What's on the 5-1-18 agenda: Keeping Auto Emission testing, trying to move the Soccer stadium, taking property along the river. attempt to regulate Airbnb type websites, pet stores could only sell pound pups.

By Rod Williams - The Metro Council will meet Tuesday, May1, 2018 at 6:30 PM in the Council chamber at the Metro Courthouse.  If you are going to watch the Council meeting, you need a copy of the Council agenda and the staff analysis  or you really will not know what is going on. You can get the agenda and analysis at the highlighted links.

The order of business is the call to order, prayer and pledge. The next order of business on this agenda is a proposed amendment to Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Metropolitan Council. Rule three concerns the standing committees of the Council.  I do not know what is proposed. The agenda does not say. It is probably nothing very important.  The next order of business is consideration of mayoral appointments to boards and commissions. There are nine mayoral appointments to boards and commissions on this agenda for Council confirmations. These are all reappointments. The council normally rubber stamps whomever the mayor appoints. 

Public Hearing
There is one resolution and 14 Bills on Public Hearing. I do not even attempt to understand the pros and cons of every zoning bill and they generally bore me and are of interest to only the people in the immediate vicinity of the rezoning. At public hearings almost all opposition come down to (1) concern about traffic, (2) water runoff and potential for flooding, (3) overcrowding of local schools and impact on infrastructure, (4) detrimentally changing the character of the neighborhood. You will hear the same arguments over and over. I only call attention to bills that I think will have an impact beyond the immediate neighborhood or are bills disapproved by the Planning Commission or  for some other reason are of interest. Here is the only one of interest.

Bill BL2018-1157  establishes a 50 foot floodway buffer along the Cumberland River and

A House on a cliff on the Tennessee River

prohibits variances. The floodway is the river channel and adjacent low lying areas that would be underwater in a 100 year flood. No new construction could occur in this area and no existing building could be expanded. My initial reactions is opposition. Suppose within the fifty foot buffer, the property sit on a high cliff a hundred foot drop to the river. Should that property not be allowed to be developed?  That property could have less impact on the river than a property miles away.  Also, building in the area adjacent to a 100 year floodway does not add to the potential for flooding if displacement is applied. Displacement means that if any capacity for the land to hold water is decreased on one part of a parcel, then more capacity must be added elsewhere. As an example, if a home is build and near the front of the property, the lot is build up by adding so many cubic yards of dirt to a low area, then the same amount of earth would have to be removed elsewhere.

This would also appear to be a  "taking" property. If someone has a right to develop their property and that right is taken from them,  that is a "taking" even if the owner retains legal title. If property is taken the owner should be compensated and it should only be taken for a public purpose. The public purpose may be to reduce flood risk. That may be a valid public purpose, but the owner should be compensated if his land is now worth less because it cannot be developed. Also, there is a proposed development of a boat-oriented development along the Cumberland with canals and boat docks. This type of development could not occur if this rule was in place and if there were no variances permitted. 

There are 26 resolution on the agenda and all are on the consent agenda at this time. A resolution stays on the consent agenda if it passes unanimously the committees to which it is assigned. Resolutions which receive negative votes in committee are pulled off of consent. Also any councilman may have a resolution pulled off of consent. Those remaining on consent are lumped together and passed by a single vote. Resolutions on the consent agenda are usually not controversial and tend to be routine matters, such as accepting grants from the Federal or State Government, entering into inter-agency agreements over mundane things, appropriating money from the 4% fund, settling lawsuits, or approving signs overhanging the sidewalk. Unlike a bill which requires three votes of the Council to pass, a resolution only requires one vote of the Council. Here are the resolutions of interest: 

Resolution RS2018-1158  is and an attempt to decouple the development of a soccer stadium from the location of the Fairgrounds. This resolution authorizes the city to issue bonds for construction of the major league soccer stadium but does not specify the location. There is an effort which I approve of to have the soccer stadium build in Metro Center instead of the Fairgrounds.  The staff analysis says there are several things wrong with this resolution.  If you want to know what they are click here. I would assume this resolution will have to be substituted or deferred to correct the deficiencies, but don't know that.  The owners of the soccer franchise say that building the stadium anywhere other than the fairgrounds would jeopardize the soccer deal. 

