Victory for Music Row Entrepreneur Joy Ford In Nashville Eminent Domain Dispute

Ford Keeps Her Building & Gets More Land, Conflict Settled through Private Negotiation, Not Government Force

Institute for Justice, October 1, 2008

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. (link)

Landowner Ford stays put as Music Row standoff ends

By CHAS SISK Staff Writer, The Tennessean, October 2, 2008

A $70 million Music Row project has cleared a major obstacle after the developer and city officials reached a high-profile compromise with landowner Joy Ford on Wednesday that saves her business from the bulldozer.

"I'm so elated this is over," Ford said. "This is not about money and material things. If you spend a day or a hundred years of creating something that rightfully belongs to you, it's wrong for somebody to take it." (link)

Music Row holdout saves her memories

By GAIL KERR, The Tennessean, October 2, 2008

They said she was an obstructionist. Greedy. Stubborn. Stupid. And yes, even the "b" word.
But Joy Ford would not budge. Not because she is any of those things, but because Country International Records, humble and dated as some may see it, is hers.

The saga of big and powerful people trying to take Joy's land is over. The two sides forged a compromise with a simple land trade.

That is good for the developers, good for Music Row and good for Joy Ford. But developers and city officials who help them should walk away from this with a lesson learned: Some people can't be bought. (link)

Comment

Finally this story has come to an end. Joy Ford stays put. Standing up to the city's closing of an alley which made it difficult for tour buses to park behind her building, facing the threat of condemnation, and rejecting large offers of money, Joy Ford refused to budge.

Joy had a lot of help in her David-versus-Goliath battle. Local radio conservative talk show host Phil Valentine took up her cause. The Tennessean, which usually can be counted upon to take a liberal position on any issue, came to the defense of Joy Ford with sympathetic news stories and pro Ford opinion pieces by Gail Kerr. Bloggers and chatters took up her cause. While there was never a public demonstration, if this case would have gone on, I believe a lot of people would have turned out to demonstrate on her behalf. I know, I would have. One organization that received little public mention but that fought her legal battles was The Institute for Justice.
Although this case is over, we should not allow this to happen to anyone else. The right of condemnation should be restricted to a true public purpose. Simply because a property is in the way of a redevelopment plan, the city should not be able to take the land through condemnation. The state legislature needs to redefine what constitutes "blight." In any normal use of the term, Joy Ford's property was not blighted. The Metro Council needs to take away from the Metro Development and Housing Agency the right to exercise eminent domain and all eminent domain condemnations should have to be voted on by the Council.
Ford achieved her victory but is not giving up the fight. She has pledging to work with other property owners and Metro and state legislators to stop eminent domain abuse saying, “I will not rest until eminent domain is stopped being used on behalf of private interests.”

Top Stories

Music Row land grab should be condemned

photo by Jeanne Reasonover/The Tennnessean

Joy Ford pictured above, owner of Country International Records, explains how the city closed a public alley which means her property can no longer accommodate artist tour buses.

by Gail Kerr, The Tennessean, Sunday July 27, 2008

City officials have closed her alley. Her property is barricaded on three sides. But inside the little brown brick building on Music Row, songwriters are still making music under Joy Ford's tutorage.

The Metro Development and Housing Agency is trying to take Ford's business and land. Not for a road or a bridge or some essential service. For a 225,000-square-foot office and retail high-rise for a private out-of-state developer. (link)

Commentary
The city is out to take Joy Ford's property. They have offered her large sums of money, they closed the alley that accesses the back of her property and they have started condemnation proceedings. It is an outrage.

This is an excellent article by Gail Kerr. It not only explains the current circumstances surrounding the effort to take away Joy Ford's property but gives a brief summary of other past cases of government abuse of property owners in Nashville. The article also provides some local flavor. Despite the role of the multinational corporate interest in the music business, there are still many cottage industry players like Joy Ford. Unfortunately, the city fathers are ready to kick the Joy Fords to the curb, take their property, and turn it over to the big developers.

Nashville is still a small town, despite being a big city, so someone will probably send this post to Gail Kerr of the Tennnessean and to Phil Ryan of MDHA. I have known both Gail and Phil for many years, both from the days I was a member of the Metro Council and from my roll in the non-profit housing sector. If anyone is reading this who knows Joy Ford, please send her a copy.

Dear Gail,
This is an excellent article. I always read you columns and enjoy them immensely. I am somewhat critical of the quality of the Tennessean and think that it, like many newspapers across the country, has consistently gotten worse over the years. I think you, however, have emerged as a great writer. I am pleased to see you cover this story. You bring a human element to it. Please continue the coverage and don't let the story die. I give you my "amen."

Dear Phil,
I know you are not a bad person and you are only doing your job, but you disappoint me. I am generally proud of the work that MDHA does. We have had one of the nations few successful HOPE VI programs. We have well-managed public housing. We have had a lot of success in expanding homeownership and affordable housing. Down down development has been impressive. I am especially pleased with the development in the gulch. A lot of the credit for the impressive development of Nashville goes to you and you have a difficult job. However, Phil, you are the bad guy in this. It is simply wrong to take another's property just because you have a better use for it. This little piece of property is not charming, but it is not "blighted." That a big development would increase the tax base is insufficient justification for taking what is not yours. Please back off. Let the development of this area be delayed a few years. Let the development wrap around Ms Fords property. Why? Because as Joy Ford says, "This is America."

Dear Joy,
I don't know you, but I feel like I do. Hang in there. If you have a fund set up to help you with your legal fees, let me know. I will make a small contribution and post the information on this blog. Also, do you have a petition we can sign. Should I contact my Councilman? Please keep me informed. What can I do to help?

Top Stories

Bill Freeman advocates use of eminent domain to take PSC Metals

Bill Freeman just lost another point with me today with a Facebook post in which he says he would use eminent domain to take PSC Metals property for redevelopment.

Eminent domain is the government taking of ones property for a public use.  Traditionally "public use" meant taking a property to build a road or a school or some such use. Starting in the 50's with urban development government began taking property to clear blight. Now "public use" means we don't like what you are doing with your property and we will take it away form you and give it to someone else who will do something better with it.

One of the most egregious examples of abuse of eminent domain in Nashville is the city taking hundreds of acres west of Vanderbilt University sometime in the 60's and giving it to Vanderbilt. Hundreds of people were forced out of their homes and much of the land still sits vacant or used for surface parking. A heroine of the decade-long fight against that condemnation was Fannie Mae Dees who the city named a park after. Many people call that park "the dragon park," but the name of the park is "Fannie Mae Dees."

Another high profile fight over condemnation, in which the city lost, was downtown on Church St. It was sometime in the 80's and I was serving in the council at the time. 

