Skip to content

Grand Ole Opry Sues Federal Government, Trust Gaylord Entertainment Is Not Less Tax, Small Goverment Type

May 1, 2012

Its raining, raining, raining here this morning….  (Grandpa Jones video below)

I trust that Gaylord Entertainment believes in effective government, and therefore willing, as I am, to pay taxes to make sure programs are well-funded.   I hope that Gaylord is not one of those less-taxes, smaller government types that often can be found in corporate boardrooms.

I have my differences with business decisions that Gaylord has made over the years, and am doubtful that this one is any better.   I can tell you that I felt real genuine anguish when the flood waters covered the Opry stage, and ruined so many music artifacts from the days when country music was indeed country music.  But I am not at all certain that blame can be placed on the National Weather Service.  I think Gaylord is looking for more cash, and hopes the federal government will ante up.

The owner of the Grand Ole Opry, the temple of American country music, sued the federal government Monday, alleging that damage from the Nashville flood of 2010 was the result of negligence on the part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the National Weather Service.

The spring 2010 flood of the Cumberland River resulted in 11 deaths in Nashville, affected 2,773 businesses and left an estimated $2 billion in private property damage, according to city government figures. The flood caused more than $250 million in damage to the Opry and related buildings.

Monday’s lawsuit is notable not only because one of its main plaintiffs, Gaylord Entertainment Co., is the owner of the landmark Opry and the nearby Opryland Hotel, but also because the plaintiffs will try to hold the government accountable using a strategy similar to one employed by a group of New Orleans residents who won a lawsuit against the Corps of Engineers over the floods that followed Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

In the Nashville case, plaintiffs argue that the flooding was caused by a botched handling of the Old Hickory Dam upriver. The lawsuit alleges that the federal dam was authorized by Congress not as a flood-control project, but as a hydroelectric power and navigation project. As a result, it argues, the government should not be immune from a lawsuit.

The suit also alleges that the government failed to issue a proper warning of the danger.

3 Comments leave one →
  1. skyghost permalink
    May 2, 2012 12:35 PM

    The whole thing is a farce. This law suit will be dead on arrival. The owners should have taken care of the property under their stewartship and never depended on the government. The owners should take responsibility for what was done. I don’t believe they have a case.

  2. May 2, 2012 7:02 AM

    I believe Gaylord should be held negligent for allowing the Opry House to flood in the first place. Unlike in 1975 when sandbags kept water out of the Opry House, there was nothing preventative done in 2010 to keep water out of that venue, and it was a grear way to let these New York/LA nobodys come and redesign the place so that it more represented the rock music image eminating from its stage these days. Gaylord has done a wonderful job of remaking the Opry and Nashville into whatever their view of what they believe it should be is. Gaylord killed Nashville only to come back and say ‘oh I’m sorry’ and build some cheap imitation of what was there and say how great it is (when it definitely isn’t).

  3. A Troll permalink
    May 1, 2012 5:46 PM

    I live in an area where dams are used for navigation and not flood control, and the result is we have repeated floods because the pools behind the dams are always kept high, instead of reducing the levels in advance of weather events so the dams can then “catch” much of the rain or snow melts. Somewhere along the line, the govt. must acknowledge that their actions make flooding worse, and the only language that bureaucrats understand is the wallet. Govt. employees are already immune from personal responsibility for their poor decisions unless you can prove they did so maliciously, which is seldom the case; usually it is just ineptnous, or at best myopic focud on as single aspect instead of looking at the bigger picture.

    I hope he is successful in recouping damages that were not covered by insurance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: