In Batman, Jack Nicholson gave new meaning to that old adage “The Pen is Mightier than the Sword.” If he were in Nashville today, he could say that again!

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQspfmnJzWo]

You see, Nashville’s Metro Government is dangerously close to proving true that old adage if it continues with plans to whip out its pen, declare eminent domain, and confiscate a piece of private property on Music Row.

That’s the future being faced by Joy Ford of Country International Records. She sits as the proud and stubborn owner of a small, but vital piece of property that a private developer from Houston (Lionstone Group) is trying to buy out from under her for a new multi-million dollar development. To read the story.

What is so ingenious about the city’s action is its method of execution. Consider for a moment what would happen if Mayor Karl Dean marched down Music Row with thousands of armed Tennessee National Guard troops and forcibly removed Joy Ford from her property as he handed the deed over to Lionstone Development.

Can you imagine the media outcry as video of the slow-marched assault played out across the nation? One might see soldiers establishing a perimeter, warning shots fired, an owner locked away in her building with tear gas streaming from the inside, protesters scuffling with police for position.

Of course, this is America - home of the Constitution. Metro Nashville would never forcibly take a private citizen’s land and hand it over to a corporation who was looking to make a few extra bucks. Not here, not in this country. It certainly wouldn’t do so at the point of a sword: too messy, too frightening for residents, and too public for a city that doesn’t want its citizens to know their Constitutional rights are under assault.

Lionstone Group LogoInstead, Metro Nashville and the Lionstone Gropu would act as a thief in the night to do the exact same thing by whipping out their pens, drawing up documents, drafting legal briefs, and conducting studies about the impact of “transferring” the property for the “public good.” Oh, there will be press coverage, much of it negative, talk of Supreme Court cases, and future lawsuits. And, let’s not forget the current owner would be paid a pittance for he troubles.

Unfortunately, the reality of the government confiscation and the loss of private rights guaranteed by the Constitution will get lost in the shuffle of paperwork. The true impact and meaning will be minimized because it is accomplished not with a sword, but with a pen.

So what should we do? Sit by quietly and watch the government expand its powers to confiscate private land for the gain for another private entity? Maybe write a stern letter to the editor? Perhaps call or visit Mayor Karl Dean, the Metro Council, or the Metro Development and Housing Agency which has already cut a deal with Lionstone? Why not call Lionstone to complain? Or maybe we should send old 45 records to their offices in protest?

In any case it’s important to remember a few things:

  • It doesn’t matter if the current owner is -in the opinion of some - being stubborn and unrealistic in her asking price. Why?
  • It’s her land! She doesn’t have to sell one inch of it just so a private company can build some shiny new building and make a bloody fortune while sprucing up a neighborhood.
  • It’s her decision. She is the owner and she has a right to decide how to best use that land for her purposes. We have no right to confiscate it and hand it off to another private owner just because they have an idea for the land that city leader’s happen to like better. After all, I have better ideas about what to do with Opry Mills Shopping Mall and no one is going to give it to me.
  • Screw the money. It’s true that if the city takes the land through eminent domain, then the current owner will be compensated - partially - whatever amount the buyer is willing to pay. Did I just say that? The buyer sets the price? As I recall, the owner, looking to the market and personal desires, sets the price and the buyer has the option to accept it. So if Lionstone wants the land bad enough and the owner wants to keep it bad enough, then the price is going to rise above regular market values. Tough luck for Lionstone, but that’s the price of doing business in America.
  • Corporate Brilliance? I don’t know much about Lionstone, but I imagine it is a wealthy company with some smart people. Are you telling me they can’t offer a creative package that would satisfy the wants of the current owner? For example, maybe Lionsgate could package an offer that includes:
    • $300,000 up front for the land - What Lionstone wants to pay.
    • Prime office space in the new development with something like a 99-year lease for $1 a year, or until her death, which keeps the current owner on Music Row as she wants.
    • Some type of clause to settle the matter with her estate upon passing, perhaps $1 million for a release of all claims related to the land upon her death or some amount based on the value of her former land at her death - which assumes the value will go up due to the development so that she also gains from it.


  • Lionstone’s Dirty Work. I’m sure they can offer a creative solution or simply a lot more money, but why would they bother when the city is ready to do its dirty work for a fraction of the price. This is what happens when the government meddles needlessly in the free market.
  • Blight, Irrelevant? So the argument is that the land was declared “blighted” some years ago and it is in the “public good” to take the land away from a private landowner and give it to anther private landowner with lots of money to develop it. Of course, I wonder if the area is still “blighted” today? If not, why should Lionstone get the benefit of such a designation? I think it would warm the cold heart of dear Vladimir Putin to hear an American city turning its back on the Constitution and individual’s rights in order to secure some arbitrary “public good” which in this case is more of a private good for a Houston Corporation.
  • Nod to History. Yes, on rare occasions the government has confiscated land and typically it has been for truly critical public needs. For example, taking land that will be underwater due to the construction of a new damn that is needed to improve supplies of water in a region as well as increase electricity production or perhaps there is a reason that a critical bridge can only be built in one spot so the government scoops up the land. I find even these cases uncomfortable, but grant that there may be truly dire situations that require the government to confiscate land (even with payment).
  • Last Resort. In any case, government confiscation must be the last resort and it must truly be for the public use rather than the private gain of an individual, corporation or other non-governmental body. Sprucing up a neighborhood, even a crime ridden neighborhood (say in Cleveland where blighted areas were targeted), does not justify violating one individual’s rights to benefit another private individual.

So who are the parties to this grand bargain? Who should we thank for putting our Constitutional Rights at risk?

  • The new mayor is Karl Dean so lets hope he puts an end to this nonsense now that he has settled into office. You can write him at mayor@nashville.gov.

A Final Question: What local Brainiac thought it was a good idea to take land from a Nashville resident and hand it over to a company based in Houston anyway?

Tags: , , , ,