The city wanted to take the property across from the downtown Presbyterian Church for Third National Bank to build a large bank office building. One of the owner's of a piece of property did not want to sell.  This lingered for months in the council and the council was almost evenly split as I recall. The developer redrew their plans as to be able to build their building without taking that particular piece of property and also they offered a much higher price than was originally offered for the property and the owner voluntarily sold. I think that is one of the nicest large building downtown and it was one of the first tall buildings build downtown. The architecture pics up some Egyptian design elements inspired by the historic church across the street and the gabled top of the building reflects the Ryman auditorium design. I would prefer however that the building never be build than to abuse eminent domain to build it.

Another high profile local eminent domain case occurred across from Farmers Market when MDHA took Eaton Auto Village property to build some low-income housing. These low-income units are now selling for around $250,000 each. Eaton lost that battle as I recall, but he fought long and hard against MHDA instead of just rolling over. He ended up getting considerably more for his property than what the city offered him by holding condemnation over his head.  Kenneth Eaton is a candidate for Mayor.

Another local case, this one getting national attention, was the case of Joy Ford. Ms Ford was a long time music business entrepreneur. The city wanted to take part of her property and transfer it to a big developer to build on. She would not sell. The city retaliated by closing an alley which denied tour busses access to her parking lot. The Institute for Justice came to her aid and fought on her behalf and Gail Kerr, now deceased Tennessean newspaper columnist, exposed the injustice and took up her cause. Eventually MDHA and Ms Ford worked out an arrangement where she swapped a part of a parking lot on one side of her building for a parking lot on the other side of her building and she was allowed to stay. (For more about Joy Ford)

Stories like that of Fannie Mae Dees or Joy Ford may hit a responsive cord with the public because they have a David vs Goliath feature of the little person standing up to powerful abusive government, but to take someone's land against their wishes in order to transfer it to a developer to build upon it just as wrong if we are talking about Joy Ford or PSC metals.

PSC Metals is that ugly pile of scape metal on the east side of downtown, inside the I-24/I-65 loop just on the south side of Korean Veterans Blvd, south of the Titan's stadium. It sits on 55 acres of prime real estate. I admit it is an eyesore. It provides a valuable function however in recycling middle Tennessee's junk cars and appliances and is one of PSC's most profitable sites. To relocate, PSC would have to have a comparable site with rail, interstate and barge access.  That might not be easy to find. Other mayors have tried to get PSC to relocate for decades but without success and without resorting to eminent domain.

The advocacy of using eminent domain to take a piece of property to turn it over to developers has made Bill Freeman, almost out of the running for someone I could support for mayor. The reason I say "almost" is because it seems like when one candidate takes a position all the others line up and say "me too." From continuing to subsidize General Hospital, to advocating home price-fixing called "inclusionary zoning," to eagerly wanted to be the first mayor to perform a gay wedding in the court house, all the major candidates have the same position.  Megan Barry and Howard Gentry are already out of the running as far as getting my vote.  Megan Barry because of her progressive voting record in the Metro Council and Howard Gentry because he thinks the Music City Star is a model of how we ought to pursue developing mass transit.

If the other candidates step forward and say they also would use eminent domain to take PSC metals, then they will have follow to the level of Bill Freeman and Freeman will again be in the running to get my vote.  I am waiting and I am hoping a candidate will disagree with Freeman and say it is wrong to take a person's property just because it is ugly and someone else can develop it to a higher use and a use that will generate more tax revenue. If a candidate said that, that would likely be the candidate I would support for mayor.

Top Stories

Please support the Institute for Justice

From time to time I make modest financial contributions to organizations and candidates I believe in. One of those organizations I support is the Institute for Justice. They litigate for the cause of liberty in four primary areas: economic liberty, property rights, political and commercial speech, and school choice.

Cases they have taken on range from defending homeschoolers  to hair braiders. I know of two occasions were they have been active in Nashville defending the little guy against local government tyranny.

One, is the case of Joy Ford from 2008. Ms Ford who had a long career in the music business owned a small piece of land on music row. The neat but simple brick building housing County International Records was located in the middle of a redevelopment district. MDHA sought to acquire the Ford’s property on behalf of the developer who planed a $70 million office tower on the adjacent property. Ms Ford did not want to sell, so the city closed an alley behind her property so tour buses could not access her property. She still did not break, so MDHA deemed her property “blighted” and tried  to take the property by eminent domain condemnation.  The Tennessean's Gail Kerr brought attention to this case as well as radio personality Phil Valentine. The Institute for Justice stepped in and represented Joy Ford in Court and slowed the condemnation process. MDHA then offered a land swap. Ms Ford got to keep her building and swapped part of her parking lot for parking on the other side of the building.  Had it not been for IJ, MDHA would have taken her land by eminent domain.  For more on this story, follow this link.

The other Nashville case in which IJ was involved was that of Metro Livery. In 2009, a new service which has since come to be called "Black Cars" made there appearance in Nashville.  This new type service was introduced to our city by a Pakistani immigrant named Ali Bokhari. For as little as $25 his company offered luxury rides from the Air Port to downtown.  These plain large vehicles such as Crown Ford Victoria's or other large luxury cars were much nicer than a taxi but not ostentatious like a stretch limousine and they were driven by driver wearing suits. The established limo companies made an all out effort to drive him out of business. The city's Transportation Licensing Commission had inspectors exercising police power illegally.  The inspectors for the Metro Transposition Incensing Commission harassed drivers for Metro livery.  Eventually the police chief intervened and forced the MTLC to cease illegally acting as law enforcement agents. 

In June 2010, the council passed a limousine price-fixing bill that protected the big limo companies from competition. The ordinance imposed a minimum $45 fee for limo services, it prohibited the use of leased vehicles, and imposed vehicle age and mileage restrictions. And while customers of Metro Livery called for a Black Car by calling the driver's on his cell phone, this new ordinance required vehicles be dispatched from a central location. They also prohibited drivers from serving more than one car an hour and mandated a minimum of a 15 wait for a vehicle. Metro Livery fought back. This fight went on and on for years.  Institute for Justice joined in the case and litigated on behalf of Metro Livery and other Black Car drivers who had started providing the same service.  Eventually IJ lost in court, but Metro failed in an effort to get the case thrown out and it went to trail.

The delay in allowing Metro to force Metro Livery out of business eventually resulted in publicity for Metro Livery and victory.  The case was picked up nationally by John Stossell and George Will and others and as more people began using the service, the city realized it would be difficult to kill this service and then with the appearance of services like Uber and Lyft making a Nashville appearance, the council rewrote the law that they had passed which was designed to force Metro Livery out of business. Most likely if not for IJ's intervention, Metro would have succeeded in driving this company out of business and keeping Uber and Lyft from entering the Nashville market. I have blogged about this case numerous time, if interested in learning more, follow this link.

These are two examples were the Institute for Justice fought for the little guy against the city of Nashville and justice was served.  They are doing this all across the country when cities want to ban alternative transportation or food trucks or  hair braiding or unjustly take property by eminent domain or only want caskets to be permitted to be sold by funeral homes or restrict home schooling and various other  infringements on economic liberty and free speech.

If you are in the giving mood this Christmas season, I know of no organization more deserving of support than the Institute for Justice. You can donate at this secure link.

