ELAINE HARRIS SPEARMAN COMMENTARY: What plant opponents are seeking is a covenant

“It’s all about the land.” We have heard that phrase or a similar one from Mr. O’Hara in “Gone with the Wind.” 

Old habits die hard. The land that has dominated the news for far too long belongs to the City of Gadsden and the Gadsden Airport Authority. Recent headlines detail still another salvo fired by the Roman consul and associated team members, that is more than a notion. 

Remember the “get out of town by sundown” days? There was no legal authority or precedent authorizing any town to control who lived there, or who visited during daylight hours prior to sundown. It was done anyway. 

It’s turned into “get out of Etowah County forever” with a demand that Pilgrim’s Pride “sign a legally binding agreement that it would not seek to build a rendering plant anywhere in Etowah County.” 

No plans to build such a facility exist, now that the GAA has decided not to sell or lease property at the Northeast Alabama Regional Airport to Pilgrim’s Pride for such a plant. I submit that no local court has the authority to say no other Etowah County municipality or property owner in unincorporated territory could ever consider such a plant. 

Pilgrim’s Pride is headquartered in Greeley, Colorado; JBS, of Brazil, owns 78.5% of the company. It is a multinational food company with plants in other states and foreign countries. Its latest financial statement reports a $12.9 billion income. It ranks with other top chicken producers, such as Sanderson, Tyson and Perdue.  

Why would any multinational corporation execute an agreement with a group of people — not elected officials or governmentally responsible people — in a small city in Alabama that has the possibility of affecting its global reputation and its ability to do business in cities beyond Gadsden and counties beyond Etowah? 

An agreement of the sort demanded is little more than a covenant. A covenant is an agreement or promise by two or more parties, in writing, concerning the use of land. The most common covenants are negative covenants that prohibit certain acts or uses of property. 

Covenants have long been used to control neighborhoods. Certain business operations are unwanted in residential areas, such as affordable housing, group homes, traffic-producing businesses, necessary equipment storage and other things that interrupt the quiet enjoyment of property ownership. 

Those covenants must be in writing to be enforceable, particularly if there is a desire to enforce them against future buyers of the property. Should such a covenant be court approved to bind all of the cities and counties who have had no contact with Pilgrim’s Pride or the GAA? 

Property transactions have always required something in writing. Land is valuable and there are always unscrupulous people willing to resort to any method possible to take ownership of others’ land and properties. There are always questions when a covenant is filed regarding land use. 

Will the property be marketable with a “cloud” on the title, that would render the property defective? 

The covenant “runs with the land,” therefore tying the use of the land to the specifics of the covenant. Generations will be tied, in perpetuity, to an agreement executed by an unofficial group in perpetuity. Future officials, the corporation and its shareholders would be hamstrung. There would be no allowance for change of conditions. People die, people change, topography changes, economic conditions change. 

A misguided attempt to exercise land-use control can result in burdensome, outdated control that would ultimately require more lawsuits and tremendous legal fees. You could have land that might not be within the Gadsden city limits, but may abut counties that are land-locked. Will we see further purchase offers that may permit small-town growth not currently possible, and attempts to fight such offers? 

The original lawsuit in the rendering plant controversy was not filed as a class action so that a wider berth of people would be affected or bound by the results. One of the team members stated, “the plaintiffs were carefully selected in the case and some own property throughout the county – with one owning 150 rental properties across the county.” 

This rental property ownership should be acknowledged by the Gadsden City Council. The city’s Human Relations Committee recently discussed housing and housing stock in Gadsden and reported that 42% to 43% of homes in Gadsden are rental properties. The scope of that can make such properties hard to manage and keep in a habitable condition, especially by absentee landlords. Look around Gadsden; you can see the deterioration especially in some specific neighborhoods. 

As small cities like Gadsden look for land to build better housing, let's start with tearing down rundown, poorly maintained housing and rebuilding neighborhoods. A master housing plan is needed before such cities become small ghost towns with purchasers and speculators grabbing up land and derelict housing, waiting for a big payday. 

Not just Gadsden, but any city must get serious about existing conditions before moving forward. 

When one industry is shut out, why would anyone think that other industries would want to bring certain employees to the area? Where will they live? What schools appeal to families? Maybe a negative response to these issues and questions is exactly what some want. 

Elaine Harris Spearman, Esq., a Gadsden native, is the retired legal advisor to the comptroller of the City of St. Louis. The opinions reflected are her own.