Haunting. Thanks for blogging about this, did this happen recently, then? I haven't heard about it at all.
It happened Thursday night.
As much as I usually agree with you I have to say I think you've made too much out of this one. Bo wasn't in financial trouble because of a decision that the council made. From all that I've read Bo was in financial trouble because he made a business decision (expanding his shop) that did not pan out. Having his home rezoned was a hail mary play to undo the damage that this decision caused. It wasn't the council that deployed the troops and took away his business. In fact given the open ended nature of the current war I doubt whether his income would have stabilized for quite some time. I don't see anything that suggests that given these cicumstances the end result would not have been the same. Increasing his debt without the return of his customer base would have just meant that he would have been in even worse circumstances another year or two down the road.
It is also not as easy to judge whether the council made a good or bad decision based on the merits of his case without knowing the particulars. Was his home in an area that was only zoned residential? Was it on the edge of an area of mixed zoning? What I'm saying is that maybe their decision wasn't arbitrary, maybe they had a reason. Maybe it was a bad reason and they should have given him the re-zoning he requested. Whatever the reason though that still does not make them culpable given the problems that put him in trouble in the first place.
Smilodon: I didn't say he was in financial trouble due to the council's decision. I said the council stripped him of the one solution he had to solve his problem. Certainly if he made a bad decision and his own solutions didn't work, without interference from polticiians, then the results are of his own making. But in this case he was not allowed to try his solutions with his property.
Why should politicians have the right to decide what people can do with their property? Common law and basic economic laws are enough. If the use harms adjacent property common law covers it. No one builds warehouses in subdividisions because it isn't profitable to do so. There is a reason that gas stations tend to be on corners and not on cul de sacs and it is that way even when zoning doesn't exist.
Studies of land use patters in cities with zoning and without it showed no major differences except the zoning process made business a lot more expensive with negligible results.
My point is simple. People who have no incentive to care, who feel no responsibility for what they do, are given power over the lives of others. And that is a very bad idea in most situations. Ward got into trouble on his own (maybe -- we don't know all the facts on that either, as you like to point out) but his solution was taken away from him making him feel powerless -- but he was powerless since the council determined his property use not him. By the way there is no indication that he was going to sell the house. The higher "commercial" value (which indicates it was already on a main road with heavy traffic) was going to let him secure more funding. That was the plan according to the papers, not selling it off and putting a business there.
Based on the fact that the value would go up zoned as commercial I assumed the home would be on a major traffic bearing street. Otherwise the zoning rewrite would have had little impact on the value of the property. Mr. Ward lived on Madison Street in Clarksville and google maps show that to be one of the major streets in the city. The satellite photos show one of the bigger streets in the city, four lanes in all, two in each direction. And it shows shopping malls and businesses galore.
One spot appears to have a mall with parking for around 125 to 150 cars directly across from a home. And that is not the biggest mall on the road by any means. In such cases zoning is counterproductive. It depresses the values of homes on the street. With heavy traffic people are less likely to buy there due to noise and the difficulty of getting in and out. I had a home on such a street (intentionally) because it was also a business. There is constant noise and using your driveway isn't easy. Residential value is low. But commerical value is high.
The city appears to have artificially lowered the price of Ward's home by mandanting that it be residential on a street not conducive to residential property. If the value of a property would go up if rezoned as commercial that is almost always a sign that there is heavy traffic flow making it less desireable for residential purposes. And the google satelitte photos of Madison Street seem to verify this.
UPDATE: I have been able to read city council reports. The property in questions was east of the intersection of Liberty Parkway and Madison Street. This would put it within a very short distance of a massive shopping mall.
It is also easy to verify that the street in question is filled with offices, restaurants, shops, malls, churches, etc. Ironically the funeral home where services for Bo will be held is on Madison.
In addition a few residential properties on the same street in the same area had already been rezoned at the request of the owners. It also appears that the city had delayed Bo's application several times. And it had to go through more than one vote. In September they voted 6-5 in favor of rezoning, giving him every reason to believe he would succeed.
And it gets really bizarre. One local paper reports that if the home in question had burned down it would not be allowed to be rebuilt under zoning law. And if Ward lost the property in a foreclosure it would be sold off as commercial property. It appears that there is every reason for it be rezoned even if you accept the premises of zoning.