Below is IJ' solicitation to me: 

Dear Mr. Williams.

As 2014 draws to a close, I hope you will consider renewing your support of the Institute for Justice.  With 51 active cases in 26 different states and the District of Columbia, IJ is The National Law Firm for Liberty.  Please renew your support now to help us make even greater gains for liberty in 2015.

Generous donors like you enable IJ to fight for everyday heroes who choose to stand up to government bullies and oppression rather than take the easy way out.  Here are just a few of the victories your past support has made possible this year:

• Tens of thousands of mom-and-pop tax preparers can continue to run their small businesses without fear of unconstitutional licensing requirements from the IRS.
• More than 1,800 children in North Carolina are able to attend the school that best meets their needs, despite multiple attempts of the teachers’ unions to revoke their scholarships.   
• People in Arizona can now speak freely about important political issues without first having to register with the government.
• Transportation entrepreneurs in Milwaukee are now free to start their own taxi companies and pursue their American Dream.

The stakes for liberty are high and impact the lives of all Americans.  In the coming year, we must, and will, bring our best efforts to bear as we defend the Constitution.  If your check is already in the mail, please pardon the reminder.  If not, then please visit www.ij.org/donate to renew your support today.

Thank you for making our work possible.  I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Chip

Top Stories

Nashville Showdown Over Eminent Domain Avoided

It looks like a showdown over eminent domain in Nashville has been avoided and the Lionstone Development will go forward and Joy Ford will get to keep her property. Under a new proposal by Metro Development and Housing Agency (MDHA) and Houston-based developer The Lionstone Group, Lionstone would purchase a portion of the parking lot that surrounds Ms Ford’s office. Ford would be able to continue operating Country International Records at its current location.

Previously, MDHA had deemed the property “blighted” and was intending to take the property by eminent domain condemnation. The neat but simple brick building housing County International Records is located in the middle of a redevelopment district. MDHA had sought to acquire the Ford’s property on behalf of the developer who is planning a $70 million office tower on the adjacent property. Previously MDHA had taken the position that the development could not occur unless Ms Ford’s property was acquired. Ms Ford did not want to sell, so the city was going to use the power of eminent domain to take her property.

The Tennessean had editorialized against the proposed condemnation and talk show callers and Internet chatters had condemned the condemnation. Several Metro Council members said they were considering proposing legislation that would block the eminent domain action.

It looks like MDHA saw they were likely to lose and backed down, and what do you know? The development can occur without using the iron fist of government to take someone’s property.

To read more about this case, click the label “Joy Ford” in the sidebar to the left.

Top Stories

Homeowners Notch Win in Long-Running Battle Over Eminent Domain

Pamela A. MacLean, Law.com, 08-11-2008

A New Jersey appellate court handed a victory to homeowners in a long-running eminent domain dispute with the city of Long Branch, N.J., finding no actual blight in an area set for condemnation and redevelopment.

The case by a group of long-term residents of the coastal strip drew the attention of land use specialists and landowner rights advocates from around the country in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 decision allowing cities to use eminent domain to take "blighted" land from one private owner to give to another for development. (link)

Commentary
I realize that if a similar case went to trial in Nashville, it would have to be decided by defining "blight" under Tennessee law. I am not a lawyer and do not know how such a suit would turn out. However, I would be very surprised if Joy Ford's modest neat brick one story building could be found to be blighted under any rational definition of the term. I would be surprised if Tennessee defines blight less restrictively than New Jersey.
It appear that the Joy Ford case is going to be solved. The developer and MDHA decided they did not have to take her property in order to go forward with the proposed development after all. They have offered her a large sum of money for a portion of her parking. This however is still a case of negotiating while some one has a gun to your head. Joy will probably decide to accept the lucrative offer rather than fight a costly court battle. I don't blame her. However, I would like to have seen this go to court. Property should not be considered "blighted" just because someone else has a better use for the property. Property owners should be able to be secure in knowing that they have a right to their property.
While it appears that eminent domain condemnation was avoided in the case of Joy Ford, the right of the government to take your property on behalf of a developer is secure. Citizens in redevelopment zones must still negotiate with potential buyers while the government holds a gun to their head.

Top Stories

Court Breaks Open Milwaukee’s Taxi Cartel

Engaged Judge Rules That City Cannot Pass Laws Simply to Protect Industry Insiders

Milwaukee, Wis.—In a resounding victory for economic liberty, today Judge Jane Carroll of the
Milwaukee Circuit Court struck down the city’s taxicab law that outlawed competition in the taxi market.  The law, implemented by the city in 1991, caused the price of a taxi permit to rise from $85 to over $150,000.  Judge Carroll ruled from the bench shortly after listening to arguments in a lawsuit brought by three local taxi drivers and the Institute for Justice (IJ), the national law firm for liberty.

“Thanks to today’s victory, the city’s 20-year taxi monopoly is broken,” said IJ Attorney Anthony Sanders.  IJ filed suit against the city in September 2011 on behalf of three local taxi drivers.  “The court found that in 1991 the city purposely created an unconstitutional taxi system where only the privileged few would benefit and competition would be outlawed.”

Judge Carroll found that both of the arguments the city provided for the law were illegitimate.  The city argued that officials did not want to hold an annual meeting on the issue of taxicabs.  But the judge ruled that public servants cannot write laws that simply save themselves from the trouble of going to a meeting.  The city also argued that limited competition would make taxi owners more professional.  Judge Carroll rejected that argument as well, saying that all the city did was provide a windfall for those who happened to have cabs in 1991.

One of the taxi owners who testified in support of the law in 1991 said his business would be worth more without having to face competition, and with the law in place he could profit enough to retire some place warm.  But today Judge Carroll said that the government cannot pass laws simply to help politically favored businessmen retire to Florida.

“Today’s ruling is a textbook example of judicial engagement,” said IJ attorney Katelynn McBride.  “The judge looked at the facts of this case and rejected the city’s bogus arguments, revealing the real reason this law was passed:  to protect the politically powerful at the expense of everyone else.  The judge ruled that economic protectionism is not a constitutional use of government power.”

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel already declared today’s ruling a “significant legal victory.”  The paper has editorialized that “Milwaukee’s cap on taxicab permits makes little sense.  The city needs more transportation options, and cabs should be one of them. . . . Lift the cap, and let the market decide.”  Likewise, the Financial Times of London featured the Milwaukee taxi system in an article on economic protectionism, calling it a “visible and easy-to-measure example” of a “minor evil” that allows “some to grow rich at the expense of others.”

“I now believe in the American judicial system,” said Milwaukee taxi driver and IJ client Ghaleb Ibrahim. “During the course of this lawsuit, I was fired because the owner of my cab did not like me standing up for my rights.  Thanks to today’s ruling, I now have the freedom to own my own taxicab.  That’s exactly what I’m going to do.”

