Lionstone Development

[producer2]

^I think what's usually required in a business transaction is that both parties agree to the deal. Ms. Ford, bizarre and ornery though she may be, has not agreed to sell.

[titanhog]

The only problem is her commercial property has been in a blighted area as described in a legal document for 10 years. She just happens to be the last property after the majority of the area has already been reclaimed and redeveloped. Many people have their personal property (homes, farms, etc.) taken for new highways or similar projects. This is not her home and she has known for years this day was coming. As a great article in the Dity Paper stated recently, I wonder if we will be so upset when Deja Vu falls into the same scenario in the near future?

[producer2]

So...if the area was so blighted, why hasn't the hotel on that same plot of land been ordered sold to the developer as well? It's not the prettiest hotel in the world. Or...is it because it is larger and provides more tax income to the city?

That area was never blighted. Was it a kitschy, touristy eye sore? Yes. But blighted is the area next to Music Row called the Edgehill area, in which I own a home. There are crack houses that just sit there rotting, but of course the city doesn't worry about that yet because there's no $$$ for them to make.

I think she should sell, but I also think it should be her choice. Here's hoping the city will back out of the way, Lionstone will be courteous and politely ask her to come to the table, and she will be smart enough to play the game and move to a new site at Lionstone's cost plus pocket a $mill or more.

[titanhog]

You can go back and look through the thread but Metro did make this a redevelopment zone several years ago and so far it has worked well. The hotel may be a part of this as well I do not know but the property in question is currently needed to continue the redevelopment. I believe this area extends to the other side of I-65 and also includes Deja Vu. Many people over the past several years have invited Mrs. Ford to the table. So far she has thrown out truly ridiculous numbers ($12 million) as the asking price. As I have stated before if this were her home or a business that could not move because of location issues or costs I would be one to stand behind her. It is easy to blame government for everything, we blame them for being too involved in our business then we blame thm for not stopping things like the mortgage crisis. You can't have it both ways. At the time this redevelopment was initiated MDHA was well within their rights to do this. There was public outcry to fix this eyesore much like your Edgehill area. Now that it is looking better, MDHA has become the bad guy.

[atlrvr]

^ Supreme Court says yes, though they (the court) allowed for individual states to have constitutional amendments that prevent eminent domain from being used for private development.

I assume in Tennessee that their is no state constitution prohibitting it, though I know there is in NC.

However, I think the notion that she should be forced to sell is ridiculous. Is her building structurally unsafe? Does she deal drugs out of there? What is the public nuisance? I didn't realize being ornary was justification to take someone's property. Just because a city envisions properties to be redeveloped, doesn't amount to much more than pretty color pencil sketches and a willingness to accomodate developers in the entitlement process.

I'm not from Nashville, but can anyone provide a photo of her property, and show her parcel on a map along with Lionstone's parcel?

[producer2]

Titanhog,

We (you and I) are not necessarily on opposite sides of this fence. As stated above, municipalities do have the authority to do this and when this area was set up for redevelopment, everything MDHA has done was totally above board and included in the scope of their authority to do so. Now we are discussing what we as individuals believe should happen and that is a horse of a different color. There are many on both sides of this fence and to blame MDHA or any other government entity for doing what they have every right to by law is hypocritical in my view point. Again I go back to the NIMBY mentatlity of what is good for me now may not be good for me later so I withhold the right to change my mind. If you lived here 10 years ago when there was literally nothing but the Shoney's Inn in that area you have clearly seen the transformation and additions of the roundabout and subsequent Roundabout Office building, the retail, restaurants, and bars, and the new condo development that has all taken place is a small compat area. The finishing touch to this is a building that is already leased and hotel project that the city would like to make happen. IF other landowners have sold and moved on in order to make this entire area better is it now fair for the final piece of the puzzle to hold up the finishing touch? It is not like she is going to be thrown out in the cold. The ONLY thing that will be taken from her is some sentimental value that this property holds and for that I appreciate her desire, but she will not lose montarily or suffer any business loss so I find it hard to be on her side when it does stand in the way of progress for many more Nashvillians and their livelyhoods. Just my humble opinion.

