstock? And she can't stay if the courts rule in MDHA's favor. Craddock will talk about anything that gets him headlines, what a joke!
"I think something is mentally wrong with her, so we need to consider that as well. "I agree completely, NY1