The Institute for Justice has helped open taxi markets in Denver, Indianapolis, Cincinnati and Minneapolis and for more than 20 years has been the nation’s leading legal advocate for the rights of entrepreneurs.  For more on the lawsuit to open Milwaukee’s taxi market, visit www.ij.org/MKETaxis.

My Comment
The Institute for Justice is one of the organizations that I support with my civic giving. They have been active in Nashville, in stopping eminent domain condemnation to benefit a private developer in the case of Joy Ford and in attempting to overturn Metro's limousine price fixing scheme. They prevailed in stopping the illegal condemnation of Joy Ford's property. Unfortunately they were not successful in overturning Metro's limo price fixing policy but they fought the battle up through the district court.  IJ is winning battles for economic freedom around the country.

It is my hope that the next time we have a Council election that we elect council members who support fair play and economic liberty and will overturn our price fixing regulation and will take away from MDHA the power to condemn property.  I would hope that we would elect council member who oppose crony capitalism and price fixing and who believe it is wrong to take one person's property to benefit another person.  If we had the people with the right values in our Council we would not need to turn to the courts to establish justice. To read more about these issues follow these links: "Eminent Domain,"  "Joy Ford," and "Limo price fixing."

Top Stories

Federal Court Rule in Middle TN Barring Lawyers from Speaking Publicly on Cases Scrapped in Victory for Free Speech

Daniel Horwitz

Key Points

•  A rule in the Middle Tennessee’s federal district court that prevented public speech from lawyers on their cases was lifted on May 15.
•  The rule was central to a lawsuit filed by local attorney Daniel Horwitz in 2024 after he was barred from speaking publicly about his cases against CoreCivic, the private prison company.

by Rod Williams, May 20, 2025- To read the full Tennessean story follow this link.

Daniel Horwitz is a local attorney who has been involved in several civil liberties cases in Nashville over the years, taking on big government's trampling of free speech rights and the imposition of bureaucratic policies that curtail liberties.  

I became acquainted with Horwitz back in about 2012 when he advocated for the right of a company to provide ridesharing service. This was before Uber was a thing, and the city was committed to protecting taxi companies from competition.  For more on that effort read  The indefensible public policy of shielding big taxi companies from competition, by Horwitz. I reported on developments in that fight extensively on this blog

In this current victory overturning a rule that curtailed the free speech rights of attorneys, Horwitz was represented by the Institute for Justice. The Institute for Justice is a non-profit civil liberties organization. They have been involved in several high-profile cases here in Nashville over the years. They were involved in the ridesharing case mentioned above. 

You may be familiar with the case Joy Ford. Joy Ford owned a small recording studio in the Music Row area and the city tried for years to take her property by imminent domain and sell the property to her bigger neighbor. Eventually Ford won. She was represented by The Institute for Justice.

Institute for Justice is one of the organizations I support with my charitable giving. To learn more about the organization, follow this link. Daniel Horwitz blogs Supreme Court of Tennessee Blog.

A big congratulations to Daniel Horwitz and The Institute for Justice. 

Top Stories

Eminent domain vs. property rights

City is being used for private profit

By COUNCILMAN MICHAEL CRADDOCK, The Tennessean, July 31, 2008

Twenty-three Music Circle E. is a very small parcel of real estate that is owned by Mrs. Joy Ford, a country music songwriter and producer. Her name is on the deed.

I am sure that as I write this article, Mrs. Ford feels like her world is crumbling around her. After all, she is being forced to defend her private property rights against the 800-pound gorilla commonly known as the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. (link)


It's not always about money; it is about respect for ownership

Our View, The Tennessean, July 31, 2008

Nashville's Music Row was once a place where individualism was valued.

Large record labels have always been an important part of the Row, it's true, but they co-existed with small publishers and other cottage industries, all taking their chances at success.
The Row, and Nashville as a whole, could lose that reputation if the Metro Development and Housing Authority is allowed to seize a small-business owner's property to be handed over to a large commercial development.

In June, MDHA sought Circuit Court approval to declare Joy Ford's building at 23 Music Circle E. "blighted," which would enable the agency to claim the property under a redevelopment district set up in 1999. (link)

Comment: The entire Opinion Page of today's Tennessean is devoted to this topic. At the same link as listed above, you can also find the article "Such districts save Nashville from decay" by MDHA's Phil Ryan, and "Lionstone project will bring jobs, revenue city needs" by Lionstone's Doug McKinnon. Both make the case in defense of condemnation.

I am pleased and pleasantly surprised to see The Tennessean take such a bold stand for private, property rights. Often The Tennessean seems to me to be wishy-washy and moderately liberal, sort of the local version of USA Today. In this case however, The Tennessean has taken a strong position and one with which I happen to agree. In their editorial, they stated "There are limits to what urban redevelopment should do, and taking someone's property against their will for purposes that are not expressly for the public good is simply going too far." Congratulations to The Tennessean!

Congratulations, also, to Councilman Michael Craddock for showing leadership on this issue.

The fight is not over. Maybe justice will prevail. What can we do to help?

Top Stories

Repeal of Limo Price Fixing on Metro Council Agenda.

Davette Blalock

On Tuesday, January 17th the Metro Council will consider on second reading ORDINANCE NO. BL2011-49 sponsored by Council Member Davette Blalock. This bill would remove the price fixing regulation of limousine service that is currently in the Metro Code.

Background: 
In June 2010, the council enacted Ordinance No. BL2010-685, a limousine price-fixing bill that protected the big limo companies from competition. That ordinance imposed a minimum $45 fee for limo services, it prohibited the use of leased vehicles, and imposed age and mileage restrictions. All of these provision were designed to protect the luxury established limo companies from competition. Economy limo companies were providing limo service for a little as $25 and were cutting into the business of the established limo companies.

When learning that Metro had passed such a bill in June 2010, I was appalled that not a single member of the Metro Council opposed it, even the conservative members of the Council who I would assume claim to be champions of limited government and free enterprise. To their credit a couple members,  Councilman Eric Crafton and Councilman Sean McGuire attempted to repeal the price fixing bill but were unsuccessful. Several Council Members told me that when the bill was presented to them, they really did not know what it did and were led to believe that it had the support of the industry. That is not a good excuse; they should have read the bill. Now, the Council has the chance to do the right thing and correct a grave error.

What the Proposed Bill would do:

This proposed ordinance would remove the current $45 minimum fee that livery vehicles are required to charge. It would amend the permit process so that the applicant for the permit is not required to hold the title to the vehicle in order to obtain a permit. In other words, it would allow for the use of leased vehicles and would allow the driver of a vehicle to own his vehicle and work for a company that has the permits.  A third provision of this ordinance adjusts the minimum mileage requirements and maximum age requirements for vehicles used as a passenger vehicle for hire.  Effective January 1, 2012, under the current code, a vehicle could not begin service if it is more than five years old and vehicles could not remain in service if they are more than seven or ten years old, depending on the category of the vehicle. This ordinance would remove the age limitation and rely solely upon the mileage limitation currently in the code. Under this limitation, vehicles cannot exceed 350,000 miles on their odometer. Also, the ordinance adds a specific minimum time requirement of fifteen minutes for pre-arrangement of services.