Resolution RS2018-1165   is even more money for the Metro General Hospital money pit. It is half a million from the 4% fund for equipment and building repairs. A half million here and a half million there and pretty soon you are talking about real money. 

Resolution RS2018-1171  would continue the auto emissions testing program in Nashville even though the State says we may discontinue it. This needs to be defeated.

Resolution RS2018-1180  proposes three amendments to the Metro Charter, all related to the procedure for succession when a mayor leaves office prior to the end of his term. I think what occurred when Mayor Barry was forced to resign worked pretty smoothly and do not see the need for revising the charter, however it is no big deal. It will take 27 votes of the Council for this to pass and then the proposed changes would be decided in a referendum. If I had a vote I would vote "no" but might be persuadable.

Resolution RS2018-1182  honors "James Shaw, Jr. whose heroism, prompt action, and selfless disregard for his own safety spared numerous lives" in the Antioch Waffle House shooting.

Bills on First reading: There are 13 bills on first reading. First reading is a formality that gets bills on the agenda and they are not considered by committee until after they pass first reading. They are all lumped together and pass by a single vote except in rare circumstances. This is one of those rare occasions which if I had a vote I would vote against a bill on First Reading. The bill is Bill BL2018-1173  by Councilman Davette Blalock which would ban the sue of plastic grocery bags.

Bills on Second Reading: There are eleven. Here are the ones of interest:  

Bill BL2018-1056 would regulate the on-line market for Short term rentals, that is it

would regulate websites such as Airbnb.   It would require these sites to  require a Metro permit number for each STRP application prior to placing the property on the online marketplace site. It would also require the sites to provide a detailed quarterly reports to Metro. I would oppose this if I served in the Council. The development of the quarterly report could require new computer programs or lots of man-hours for the sites. While the staff analysis does not address the issue, I would like to know by what authority Metro had to require this of a company that is not physically located in Nashville and is simply a go between facilitating the interaction of people who want to provide a place to stay and people seeking a place to stay.  What if Metro required Airbnb to have agents who were locally licensed real estate agent? Could Metro do that?  If Airbnb simply ignores this law, what can the city do about it? How would they enforce it? The Internet does not stop at the county line. Could Metro ban gambling sites or porn sites from doing business in Nashville?  Could they ban advertising of wine for sale online?  Also, as noted in the staff analysis, Tennessee General Assembly has very recently enacted legislation that impacts the ability of local governments to regulate short-term rental properties. I don't know if that would apply since this is an attempt to regulate the websites not the properties, but it might. This bill needs to be defeated. 

Bill BL2018-1159 would prohibit pet stores form selling any cats or dogs except those obtained from the pound or other such animal rescue organizations. What! Have we gone nuts! Not everyone wants a pound pup. Some people want pure bred dogs. Bad bill. 

Bills on Third Reading: There are six. None of them are of much interest. Bill BL2018-1111 (as amended)  would put under the purview of the Board of Ethical Conduct and the Standards of Conduct those who violate executive orders regarding rules of conduct. This was controversial when introduced but as amended, according to the staff analysis, this really doesn't do much. 

To watch the Council meeting, you can go to the courthouse and watch the meeting in person or you can watch the broadcast live at Metro Nashville Network's Government TV on Nashville's Comcast Channel 3 and AT&T's U-verse 99 and it is streamed live at the Metro Nashville Network's livestream site and you can watch it live on Roku. You can catch the meeting the next day (or the day after the next) on the Metro YouTube channel. If can stand the suspense and just wait, I will post the video on this blog the day after or the day after that and provide commentary.

Top Stories

What's on the Council agenda for 3/20/18: Protecting from competition the jobs of current bus drivers, regulating the Airbnb website, changing the scope of the Mayor Barry investigation and more.