I think the information you've dug up in these comments make a stronger case for your thesis than your original post.
I think it elaborates it for sure. But the mere fact that the property value would have increased was indicative of the facts already. One needed have the particulars to conclude from the higher value for commercial zoning that this meant the residence had to be in an area with high traffic flow. That already would have implied many other such commercial enterprises there as well.
But the key points remain even if this didn't turn out to be the facts. The property still belong to Bo Ward. The solution he had to his problem was still denied to him by politicians who had no incentive to care, and felt little responsibility for the consequences yet who had the power to impose their decision on him. Of course he felt powerless. When individuals are stripped of choice that happens.
It is one thing to screw up and be free to try and find a way out. It is another to screw up and to be denied the chance of finding a way out.
Eh, honestly he helped dig his own grave. Not much sympathy on that front and its not always in a city's best interest to cater to every person who flubs it up and wants an out, that could have serious repercussions to the whole neighborhood/city in terms of development. Thats where the city council gets their power.
Do they always exercise it in the right? Hell no. They're human and as CLS has later shown, likely corrupt as all hell. Which is what my first thought was reading this. I know I'm cynical but most local gov's are corrupt as hell. Bo didn't blow er.. have enough friends on the council to get things passed. And yes, CLS, the extra info does make it far more clear (god help us if newspapers actually wrote decent informative articles these days... 
) that the city council should feel guilty.
They feel indignant because Bo dared challenge their little fiefdom of power and didnt play by their illogical rules.
On the other hand I would like to just go on the record and make it clear that I don't condone suicide or making someone a martyr for a cause just because he offs himself. No one else put a gun to his head. He did that himself. Sure its dramatic. Sure it makes a point. But it also leaves tons of collatoral damage. His wife and children having to live with the grief and horror of his actions. Whatever the board did that deserves condemnation there is nothing in his final actions that deserve respect. I do feel sorry for him and for his pain but you have to draw the line somewhere and suicide is a selfish act.
Sorry I really had to get that off my chest. I've edited something similar out of my two previous posts but it was just bothering me too much that I left it unsaid.
FP: you say the city’s best interest - do you mean that if the group wants something that it is permissible to violate the rights of the individual to get it? And would that concept leave any individual rights at all? Must the individual live for the sake of the collective?
Smilodon: I am not sure I condone what he did in this case. I don’t have enough information to make that judgment. But I absolutely do believe the individual has the right to terminate their own life. But like many things what rights one may have may not necessarily be the ones you should exercise. That is a different question. Clearly Bo Ward had reached a point where he could not permit himself to live.
And the key point I’m making is still that none of us ought to have the power to decdide for others what they do with their own lives, their own liberty or their own property. If no one is allowed to impose on others that does take care of crime by the way -- since crime properly defined always requires the violation of the life, liberty or property of another person.
And I believe that point is valid regardless of the particular circumstances in this case. The person who has to live with the consequences is the person who ought to make the decision -- not some individual who has no stake whatsoever, won't suffer if he is wrong and feels no responsibility for what he does.
I'm not saying that offing yourself should be illegal. I'm saying that I just don't respect it. Certainly Mr. Ward was under a lot of presure and was under great distress. And once again I really feel for him and think he got a raw deal. However the people who really are going to suffer here are his family and those who knew him. I doubt his suicide will do much for them other than bring them a lifetime of grief.
I'd also like to point out that questions about the rightness of zoning laws aside, we are only taking his word that this loan would have made him solvent again. It is pretty obvious, after reading several news articles, that the real weight on Mr. Ward's business has been the extended troop deployments. At this point in time there is no sign that will change for the next year or even in the next five to ten years.
Smilodon: Based on the knowledge of the case that I have so far I would generally have to agree. There may be things we don't know. sometimes suicide the most rational option -- I don't think this may have been the case here.
He was not insolvent but feared that was coming. His plan was that the rezoning would up the value of his home. That meant he could borrow on the increased value of the house to deal with his other expences but without intending to sell the house or convert to commercial uses. Just the rezoning would increase the value. And from the looks of the street I suspect it would have increased value substantially. Now whether this would have allowed him to survive long term I don't know. But again that is not main point but a relatively minor issue as I see it.