Metro is being sued over this issue. 

Metro Government is currently being sued by the economy limo companies, being represented by the Institute for Justice,  a nationally acclaimed libertarian, civil liberties, public interest law firm, You may know IJ from their fight against the city a few years ago when they representing Joy Ford . MDHA was going to take her property near Music Row by eminent domain and sell it to a big company for what MDHA considered a better use. Joy Ford did not want to sell. Finally she won, but had it not been for IJ, the city would have taken her property by force.

Now, IJ is suing the city on behalf of the econo limo companies alleging that the various restrictions in BL2010-865 are unconstitutionally arbitrary and are irrational regulations designed to eliminate competition. The challenged regulations are the minimum fee, the requirement that businesses must hold title to the vehicles, the requirement that they dispatch solely from their place of business, and the minimum age requirement, which the proposed bill would fix. If Metro does not pass the pending bill before it, I suspect the IJ will prevail in court. However, by the time it gets to court the econo limo providers will have had to stop providing limo service and most likely will have gone broke. Often justice delayed is justice denied.


Is this a perfect bill? 
No, it is not.  Other than a liability insurance requirements and some safety regulations and licensing, I would like to see all economic regulation of transportation removed including restrictions on entry into the market. I do not think Metro should be in the business of restricting competition in limos, buses, or taxis. However, a general deregulation is not going to occur immediately and the immediate issue of limousine price fixing should not be deferred because we can't get total economic deregulation. It would be foolish to make the perfect the enemy of the good.


There are three provisions of the existing limousine pricing fixing Metro code or proposals in the bill under consideration that do not adequately addressed the issue of over regulation.

•  The 350,000 mile limit: Under this proposed bill the limitation that vehicles cannot exceed 350,000 miles on their odometer should be removed. This will not likely effect many, if any vehicles, so why even have it in the code.  Anyway, by the time a vehicle has 350,000 miles on the odometer it may have a new transmission, a new engine, and all new components. A well maintained and repaired vehicle could be a mostly new by the time the odometer reaches 350,000 miles. Let the vehicle owner decide when it is time to replace the vehicle as long as the vehicle meets safety requirements. The following two restrictions are more serious are unnecessary and add inconvenience and cost to limousine operations.

•  The 15 minute wait: Under this proposed bill, once a customer calls for a limo, at least fifteen minutes must lapse between the request for the limo and getting in the limo. Why? If someone is already late for the airport, maybe because a cab has stood them up or whatever, why make them wait another 15 minutes if the limo is already at the same hotel dropping off another guest?

• Only one customer per hour. There is a provision is the code that says a limo must be engaged for a minimum of one hour. What is the logic of that? If someone takes a limo from the airport to a downtown hotel, on a good day, that may only be a 20 minute ride. Why make the limo set idle for another 40 minutes?

While this bill is not perfect, it addresses the most odious provisions of the current limo price fixing code provision.  I would hope that the three issue above could be addressed but even if they are not, what is proposed in a hundred times better than the current code. I hope no one will vote against the current bill because it is less than perfect but I hope they will try to amend it to improve it.

Please Contact your Council Member:
I know their has been a lot of maneuvering to influence the council on this issue. The established limo companies wanting to keep their market share have lobbied the council hard to maintain the status quo. The have hired former Councilman Jami Hollin to lobby the Council.  Some important metro figures have family connections to the luxury limo business. I hope the Council will do the moral think and vote against crony capitalism and vote for free markets.

Please call or write your councilman and all of the council members at Large and urge them to support BL2011-49. To get contact information for your councilman, follow this link.

I have covered this issue extensively on this blog. To see video, other articles, and learn more, follow this  link.

Top Stories

Amend the Metro Charter to Protect Private Property Rights

by Jim Gotto

One of the unique characteristics of the United States that has set it apart from other countries is the right of individual citizens to own property. Generally referred to as property rights, this freedom that we have has been a significant contributor to successful entrepreneurship and the resulting strong private economy that exists in the United States. We enjoy the highest standard of living in the world, due in no small part to property rights.

One of the enemies to individual property rights is the abuse of eminent domain by the government or its agents. The use of eminent domain should be limited to only those projects that are absolutely necessary for government to fulfill its purposes. The purposes of government have and continue to be a much debated subject. I do not wish to engage in that discussion at this time but I am of the opinion that the delegation of eminent domain decisions to a bureaucratic agency is outside what can reasonably be considered under the umbrella of the purposes of government.

In the past, The Mayor and Metro Council have done just that by legislating redevelopment districts and in that legislation delegated the authority to obtain a private citizens property through condemnation. The agency that has been the beneficiary of this power is the Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency (MDHA). The only restraint placed on MDHA is to determine if the property is “blighted”.

Consider the recent case of Joy Ford. Ms Ford owns a business that is within the footprint of the Gulch Redevelopment District. MDHA through a subjective decision making process declared her property blighted and undertook proceedings to obtain it through eminent domain against Ms Ford’s wishes. The purpose of this property seizure was to pass it on to Lionstone Group, a private developer.

It was only after public pressure was exerted as a result of the involvement of some Metro Council members and the press that MDHA relented and Ms Ford prevailed. However, there was nothing that the Council could do in a timely manner to stop the proceedings because MDHA had been previously granted eminent domain authority through the legislation that established the Gulch Redevelopment District. Had MDHA continued, the final decision would have been up to the courts and I do not believe that eminent domain cases devoid of elected officials’ control on a case by case basis should be settled in this manner.

The only effective way to insure that elected officials in Davidson County retain the absolute authority to make eminent domain decisions is to amend the Metro Charter. An easier course would be to pass legislation to this end. However, any new law could be nullified by future legislation. Amending the Charter to specify that all eminent decisions must come to the Council for a vote on a case by case basis is the only way to preserve the Metro Council’s authority to oversee and protect the property rights of the citizens of Davidson County.

Jim Gotto is a Metro Councilman representing Council District 12. The proposed charter amendment, sponsored by Jim Gotto, to require that all eminent domain decisions must come to the Metro Council for a vote on a case by case basis will be on the November ballot. Gotto is a candidate seeking the District 60 House seat.

Top Stories

Gail Kerr, RIP. Dead at age 52.

Long time Tennessean columnist Gail Kerr passed away today at the age of 52 from a blood clot. She was battling cancer.

I did not always agree with Gail, but then again I don't always agree with anyone. Actually, I found myself agreeing with her about as often as I disagreed with her.  Even when I disagreed with her, I usually thought she was fair in her reporting. Any one-sided reporting came from her liberal biases and not understanding the other side or thinking it valid; not malice or ill will. She was liberal but not a dogmatic ideologue and she had a sense of fairness. She never seemed like she had an axe to grind.

She seemed to generally approve of large government projects and was not one focused on ferreting out waste and corruptions but she had a basic sense of fairness and justice.  She looked at the abuses going on at NES and wrote that, Audit of NES shows an outrageous lack of ethics. She could be outraged by unethical behavior.