By Rod Williams - The Metro Council will meet Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 6:30 PM in the Council chamber at the Metro Courthouse.  If you are going to watch the Council meeting, you need a copy of the Council agenda and the staff analysis  or you really will not know what is going on. You can get the agenda and analysis at the highlighted links. I know a lot, but I often don't know if a piece of legislation is good or bad but I know enough to know if it raises a red flag and I see some red flags on this agenda. I hope someone is paying attention.

Boards and Commissions
The first order of business is the call to order, prayer and pledge followed by consideration of mayoral appointments to boards and commissions. The first item is the selection of a Deputy President Pro Tempore. With David Briley elevated to the position of Mayor, current President Pro tem Sheri Weiner will serve as moderator of the Council which necessitates the selection of another council member to be next in line should she be absent or need a break. I suspect there has been a lot of jockeying to fill this roll with a lot of vote solicitation. This is something that normally would only interest Council members but can be instructive as to the factions and relative power of those factions.

There are eight mayoral appointments to boards and commissions on this agenda for Council confirmations. The council normally rubber stamps whomever the mayor nominates, however last council meeting the Council, in an extremely rare move, rejected the appointment of  distinguished former Councilman Charlie Tygert to a position on the Sports Authority. I never did discover what was behind that unexpected development. I would not expect any of the nominees to be rejected, but then I would not have expected the nomination of Charlie Tygert to be rejected.


Resolutions on Public Hearing: There are two of them and both are exempting establishments for the minimum distance requirements for obtaining a beer permit. I have no opinion on the merits of these applications.

There are 44 resolution on the agenda and all are on the consent agenda at this time. A resolution stays on the consent agenda if it passes  unanimously the committees to which it was assigned. Resolutions which receive negative votes in committee are pulled off of consent. Also any councilman may have a resolution pulled off of consent. Those remaining on consent are lumped together and passed by a single vote. Resolutions on the consent agenda are usually not controversial and tend to be routine matters, such as accepting grants from the Federal or State Government, entering into inter agency agreements over mundane things, appropriating money from the 4% fund, settling lawsuits, or approving signs overhanging the sidewalk. Unlike a bill which requires three votes of the Council to pass, a resolution only requires one vote of the Council. These are the ones of interest:

Resolution RS2018-1085  authorizes a short-term extension to the liquidity facility agreement related to the Metropolitan Government’s water and sewer commercial paper program. This is complex and I have no opinion of it but it will cost metro money. I hope the Budget and Finance Committee looks at this closely to determine of it is an appropriate, necessary and wise move.

Resolution RS2018-1088  declares eleven parcels of metro owned property surplus and transfers them to selected non-profit organizations for the purpose of  developing affordable and "work force" housing. It also grants $10.7 million from the Barnes Fund for Affordable Housing to subsidize the housing development. Woodbine Community Organization, Our Place Nashville, and Living Development Concepts were selected as recipients of the grants and properties. In addition ten other organization get grants to promote the development of affordable housing. This resolution requires 21 affirmative votes to be approved.

Resolution RS2018-1109 would set a public hearing for the creation of the Donelson Transit- Oriented Redevelopment Plan. This is development focused on development around the Donelson train station. To learn more about it follow this link.

Resolution RS2018-1110 concerns the Council investigation of the Mayor Barry scandal. On February 6, 2018, the Metro Council adopted Resolution No. RS2018 calling for a Council investigation. Since then, as everyone knows, Mayor Barry plead guilty to a crime and some of what the Council was to determine has already been determined. So this resolution modifies the prior resolution to clarify that the Special Committee will prepare a Report and Recommendations to the Council about its findings to include any recommendations for further action, as well as recommendations for additions or revisions to the Metropolitan Government Code of Laws, policies, or regulations. In light of what has happened, this seems appropriate.