A poster on a forum that I frequent had taught English in China, and happened to mention that his regular hangout while there was a bar that someone had opened on the patio of their ground floor apartment. No liquor license, no zoning, no bullshit. In fact, in China, its amazing how little the supposedly totalitarian regime has to do with the everyday lives of its citizens. Basically, don't try and run the government and you are left alone.
Fuckin commies, eh?
L: I had a friend of mine who recently traveled to China from Canada tell me that she and her husband were hassled horribly going through the US and that getting into China was a breeze in comparison.
I'm a bit unclear on this: He wanted to have his house rezoned to commercial. If his house is in a residential zone, i.e. the zoning or land use regulations are for homes, or apartments or a combination of various types of residential uses - then his request to either rezone the area or to only zone his property shouldn't have gone to the city council anyway. Because spot zoning - changing the zoning designation on a specific parcel is usually not permitted. And lets say he wanted a particular area of his neighborhood rezoned: As a homeowner or renter - would those neighbors want to live an a formerly residential are that now allows commercial uses like markets, stores, restaurants? All those newly permitted uses require additional parking, new signage, more lights on at night, more noise, etc, etc.
I agree that the coucil are wrong in feeling no remorse in their decision and that the mayor is is cruelly wrong in stating that their vote was neither wrong nor right. That thinking negates the whole point of representative governemt - which is what a city council is supposed to be.
But I also feel that Bo (God rest his tortured AND miusguided soul) was incorrect in his approach.
Why didn't anyone tell him that a zone change would usuaslly require a public hearing as well as input from the surrounding community?
Am I the only one who feels that he was stepping on his neighbors toes by thinking that he had a right to impose on their quality of life and the right to the full enjoyment of their property?
Bear: I do think you are unclear. Because whatever you think it ought to be I have read city council minutes clearly showing that city council was voting on whether to rezone his piece of property or not. And as my previous comments here explained the street is primarily a commercial street already not a residential one. Other neighbors had applied to be rezoned and were approved. He was approved in one vote and then rejected on the second vote -- it had to be approved in two meetings.
And you clearly are speaking without the facts. Read the posts above. Do your own google map satellite image of the street. You will see that the street in question was commercial with very few houses and as I pointed out above other home owners had already been rezoned.
I have a problem with your idea that for me to enjoy my property rights I have to have control over other people’s property rights. That is like saying the only way I can enjoy my freedom of speech is by censoring others.
First of all, our hearts and prayers go out to the family and friends Bo leaves behind.
Surely Bo was not the first person to feel the frustration of our land use ordinances. As a small business owner, I know how exasperating, confusing and railroading they can be as our mom and pop business battles our county’s land use laws. Land use zoning laws and ordinances should be about the overall protection and safety of the community they serve not about putting people out of business. Unfortunately, these laws are written for a general public favoring large residential, commercial and industrial development, without consideration for mom and pop businesses like Bo Ward’s.
When Planning and Zoning and local elected officials make decisions on land use issues for mom and pop small businesses and individuals they virtually take responsibility for the course of their lives. Running a small business is not easy. Most commit over 12 hours a day 5 to 7 days per week in it’s operation and management and a constant effort to maintain fiscal viability. They commit their life savings and personal assets and even mortgage their homes to finance their business.
The roll of government workers as public servants and administrators is replaced by their actions as god, judge and jury, colored by favoritism and subjectivity. If there is a major controversy regarding a big development issue, the planners, staff and politicians along with the owners, developers, engineers, lobbyists and their attorneys get together and work out the compromises. Sometimes the project gets dropped because the compromises are economically unfeasible, as in not enough profit. But often times, things are worked out to a point that everyone gets what they need out of the project.
Mom and Pop small businesses are not afforded this luxury. First of all, they often don’t have the connections or political savvy. But most of all, they don’t have the financial resources that it takes to get to this “bargaining table”. Even if they did have the resources, navigating the political and bureaucratic channels is daunting.
Perhaps what we need is a system of seasoned citizens’ advocates placed directly in the zoning departments. Employed as a liaison, they could attempt to work out the detail of a project between the regulating departments and the small business owner, with a commitment for a win – win for all. We need to take the adversarial attitudes out of planning, zoning and land use and foster a mind-set of ‘for the people’, not against them.