When UT gave a golden parachute to a fired UT President she wrote an excellent article detailing the history of previous UT presidents who also were fired or forced out and how they also got golden parachutes. "Giving John Petersen almost 16 months of pay to do nothing is shameful", she wrote.  "It is an insult to every hard-working Tennessee taxpayer who is struggling to make ends meet right now."

I recently took her to task for her assertion that somehow for-profit ran charter schools would be immortal. She said we should not allow companies to make a buck off the backs of Tennessee school kids. I said we should. (link) Like many liberals she was not comfortable with the idea of companies making a profit off of delivering an essential service and thought government was superior to markets.

Sometimes, however, Gail surprised me.  Back in 2012 she wrote  It's way past time for change at Nashville General. I was surprised. General has long been a massive drain on the local treasure and few liberals reached the conclusion we should cut it lose. Gail was a pragmatic liberal who was not afraid to come to a conclusion that ran counter to liberal orthodoxy.

One of her best moments was back in 2008 when the city was attempting to take the property of  Joy Ford by condemnation. Gail did a profile of Ms Ford and took her side in the fight writing, "The Metro Development and Housing Agency is trying to take Ford's business and land. Not for a road or a bridge or some essential service. For a 225,000-square-foot office and retail high-rise for a private out-of-state developer."  That issue found her on the side of organizations such as the Institute for Justice and conservative and libertarian activist.

Gail covered the Metro Council during the time I was in the Council so I sort of felt like I got to know her. She started at The Tennessean in 1978, which was only a year or so after I moved to Nashville, so I have been reading Gail Kerr (then Gail McKnight, I believe it was) for 36 years. She has become a fixture of my life. She was like a neighbor or a familiar land mark. She will be missed. Rest in Peace.

Top Stories

Metro Council votes to continue abuse of Eminent Domain

Last month the Metro Council took a strong stand against private property rights and voted to continue the abuse of Eminent Domain.

Council Jim Gotto was the sponsor of a proposed charter amendment that would have taken the power of eminent domain away from agencies such as MDHA and reserved the power of eminent domain to the Metro Council. Now, several agencies of Metro Government can condemn property without the condemnation ever going before the Metro Council. In the past, private property has often been condemned to benefit private institutions or developers. In making his case for the charter amendment, Gotto argued, "The use of eminent domain should be limited to only those projects that are absolutely necessary for government to fulfill its purposes."

Gotto recalled the abuse of eminent domain in the recent case of Joy Ford: "Ms Ford owns a business that is within the footprint of the Gulch Redevelopment District. MDHA through a subjective decision making process declared her property blighted and undertook proceedings to obtain it through eminent domain against Ms Ford’s wishes. The purpose of this property seizure was to pass it on to Lionstone Group, a private developer." (link)

Unfortunately, most council members did not agree with Mr. Gotto. Next time Metro Council elections roll around we should remember this and hold accountable those councilmen who voted against private property rights. Candidates running for office should have to declare how they stand on this issues. Only candidates who support private property rights should be elected or reelected to the Metro Council. There are very few clear cut issue that come before the council that reflect an ideological choice. Often reasonable people can disagree about issues before the council. In my view, this is not one of those issues. Anyone who voted against this proposed charter amendment does not deserve to be reelected.

A Good Dozen

God Bless Jim Gotto and the eleven other Council Members who voted with him. Those voting in favor of the proposed charter amendment were:

• Frank Harrison (District 2),
• Walter Hunt (District 3),
• Michael Craddock (District 4),
• Jamie Hollin (District 5),
• Karen Bennett (District 8) ,
• Jim Gotto (District 12),
• Bruce Stanley (District 14) ,
• Phil Claiborne (District 15),
• Eric Crafton (District 22),
• Randy Foster (District 27),
• Duane Dominy (District 28),
• Vivian Wilhoite (District 29).

Those opposing the reform charter amendment

• Tim Garrett (At-large),
• Megan Barry (At-large),
• Jerry Maynard (At-large,
• Mike Jameson (District 6),
• Erik Cole (District 7),
• Jim Forkum (District 9),
• Rip Ryman (District 10),
• Darren Jernigan (District 11),
• Anna Page (District 16) ,
• Sandra Moore (District 17),
• Kristine LaLonde (District 18),
• Erica Gilmore (District 19),
• Buddy Baker (District 20),
• Edith Taylor Langster (District 21),
• Jason Holleman (District 20),
• Sean McGuire (District 25),
• Greg Adkins (District 26),
• Jim Hodge (District 30),
• Parker Toler (District 31),
• Carter Todd (District 34),
• Bo Mitchell (District 35).

Other members were absent from this special called session of the Metro Council. To read the proposed charter amendment follow this link: RESOLUTION NO. RS2008-431

Top Stories

Deja Vu All Over Again -- Eminent Domain And The Music Circle Case

by Gene Hawkins

Over on Music Circle, there’s some disharmony. A big developer from Houston, Lionstone, wants to build something. It promises to be a great asset for the city. But there’s a little problem. Lionstone doesn’t own all the land they need. Ms Joy Ford of Country International Records owns a crucial parcel, and she doesn’t want to sell it.

In response, Lionstone has requested that the city of Nashville use their power of eminent domain. They want Metro to seize Ms Ford’s property (with compensation, of course) and turn it over to them. In order words, take property from one private owner, and cede it to another private owner, because they can build something bigger and grander on it.

To Nashvillians of a certain vintage, this has a familiar ring. As the ever eloquent Yogi Berra once said, it’s “deja vu all over again.” A quarter century ago, another big developer from Houston asked Nashville to do exactly the same thing.

The Houston firm in that case was named Murphee. Back in the early eighties, they wanted to erect a new skyscraper on Church Street. It was to house the headquarters of Third National Bank, and promised to be the tallest building in Nashville.

But Murphee had the same problem then that Lionstone is facing now. There was one parcel of land they hadn’t been able to acquire. That parcel was occupied by a men’s clothing store, Petway Reavis. Its owner refused to sell it. And it stood squarely front and center of the proposed Third National tower.

When they were unable to purchase the property, Murphee asked the city of Nashville to use their power of eminent domain, seize it, and turn it over to them. Sound familiar? Deja vu all over again.

The Murphee/Third National case wound up in the Metro Council. After much debate and discussion, the Council determined that this was not an appropriate use of eminent domain. To its credit, the Council said no.

Having been turned down by the city, Murphee redesigned their building to wrap around the holdout parcel. By this time the property owner relented and decided to sell after all. But the revised design was judged better than the original, and the developer stuck with it.

And that is why the big building at Church and Fifth (now the Fifth Third Center) is built in a U-shape.

Now fast forward a quarter century. Another Houston developer is asking the city of Nashville to do exactly the same thing. There’s an additional wrinkle this time. A few years ago a developer wanted the city of New London Connecticut to seize property for a private development there. There were lawsuits, and the case made it to the US Supreme Court. In its 2005 Kelo ruling, the Court gave its Supreme blessing to this use (or misuse) of eminent domain.