Resolution RS2018-1111 authorizes the employment of Burch, Porter &; Johnson, PLLC as Special Counsel to the Metropolitan Council to investigate the Mayor Barry scandal. Since Mayor Barry has already plead guilty to a crime and the scope of the Council investigation will be limited as outlined in resolution 1110 above, I wonder if hiring an outside firm is even necessary at this point. This resolution does limit the payment to the firm to only 15 hours of billable time at a rate of $395 per hour. Unless they have already determined that the firm is racially diverse in addition to questioning if we even need an outside law firm at this point, expect some Black members of the Council to raise the issue of the firm's racial diversity.

Resolution RS2018-1112  adds a representative of Saint Thomas Health to the strategic planning committee established pursuant to study the future of Nashville General Hospital operations. While my preference would be that we would get totally out of the hospital business, if that is not going to happen then it is wise to bring in outside experts to advise the city how to better manage General Hospital. I support this.

Resolution RS2018-1113 request of the Metro Transit Authority that if the May 1 light rail referendum should be approved, that MTA continue to use the Davidson Transit Organization as its "sole management provider." Regardless of your opinion of the wisdom of Metro pursuing a $9 Billion light rail transit system, this is a dumb idea. Should the referendum pass, Metro should seek the best operator for the system. This resolution is designed to protect the jobs of current bus drivers. A government's job should not be to award patronage or to protect the current employment of current employees but to provide necessary services in the most cost-efficient means possible. This resolution needs to be defeated.

Resolution RS2018-1120 is a meaningless memorializing  resolution expressing the support of the Metropolitan Council for the right of public employees to unionize and urging the Supreme Court to rule in favor of public employees in a case before the Supreme Court.  This is hardly worth opposing, but I think if I were serving in the Council I would ask to be listed as abstaining. I do not think the Council should be expressing itself about national issues or requesting the Supreme Court rule a certain way. The resolutions contains some verbiage about income inequality and recalls the Memphis sanitation workers strike of the 1960's and references the "I am a man" speech. Probably this will pass without discussion but someone may take an opportunity to grandstand.

Bills on First reading: There are 19 bills on first reading. First reading is a formality that gets bills on the agenda and they are not considered by committee until after they pass first reading. They are all lumped together and pass by a single vote except in rare circumstances. I do not read them until they get to second reading.

Bills on Second Reading: There are only six bills on second reading and this is the only one of interest.

Bill BL2018-1056 would regulate the on-line market for Short term rentals, that is it

would regulate websites such as Airbnb.   It would require these sites to  require a Metro permit number for each STRP application prior to placing the property on the online marketplace site. It would also require the sites to provide a detailed quarterly reports to Metro. I would oppose this if I served in the Council. The development of the quarterly report could require new computer programs or lots of man-hours for the sites. While the staff analysis does not address the issue, I would like to know by what authority Metro had to require this of a company that is not physically located in Nashville and is simply a go between facilitating the interaction of people who want to provide a place to stay and people seeking a place to stay.  What if Metro required Airbnb to have agents who were locally licensed real estate agent? Could Metro do that?  If Airbnb simply ignores this law, what can the city do about it. How would they enforce it. The Internet does not stop at the county line. 

Bills on Third Reading:  There are 31 bills on third reading and most are approved zoning bill. These are two disapproved zoning bills, Bill BL2018-1099 and Bill BL2018-1100 which will take 27 votes in favor to be approved.  Sometimes because a member may be absent or distracted or take a position that they do not vote for bills disapproved by the Planning Commission or based on their perceived merits of the bill may vote "no" or abstain. In the case of a disapproved bill an abstention is the same as a "no" vote. Sometimes it can be hard to get 27 votes for a bill. I have no opinion on the merits of the bills.

To watch the Council meeting, you can go to the courthouse and watch the meeting in person or you can watch the broadcast live at Metro Nashville Network's Government TV on Nashville's Comcast Channel 3 and AT&T's U-verse 99 and it is streamed live at the Metro Nashville Network's livestream site and you can watch it live on Roku. You can catch the meeting the next day (or the day after the next) on the Metro YouTube channel. If can stand the suspense and just wait, I will post the video on this blog the day after or the day after that and provide commentary.  