We pray that Bo’s sacrifice was not in vain and that government boards, commissions and councils realize the consequences of their actions or inaction on the lives of people they have sworn to protect.
How easy it is for us to criticize the decisions and life choices of others. It appears that Mr. Ward chose to place and even expand his business in Clarksville, that the citizens of Clarksville chose a representative government, that that government, under supervision (by election)chose to put a zoning ordinance in place having conducted all the required public hearings while doing so and subsequently chose to deny Mr. Ward's request to change the zoning. Any citizen of Clarksville who didn't like the zoning ordinance could have voted for change and failing that, could have chosen to move away. Mr. Ward's poor business choice was not the fault of the council, the ordinance or the good people of Clarksville. Mr. Ward asserted that his choice should be superior to the collective choices, through representative government, of the thousands of residents of his chosen city. Whether zoning makes a city better or worse is irrelevant. That free citizens chose to create laws for self-governing is what matters. The city council did not force Mr. Ward to take his life; he made that choice by himself.
KC: you just any sort of violation of the rights of people. Exactly how do you know that Ward was responsible for the poor business choice. One article I read stated his business was doing fine and relied on a large amount of military personnnel but the stupid war in Iraq means many of his customers are there getting killed instead. And even if it was his bad decision he had a solution. You seem to argue that as long a politicians periodically get elected by people who are uninformed of what is going on that anything they do is just peachy.
Are there no limitations in your mind on the tyranny of majority? You are betraying the very concepts on which the country was founded for some sort of perverted populist dictatorship of elected officials.
I reside in the city of Clarksville, and knew the name and face of Bo Ward as did thousands of residents in this town. You state you are smart and aware of your IQ. Are you kidding me? Do you really believe Mr. Ward's zoning situation was a matter of life or death for him. He committed suicide for more reasons than anyone of us will ever know not because of a zoning vote. Don't blame the city council for the incredibly personal decision that Mr. Ward made. Contrary to what you stated, Mr. Ward's death, would have been more than a "small mention" in the local paper. He truly was a "patriot" and proud supporter of our troops. It's his amazing character that made his death so very tragic, regardless how that death occurred. He was much more than a barber, he was a friend to thousands of troops in the 101st. A "small mention" he wasn't and his death would have been picked up by the AP and distributed nationally even if he'd died in an automobile accident. So before you blame the city council for the actions of one citizen you should have collected your facts from the local people not googled a map, and read a few newspaper articles. You don't live in Clarksville, TN and not know Bo Ward. That's why his suicide made National news, not that it occurred in front of city council. You really should visit sometime.
Mark: Where did I say Ward’s decision was monocausal? I said it contributed to the problem. He had a situation, he had a solution and the council usurped his right to do with his property as he wished and this resulted. I am stating the facts that exist. You are stating a theory as to what you think maybe exists. You actually don’t know whether this was the only factor or if others existed. You admit you have no idea when you say “for more reasons than anyone of us will ever know”. How do you know about reasons that you can’t know anything about?
You are hoping that there are other reasons not giving evidence that there were. We do know of one major reason. It was clear. All you are offering is conjecture and theory based on what you imagine. That isn’t fact -- that’s theology, making up facts as you go along based on what you don’t know.
You are clearly not reading well either. The google map was a google satellite photo which clearly shows that the street in question is primarily business oriented and that approving the zoning rewrite would not have impacted the neightbors unfairly as some here contended. You don’t know Bo either, and admit as much. You recognize his face and know his name is what you said. In other words he was someone who lived near you that you don’t know. Yet you imagine things not in evidence. I am only basing what I’ve said on the evidence.
And I can assure you that had he died in a car accident it would not have been national news. If you think it would have been you are very naive about the media. It would warrant a local mention but is unlikely to get the attention it got. The attention came precisely becasue he made a statement to the city council by killing himself in front of them.
CLS, you have over-reached on this one. In all of civilization, its members relinquish some personal freedoms in exchange for collective protections and conveniences.