To some people, this seemed Robin Hood in Reverse -- take from the poor, and give to the rich. Some people might also say this is just orthodox Republican theology. But rightly or wrongly, there is now a legal precedent for Lionstone’s request.

So in 2008, Metro has a tough decision to make. Is seizure of private property an appropriate use of eminent domain, when the property is ceded to another private entity for a larger development? A quarter century ago, the Council showed courage when they said no to this question. It will be interesting to see what happens in the current case. Will Metro’s decision, like the case itself, be deja vu all over again?

Guest blogger Gene Hawkins is a longtime resident of Nashville's Woodbine community. He's retired from the Air Guard base at Berry Field, and more recently has worked at the Bike Pedlar bicycle shop in Hermitage.

Top Stories

(Part 1) What happened at the Council meeting on 5-15-2018: Donelson Transit-Oriented Redevelopment Plan deferred.

At over three hours long, this is a long meeting. If you are going to watch it, it helps to know what is going on. To access an agenda, the staff agenda analysis and my commentary on the agenda follow this link.

Since this is a long meeting, I am breaking this report into two parts. This first part primarily concerns the public hearing on the Donelson Transit-Oriented Redevelopment Plan. While this plan may not be of interest to everyone, this is a big deal.

All mayoral appointees to Boards and Commissions are approved without dissent. There were several appointees to the Human Relations Commission on the agenda.

Public Hearing on the Donelson Transit-Oriented Redevelopment Plan (Substitute BL2018-1139).

A new authority has been given to cities by the State to plan, facilitate and guide develop around

transit stops to encourage a certain kind of development around those stops and to give cities the authority to issue Tax Increment Financing bonds for improvements in the designated area. This would be the first time this authority has been used. The Donelson plan will likely be the template for when this is tool is used again, so it is important that the Council get it right.

This designation as a transit-oriented redevelopment district  would apply to the area around the Donelson stop on The Nashville Star line. This plan sits development guidelines and does a lot of different things. There is a lot of detail in the staff analysis for those who want to know more.

The plan sits aside $10 million in TIF funding for affordable housing. TIF stand for Tax Increment Financing and is the type of financing that has funded much of the gulch development and downtown. Under TIF, instead of the tax income generated by a development flowing into the city coffers it is used to fund development in the redevelopment area. The logic for this is that without the use of this tool the development would not have occurred in first place. At one time this made scene and was a tool for redeveloping blighted area. In my view it is being abused.

I believe this new transit-oriented redevelopment authority can be a good planning tool and approve of it. However, I do have concerns. A major concern is that this may give to MDHA the authority to condemn property and take it for redevelopment without that action going back before the Metro Council. MDHA has a long history of misusing eminent domain. You may recall the case of Joy Ford, who some years ago had to fight MDHA which wanted to take her small music business office to make the property available for a larger development. That is only one of many instances where MDHA has taken property which was not in any real sence "blighted" and and simply took the property so a larger concern could develop property that would bring in more tax revenue. I could not support any bill that gives MDHA condemnation authority. In my view, all use of eminent domain should require council action.   I am trying to get clarification of this point.

A whole bunch of people speak in favor of this bill and against it. Most of those speaking against say they are not really against it they just want it improved. One of those speaking against is former Councilman John Summers speaking on behalf of The Coalition of Nashville Neighborhoods. I often disagree with Summers but this time he raises several good points, one of which is that TIF money is not MHDA money and TIF financing diverts money away from the general fund and robs the city of the funds to support general services and instead gives that money to support specific developments. He says instead of giving MDHA control of the TIF money and letting them decide how it is spend, he says that each project seeking TIF funding should have to come back before the Council. I agree. (see timestamp 1:04:20 for his remarks)


Several people speak against the bill saying that while it will result in the development of some units of affordable housing that it will tend to destroy more units of affordable housing than it creates. Often people oppose the development of affordable housing in their neighborhood but no one argues against the bill on those grounds. Some speak against the bill, because the bill would prohibit the establishment of twenty-some types of businesses in the overlay district. The bill is criticized because development decision making would be shifted from the democratic process of a councilmen sponsoring bills to decisions being made by MDHA.  Action on the bill is deferred until June 5th.  To view the public hearing and council discussion of this bill see timestamp 34 - 1:28:35.

To read 20-page MDHA report on the plan, follow this link. 
To read the bill and the staff anallysis, follow this link.
Here is a link to The Nashville Business Journal report on this issue: What a development in Donelson means for Nashville's $5.4 billion mass-transit overhaul 
The Tennessean coverage: Donelson debates Nashville's first planned transit-oriented district.




Check back for the part 2 report on what happened at the May 15th Council meeting.

Top Stories

Best and Worst small business metro areas. Nashville is not in the top ten. Why?

While for the last few years, Nashville has captured the top spot or at least been among the top ten in all kinds of list, everything from best place for live music,  best place to visit, foodie towns, best place for corporate reallocations, most people employed in the arts, most compassionate, to best place for a bachelorette party, Nashville is not among the top ten places to start a small business. We score a respectable 29th position out of the top 101 but we lag behind Los Angeles, New York City, Atlanta, and Washington D.C. While 29th out of 101 is not bad, I have come to expect Nashville to be in the top rank of everything and am disappointed when we are not. (link)

While number 29 may be respectable, it does not give us bragging rights, yet we are ahead of  Knoxville at 79, Chattanooga at 96, and Memphis dead last at 101.

 There were six factors that went into compiling the rating for a city. They are:

• Concentration of small businesses, expressed as a ratio per 1,000 residents
• One-year change in concentration, expressed as a percentage
• One-year change in the total of small businesses
• Two-year change in population
• One-year change in private-sector employment
• Five-year change in private-sector employment

In number one spot and having been in number one for five years is Austin, Texas. I have never been to Austin, but many people compare Nashville to Austin. Both are state capitals, both have a lot of young people, both are towns with a vibrant live music scene, both are hilly with lots of lakes and both are in states without a state income tax, and both are relatively liberal cities in conservative states. There are probably other similarities that cause the cities to often be compared that I am just not aware of. Austin does have a base of technology companies that Nashville does not have. Nashville has more universities than Austin and a lower cost of living.

I don't know Austin, but maybe one reason Nashville scores lower is because of our crony capitalism and price-fixing environment. The way we tried to stamp out an innovative livery service to protect existing luxury limo companies is not an environment that is welcoming to innovation and start-ups. The way the city tried to take Joy Ford's property and destroy a small player in the music business in order to benefit a large corporation is not conducive to a climate that favors small business. We have made strides in streamlining the process for developers to start construction projects but maybe we need to look at the obstacles to new small businesses and see if we are putting unnecessary obstacles in the way.