Top Stories

(Update) What happened at the 1/ 23/18 council meeting: Tax for Tracks advances, Airbnb partial phase out, trampling property rights deferred again, Police Oversight Board bill killed..

by Rod Williams - This past council meeting had several very important issues on the agenda and I will summarize those first. If you are going to actually watch the meeting you need an agenda and the council staff analysis. Without a playbook you really will not know what is going on. To access the agenda, staff analysis and my commentary on the agenda, follow this link.

Mayor's tax for tracks mass transit plan approved.
Bill BL2017-1031 on Second Reading is the bill to adopt  the Mayor's transit improvement program and requesting the Davidson County Election Commission to call a county-wide referendum election to be held on May 1, 2018 to approve the tax increases to support the program.  As expected this passed overwhelmingly. The outcome of the vote on this was never in doubt. At a three-and-half-hour public hearing on January 9th the proponents vastly outweighed the opponents, supporters have been organizing for months, the proposal has the support of Chamber and other movers and shakers in town and the Council meeting as a special council committee composed of the entire body voted 29 to 1 to recommend it. A group called Transit for Nashville Coalition has gathered over 30,000 signatures in favor of a mass transit program for Nashville but the signatures were supporting mass transit not a specific amount of taxes to support mass transit. While this vote of the Council was never in doubt I would not bet on it passing the public referendum.  Experienced political opposition to the plan has now emerged and opponents are only now getting organized. I think when the public learns more about the plan and has to vote on it they will reject it.

The bill is amended to modify the language of the referendum. The new language will makes the plan more attractive by distorting the facts.It is amended to require that the language of the referendum not say that the vote is a vote  increasing the sales tax to 10.25% but instead to say the vote is a vote to increase the local option sales tax to 3.25%. While that is technically correct it is deceptive. The vote will be increasing only the local option, not the state sales tax. However, when the public votes on this, if they they vote for the referendum, they will be voting to raise the total sales tax to 10.25%,  making Nashville's sales tax the highest in the nation. I bet most people could not tell you which portion of the sales tax is state and which is local. The deceptive language was approved by a voice vote with some audible "no's."

Councilman Cooper proposed an amendment that would require that the public referendum language state that the project would cost $8.952 billion which is the cost of the project over 15 years. The referendum was to state that the project is a $5 billion project. The  $8.952 billion figure is a figure stated in the project plan and is the estimated cost of the plan over the 15-year construction period. The $5 billion dollar figure is some of the cost expressed in current dollars.  Cooper's amendment failed and the language of the referendum will use the deceptive lower figure of $5 billion.

His amendment would have also revealed the amount of the total sales tax if the referendum is approved instead of just the local share of the total which is 3.25%. His amendment would have had the referendum state the local option would increase to 3.2% for a total sales tax rate of 10.25%. Cooper's amendment was tabled by a vote of 21 in favor of tabling, 14 against, one abstention and three not voting. The bill is then voted on and passes by a vote of 30 to 5. Check back and I will post how members of the Council voted on this amendment and how they voted on the final bill.

To better understand the bill see page 6-14 of the staff analysis.  Also for more information see this link and this link.  To view the Council debate see the video at timestamp  43:28 to 1:10:47.


Phase-out of non-owner-occupied Short-term rentals approved.
Bill BL2017-608,  Substitute Bill BL2017-937,  Bill BL2017-981, and Bill BL2017-982   all on third reading all concern short term rentals. I was surprised by the outcome of Council action on this issue. The worst bill of the bills dealing with this was Bill BL2017-608. It phases out all non-owner-occupied short term rentals in areas with a residential zoning and it is the one that passed. The others failed. Bill 937 and 981 are deferred indefinitely and 982 is withdrawn. Passage of bill 608 may  result in action by the state legislature to preempt the ability of local governments to regulate short term rentals.