[titanhog]

Titanhog,

We (you and I) are not necessarily on opposite sides of this fence. As stated above, municipalities do have the authority to do this and when this area was set up for redevelopment, everything MDHA has done was totally above board and included in the scope of their authority to do so. Now we are discussing what we as individuals believe should happen and that is a horse of a different color. There are many on both sides of this fence and to blame MDHA or any other government entity for doing what they have every right to by law is hypocritical in my view point. Again I go back to the NIMBY mentatlity of what is good for me now may not be good for me later so I withhold the right to change my mind. If you lived here 10 years ago when there was literally nothing but the Shoney's Inn in that area you have clearly seen the transformation and additions of the roundabout and subsequent Roundabout Office building, the retail, restaurants, and bars, and the new condo development that has all taken place is a small compat area. The finishing touch to this is a building that is already leased and hotel project that the city would like to make happen. IF other landowners have sold and moved on in order to make this entire area better is it now fair for the final piece of the puzzle to hold up the finishing touch? It is not like she is going to be thrown out in the cold. The ONLY thing that will be taken from her is some sentimental value that this property holds and for that I appreciate her desire, but she will not lose montarily or suffer any business loss so I find it hard to be on her side when it does stand in the way of progress for many more Nashvillians and their livelyhoods. Just my humble opinion.

[producer2]

I agree with you for the most part, but maybe I don't understand what is entailed in a city setting up an area for redevelopment? When a city says it wants to redevelop an area, what rights do the property owners have? If I lived in an area that a city decided they'd like to have a mall, can they force me to sell?

As much as I'd rather see this Lionstone development than her little building, it does seem to be a redistribution of a property from a middle class entity to an upper class entity. It seems to me that Pandora's box has already been opened and none of us as property owners are truly safe from the government taking our land. Maybe MDHA has the "right" to do this based on a past Supreme Court decision...but that doesn't make it right.

[smeagolsfree]

^ Supreme Court says yes, though they (the court) allowed for individual states to have constitutional amendments that prevent eminent domain from being used for private development.

I assume in Tennessee that their is no state constitution prohibitting it, though I know there is in NC.

However, I think the notion that she should be forced to sell is ridiculous. Is her building structurally unsafe? Does she deal drugs out of there? What is the public nuisance? I didn't realize being ornary was justification to take someone's property. Just because a city envisions properties to be redeveloped, doesn't amount to much more than pretty color pencil sketches and a willingness to accomodate developers in the entitlement process.

I'm not from Nashville, but can anyone provide a photo of her property, and show her parcel on a map along with Lionstone's parcel?

[CandyAisles]

There are 3 more cars out front than usual.

Aerial shot

[jice]

There are 3 more cars out front than usual.

Aerial shot

[atlrvr]

Thanks for providing that.....at this point, I am even more convinced that it should be left if she doesn't want to sell for a reasonable price.....it thought it was right at the circle. I can't imagine how uncreative the developer is given the size of this piece and this relatively small bit of land that takes up only half the depth of a wide block.

In the future, when she does sell, or her heirs do, then a nice urban zero-lot line building could go in, and certainly break of the monotiny of whatever Lionstone is proposing.

If they claim they can build around her, I say go for it.

[jice]

I came across this article on About.com - Music Row Eminent Domain Saga

One thing I found interesting was the writer claims that 25 Music Circle East (which would be right next door to Country International Records) was purchased IN 1999 for $900,000.

I have no idea what the size of this building was or anything.. but still..

[titanhog]

I came across this article on About.com - Music Row Eminent Domain Saga

One thing I found interesting was the writer claims that 25 Music Circle East (which would be right next door to Country International Records) was purchased IN 1999 for $900,000.

I have no idea what the size of this building was or anything.. but still..

[CandyAisles]

According to public records, the sale price in 1984 was $230,000.

Parcel ID 09313003500

Owner FORD, SHERMAN

Acquired Date 10/17/1984

Sale Price $230,000

Owner Document DB-00006405 0000546

Mailing Address 23 MUSIC CR E

Mailing City NASHVILLE

Mailing State TN

Mailing Zipcode 37203

[Hankster]

According to public records, the sale price in 1984 was $230,000.