Under your proposal, I should be able to hold a rock concert in my backyard, charging admission and turning the volume up a couple of notches when the clock strikes midnight. Who’s business is it if I turn my house into a meth lab and sell it to the neighborhood kids? While I am at it, I will set up a couple of rooms for my porn shop and peep show. Since I have invested so much, I will install a billboard in my backyard explicitly and in full color advertising my wares. I think the huge flashing strobe light on top is particularly effective. I noticed that the day care center on my right doesn’t have many kids anymore. Too bad. They are just like those complainers that own the restaurant on my left. No more sushi for this town. I have noticed a lot of ‘For Sale’ signs in the residential area adjacent to my shop. Not many ‘Sold’ signs. The apartment complex behind me is pretty much empty. What a bunch of losers! It’s my property and no one is going to tell me what to do with it. Today, while I am going to pick up a few copies of Deep Throat (what a classic), I think that I want to drive on the other side of the road. Man, I love this freedom thing!
People do not surrender rights which is why the Declaration called them inalienable rights. Such basic rights reside with the individual not the collective. And you have not read carefully what I said. I noted that laws of nuisance covers most issues that are used to justify zoning. And you just bring up a host of issues that are dealt with under the common law and under statutory law of nuisance. You also fail to recognize that something very simple. Where zoning is absent you still don’t get rock concerts in the yard next door or all the canards that you bring up. If zoning is what saves a community from these things why are non-zoned communities not having an abundance of these problems?
You appear unaware of those facts and invent a scenario that has doesn’t happen under common law, unzoned property rights.
My very point is that people, when state and local governments leave them alone, choose the standards and laws for their community. By not enacting zoning laws, they have chosen. By your logic, it is mob rule that they don’t have zoning laws. The point is that if one chooses to enjoy the benefits put in place by the collective community, he can't, when things don't go his way, cry foul. Lets be honest, a mentally stable person does not put on a show of public suicide over a zoning issue. He can scream and holler and write letters to the editor. He can run for office or become an activist or he can file for bankruptcy. He can seek professional help. The truth is he had lots of alternate choices.
Using your logic, all we must do to change public laws with which we disagree is to threaten suicide. "Judge, if you don't forgive my speeding ticket, I will kill myself" "If the county commissioners don't grant my liquor license, I'm outta here!" "I’m pullin the trigger if you don't give me my building permit" Under your rule, the singular always trumps the will of the community.
The simple solution comes back to choice. I am one of the many that has chosen to sell my house and move away from a community that I didn’t like and into one that I did. It would have been ridiculous for me to assert that I had the right to force my choices on my former neighbors against their will. Or maybe I should have threatened suicide until they changed to my liking.
sure don’t follow your logic, kc. So I will ignore the part of about how not controlling people is mob rule since it makes no sense to me.
You also assume that once any government has provided anything which it pretends is beneficial that it therefore has the right to do anything it wants from that point on. I know that isn’t Jefferson or Madison. Is it Marx? Hegel? Mao?
Next you exhibit your abilities are remote psychoanalysis by diagnsoing someone as as mentally unstable over a zoning issue. It was far more than a zoning issue. It was his business and his home and the entire life he built up for himself. Unless you have lost all these things yourself exactly how do you know what he was going through?
And you certainly do impose your own warped interpretation on what other people said. I did not say that threatening suicide is all that should be needed to change the laws. I am saying that immoral laws that interfer with the peaceful use of one’s own property cause bad things to happen to people. That is pretty elemetary to understand. So don’t try to force some absurd position that isn’t there.
I wouldn’t theatren suicide if I were you. It is possible no one would protest.
CLS, I have in fact lost my business, my home, my wife and my honor as a result partly of bad business decisions and partly from a change in the market. Do you remember the economic disaster marshaled by Jimmy Carter? I know exactly how it feels. I know the dark desperation and the desire to blame someone. Like thousands of others, I survived and am stronger for it. While I wanted to curse God and man at the time, now I thank God for the freedom my country - no, my countrymen give me to succeed or fail. Like many other survivors of that era, I am still self-employed in my chosen profession. I still risk loss and failure. I expect no safety net, no bending of the rules for my accommodation. I live and work in freedom, yes, but within the rules of my community; that community of which I myself help shape by my involvement and at the ballot box. My government is not some faceless beast... it is me.
Sorry about using the G-word in your presence and hey, lighten up on the personal attacks. This is a friendly conversation.
I've been there myself but not due to bad business decisions -- quite the contrary my business was doing well. But you don't know the man inside and can't speak about his state of being or what he felt he was facing. There are too many variables for you to judge him as you did.
And as long as you believe government is you there is little to say. It is not you. It is never you and day in and day out more and more people discover that was all an illusion. It is precisely the belief that sustains the beast.
I was at this city council meeting..I saw the whole thing and am very familer with the entire situation. Madison Street is an old dying road with NO shopping and very little retail development (reguardless of what you find on Google Maps). The council vote put a "temperary" moritorium on any zoning changes on Madison St. UNTIL future zoning guidelines were established (1-3 months). This was to prevent pawn shops, check cashing shops and XXX shops from ruining any future development in the area. bo was sitting on a gold mine had he not shot him self in the head....He made POOR financial desicions and this WAS premeditated as be purchased a BRAND new truck on week before the vote. I have spoked to his family and they wanted to make it clear that he had long term depression and financial problems and this vote just put him over. This makes him selfish and a horrible person for shooting himself in front of innocent people because of his own stupid financial mistakes...maybe you should research a bit before writing an article you know nothing about...........
Paul: It is not a google map that I relied upon as you seem to think but actual photographs of the street. Second, zoning is unnecessary and usually harmful. The idea that a group of politicians have the right to determine what others do with their businesses is more fitting the old Soviet system.
As for him being selfish. Please! People using their own property peacefully are not being "selfish" in any perjorative sense. If you want the bad kind of selfishness it is found when people take control of what doesn't belong to them -- that is truly evil selfishness.
I find it interesting that “Paul” is trying to defend what happened in this tragic case. Let me explain why, based on what he says is my lack of research.
First, I don’t believe Paul is named Paul at all. I have good reason to believe he is David Blevins. Mr. Blevins was at the city council meeting and was one of the people leading opposition to prevent Bo from getting the zoning change. Mr. Blevins wanted a moratorium freezing zoing uses as they stood. In other words he was a leader of the meddlers who think they have a right to control the property of others. Bo said he was killing himself because this sort of meddling put him in financial trouble.
I can see why Mr. Blevins would want to have a different interpretation put forward and why he might be reluctant to identify himself by his first and last name. I believe Paul is his middle name.
Actually, I do know who David Blevins is and I can assure you that I am not him. Your great research for the council minutes is impressive, seeing that a simple Yahoo search would find that...I guess that is why you assume I am David Blevins as he was listed in the minutes. Actually I was an observer as I regularly attend out council meetings. I would love to see your pictures of Madison Street and show me any shopping "malls"..Explain this quote of yours..."The satellite photos show one of the bigger streets in the city, four lanes in all, two in each direction. And it shows shopping malls and businesses galore.
One spot appears to have a mall with parking for around 125 to 150 cars directly across from a home. And that is not the biggest mall on the road by any means. In such cases zoning is counterproductive"
Other than fast food the ONLY restaurant is Ruby Tuesdays....The best shopping is dollar general and goodwill...or if you want to go up scale check out walgreens. Seriously, the google earth picture of this road is 4 years old. Unless you could really see what is across the street from those "houses" do not speculate. if you would like to show me which house you are looking at, I would be happy to tell what is around..... Also you miss heard me....I am BIG on little government intervention and more power of the individual..Funny that you write a "liberl" blog and attack local government intervention by calling it communism. humm.....I did NOT was that trying to rezone his property was selfish...but I DID say that killing himself infront of hundreds of people was. If I were him, I would have tried to rezone as well! Reguardless, you know little facts about the situation, other than what you read in the headlines..therefor your blog is just that...a blog.....
Paul: If you are not him why did you originally post a comment here using his email address as your own? In fact, this comment is also signed by you with the email address davidpblevins@..... I won't reveal the full address but you signed in with it and I can see it quite clearly.
If you are not David Blevins do you think it appropriate to sign into web sites with his email address-- no doubt you signed the option below to be notified by email when a followup comment is posted. What would be even more odd, than using someone else's email address as your own, is that you seem to get notified their. So that would mean you are not only using his email address to sign in but that you also read his email. But, of course, you're not him. You just happen to have been at the same meeting with him, happen to sign into sites using his email address, and happen to receive email at his address as well but you most certainly are not him. I'm convinced.
Commenting by HaloScan