Maybe one thing inhibiting the growth of small business in Nashville is Tennessee's over regulation of business. I don't know what the requirements are in Texas, but in Tennessee anyone who wants to give manicures or engage in natural hair styling or give shampoos must be licensed. To become a beautician requires completion of 1,500 hours in practice and theory at a school of cosmetology. To just be "shampoo tech" requires 300 hours in the practice and theory of shampooing at a school of cosmetology.  This is ridiculous!  The practice and theory of shampooing? What do they do that requires 300 hours of training before you can wash someone's hair?

Since the State governors office and legislature has been taken over by Republicans we have made strides in improving education and cutting taxes and getting wine in grocery stores. The next thing I wish Republicans would tackle would be regulations.  I think all regulations should have a sunset provision and be reexamined for reasonableness and cost effectiveness every so often. In my view one should not have to be licensed just to wash hair.

When I was first elected to the Council back in 1980, one of the issues we had to gabble with early in my first term was passing a bill to remove the requirement that movie theaters have licensed projectionist operate the equipment that plays the movies. This seemed like common sense to me. At one time in the early days of cinema apparently there were fire hazards associated with showing movies and government wanted trained licensed projectionist.  I don't know when that hazard went away, but by 1980 most movies were the automated equivalents of a DVDs, yet there were still laws on the books requiring that only licensed projectionist could run movies and I think there was supposed to be a projectionist in the booth at all times. The Council changed the law but the unions fought it.  They wanted to preserve the job of licensed projectionist.

The City and the State should look at regulations that prohibit growth and innovation and fix those that need fixing and that no longer serve a useful purpose and we should stop practicing price controls and crony capitalism and unionist favoritism and eminent domain abuse.  I don't know if this would make us competitive with Austin Texas, but it sure wouldn't hurt and it would be the right thing to do. 

Top Stories

VICTORY: School Choice Wins at North Carolina Supreme Court

Ruling Empowers Thousands of Low-Income Families to Choose the Best Education for their Children

Institute for Justice press release- Today, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state’s Opportunity Scholarship Program is constitutional. The program, which was enacted in 2013, helps low-income parents to afford private school for their children whose needs aren’t being met by public schools. Today’s decision reverses a ruling by the Wake County Superior Court, and settles any doubts about the constitutionality of the program going forward.

“When it enacted this scholarship program, the North Carolina legislature joined nearly 20 other states that have seen the wisdom of giving parents additional educational opportunities for their children,” said Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Dick Komer, who is lead counsel for two families who intervened in the case. “The great thing about school choice programs like North Carolina’s is that school districts can no longer take low-income students’ continued attendance for granted. Today’s decision means that families using scholarships not only get access to schools better able to meet their children’s unique needs, but the districts now have an incentive to better serve their students. School choice benefits all students.”

The Opportunity Scholarship Program provides scholarships of up to $4,200 to low-income families to send their children to a private school of their choice. A cloud has hung over the program since February 2014, when Judge Robert Hobgood put the program on hold and then ruled the program unconstitutional in August 2014. The families represented by the Institute for Justice brought their appeal of Judge Hobgood’s decision to the Court of Appeals, which allowed the program to continue while the court considered the cases. In a surprise move, the Supreme Court took the cases before they were heard before the Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court held that the North Carolina constitution “specifically envisions that children in our state may be educated by means outside of the public school system.” Indeed, the Court recognized that not only do the North Carolina families receiving these scholarships benefit from them, but that the “ultimate beneficiary” is the citizens of North Carolina.

Now, eligible families will be able to send their children to private schools that serve their needs, and the entire state will benefit from this new program.

“The battle to save the Opportunity Scholarship Program was hard-fought for over a year,” said IJ Attorney Renée Flaherty. “This fledgling program can now serve North Carolina citizens for years to come by ensuring that parents have the freedom to choose educational options that meet their needs.”
IJ client Cynthia Perry will be sending her daughter, Faith, to a private school with an Opportunity Scholarship.

“This program has made it possible for Faith to leave the public schools and to attend a school that is right for her, and we could not be happier that the Court recognized parents’ right to choose the best school for their child,” said Perry. “Faith’s future is now brighter because of the Court’s decision.”

More information on the case is available at:  http://www.ij.org/ncchoice.  Institute for Justice is one of those organization that I support with my advocacy dollars. IJ has been active in Nashville, defending  Metro Livery against price-fixing  by our Metro Council that attempted to protect existing limo companies from competition and defending Joy Ford from the abuse of MDHA's use of eminent domain. There are members of our school board and other forces in Nashville and in Tennessee that are adamantly opposed to school choice. When the political process fails to support free enterprise, property rights, and parental choice it is good to know that there is an organization like IJ that can take the fight to the courts to protect basic freedoms. A victory in North Carolina may mean we do not have to refight the same battle in Tennessee. Rod

Top Stories

Property activists challenge planners and what about Agenda 21?

Today's Tennessean had an article addressing the various proposed state bills that would expand property rights and curtail local government authority in the area of land use planning and zoning. (Read it here: Property activists challenge planners | The Tennessean,)

One thing I was surprised to read in this article is information that lends credence to the perceived tie between the expanding of local government land use planning regulations and something called Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is widely talked about in right wing circles. Hardly a day goes by that I don't get an email from someone referencing it or see it mentioned in a blog or discussion group. I have tended to dismiss it, however. It sounded like a paranoid conspiracy theory to me and I just never bothered to learn much about it.

I have seen paranoid conspiracy theories about everything from the secret NAFTA super highway, to reports of black helicopters and the building of concentration camps in America, to concern that the designation of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park as a World Heritage Site was part of a plan to put us all under a one world government. I was too young to know it at the time, but I now know that when fluoridation was being proposed it was considered by many a communist plot to get citizens accepting of the idea that it was OK to use public water sources as a means of medicating the populace and a plan to make us all stupid and sedated. I think the metropolitan form of government makes a lot of sense and has served us well.  At the time it was being debated, the local chapter of the John Birch Society put out a pamphlet urging people to oppose metro, claiming it was a communist plot.

When something sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theory I tend to ignore it until I see the concern validated by a more mainstream source or see a respected conservative express the same concern. I never jumped on the Obama-was-not-born-in-America movement or the movement to stop the NAFTA super highway. (What happened to that NAFTA super highway, anyway?) I am going to stop dismissing Agenda 21 as fringe paranoid conspiracy stuff and read up on it. I will follow up with a report on what I conclude.

While the piece in today's Tennessean provided a good overview of the issue, it did not delve deeply into the specifics of the various bills. I would like to see the various bills explained one by one and the rational for each explained. Probably few would read such detailed coverage of the issue however. The details of planning issues can get boring.

While I know there has been overreach by local government and improper curtailment of property rights, I accept that planning and zoning and building codes are a legitimate function of local government. I have witnessed Metro government shamelessly trample property rights using eminent domain under the guise of "slum and blight clearance" and take property from one person and give it to another. (See eminent domain or Joy Ford,)  Unless I know a reason why some of the proposed bill should not be passed, I am going to assume the right side of the issue is with those protecting property rights and curtailing local government planning authority.

Top Stories