Parcel ID 09313003500

Owner FORD, SHERMAN

Acquired Date 10/17/1984

Sale Price $230,000

Owner Document DB-00006405 0000546

Mailing Address 23 MUSIC CR E

Mailing City NASHVILLE

Mailing State TN

Mailing Zipcode 37203

[jice]

Several things in the Tennessean today about this issue..

City is being used for private profit

Not in it for the money? How about $12million? ... Hit songs? I'd like a list of hit songs made by Country International Records.. but anywayz..

Article from Doug McKinnon.. a principal of the Lionstone Group..

Lionstone project will bring jobs, revenue city needs

[jice]

And another, from Phil Ryan, the executive director of MDHA...

Such districts save Nashville from decay

[titanhog]

It still comes down to someone deciding that a property owner's land would be better used in a different way. The more we allow this to happen, the more likely we all are in the future to be in her situation.

It's a "Pandora's Box" issue and a slippery slope. With each forcing of a landowner's hand, we erode personal property rights.

Yes, her building is ugly. Yes, I would like to see the Lionstone development in its place. BUT...she should be able to decide how much it will take for her to move, whatever that price is. If you don't like it, build around her and drive her value down!! It's that simple.

[producer2]

The other side of that coin is who gets to decide what is good for the public and what isn't? The argument is being made that it is ok to do this for roads, bridges, or "public good". Why isn't the advancement and redevelopment of a non productive and "blighted" area something for the "public good" IMO it is no better or worse taking someone's property for a road than it is for an urban renewal project, private or otherwise.

[smeagolsfree]

Well, I guess I can jump in a little. IMO, the Supreme Court grossly misinterpreted the meaning of the constitution when they made their last ruling on this issue. I really think the project can move forward with out this little piece of land that stands in the way, but it is hers and the area, IMO is not blighted. It may look like crap and be out of character with the area now, but the building is in no way a safety issue and this is not a municipal project. It all comes down to individual rights.

Lionstone needs to go ahead and build around it and have a contingency plan for that property when it comes available and it will at some point in time.

I know many of us want large developments to go through but when do we say enough is enough when it comes to giving the local, state, and federal government too much power. Its the same issue with trans-fatty acids, now with the state of CA banning them. If someone wants to eat crap, then let them. If someone wants to smoke, then let them as long as it is not affecting my health. This is a matter of principal and I am afraid we have let the Jeni out of the bottle.

[Hankster]

Well, I guess I can jump in a little. IMO, the Supreme Court grossly misinterpreted the meaning of the constitution when they made their last ruling on this issue. I really think the project can move forward with out this little piece of land that stands in the way, but it is hers and the area, IMO is not blighted. It may look like crap and be out of character with the area now, but the building is in no way a safety issue and this is not a municipal project. It all comes down to individual rights.

Lionstone needs to go ahead and build around it and have a contingency plan for that property when it comes available and it will at some point in time.

I know many of us want large developments to go through but when do we say enough is enough when it comes to giving the local, state, and federal government too much power. Its the same issue with trans-fatty acids, now with the state of CA banning them. If someone wants to eat crap, then let them. If someone wants to smoke, then let them as long as it is not affecting my health. This is a matter of principal and I am afraid we have let the Jeni out of the bottle.

[Nashvillain]

The other side of that coin is who gets to decide what is good for the public and what isn't? The argument is being made that it is ok to do this for roads, bridges, or "public good". Why isn't the advancement and redevelopment of a non productive and "blighted" area something for the "public good" IMO it is no better or worse taking someone's property for a road than it is for an urban renewal project, private or otherwise.

[titanhog]

The other side of that coin is who gets to decide what is good for the public and what isn't? The argument is being made that it is ok to do this for roads, bridges, or "public good". Why isn't the advancement and redevelopment of a non productive and "blighted" area something for the "public good" IMO it is no better or worse taking someone's property for a road than it is for an urban renewal project, private or otherwise.

[producer2]

Because "blighted" is subjective and one man's trash is another man's treasure. It doesn't take much to throw aside property rights and decide that a landfill will serve the community better than that pretty field with only a few cows grazing on it. Tell the farmer he has to sell for $10k an acre and he should be happy to get that much!