Substitute Bill BL2017-937 was the best of the bills, or the least bad bill, and the bill that a subcommittee of the council that had been studying the issue for over a year had produced. It is deferred indefinitely. Councilman Shulman was the sponsor of the bill and chaired the special committee that worked on the issue for over a year. He was treated very badly by some of the opponents of short term rentals. Several council members take to the floor to express the sentiment that he was treated unfairly and to thank him for his hard work on the issue.
 
What was passed means that if you have an accessory dwelling unit on your lot and have it permitted for short term rental, you can keep it. If you own the house next door and rent it for short term rental, you will no longer be able to do so.

An attempt was made to amend 608 to extend the phase out period from three years to eight years and that failed. It was tabled by a vote or 21 to 14 with 2 abstentions. The bill was approved by a vote of 25 to 6 with 7 abstentions. Check back and I will list the results of the roll call vote.
   
To understand what the various bills do and for a greater understanding of the issue, follow this link, this link, and see the staff analysis starting on page 16. To view the video discussion see timestamp 1:13:33.

Police Community Oversight Board bill defeated
Bill BL2017-951  on Second Reading which would establish a Community Oversight Board to conduct investigations and provide citizen oversight of officers of the Police Department is deferred indefinitely at the recommendation of the committee.  That means it cannot be placed back on the agenda by the sponsor. It really is dead.  To bring this issue back up someone would have to bring back a new bill.  The actual vote at this meeting was not a vote on the bill but whether of not to consider the bill. If the sponsor would have prevailed the bill would have been back on the agenda next council meeting. Only the sponsor and the chairman or a person designated by the chairman of the committees recommended deferral were allowed to speak on the bill. The sponsor, Scott Davis, spoke in support of his bill and Vice Chairman of the Public Safety Committee, Bill Pridemore who is a retired policeman, spoke against the bill. The vote in favor of putting the bill back on the agenda was five in favor, 25 opposed, and seven abstentions. It is dead.

This proposal resulted from a February 2017 police shooting that occurred when Officer Josh Lippert, who was wearing a police uniform and driving an unmarked car, pulled over Jocques Scott Clemmons for running a stop sign in the Casey Homes area. Police say Clemmons who had a  loaded 357 Magnum gun in his hand refused to drop it when Lippert told him to do so and fled.  Officer Lippert said he believed he was in danger and opened fire and struck Clemmons twice in the lower back . Clemmons later died. Clemmons had a criminal record involving cocaine and at the time was on probation and was not supposed to be in procession of a firearm. The police officer was Caucasian and Clemmons was a Negro.  This became a cause for many Blacks and Black Livers Matter and other Black activist. Officer Lippert was exonerated of wrong doing but is still not back on the streets, awaiting some administrative determination of his future status.

There is a lot of energy and passion around this issue so I don't know if the sponsor or someone else will try with a separate bill or not. Given the lopsided vote against it by the Council, I thing bringing it back would be a futile effort.  To view the Council debate on this bill see time stamp 26:50- 43:22.

Bill Trampling property rights and stopping affordable housing is deferred, again. 
Bill BL2016-219  on Third reading is the bill that tramples a person's property rights, partially takes property without compensation, and kills an affordable housing development. It is deferred until July 2018. This is a bill disapproved by the Planning Commission which means when it is finally acted upon it will take 28 votes of the Council to pass.  This bill has been in the works for a very long time, having been introduced in April 2016.

   
Unlike most zone changes which allow someone to do something with their property they were previously not allowed to do; this bill is a "down zoning," taking away a right someone now enjoys.  The owner is already vested in the project having designed the development and arranged financing.  I am pleased this was deferred rather than passed but it is unfair to keep this hanging over the head of the owner.  Doing so should be illegal in my view.  While I do not know anything about the project other than what has been reported by other media and what is public record, I would assume that the fact that the down zoning is pending affects financing.  A delay is a also a major cost in a project like this.  

Despite the bill not passing, Councilman Karen Johnson has most likely been successful in stopping the project. Her delaying the project may result in the planned affordable housing never being built since by the time the bill is finally defeated, assuming it is, the market may have changed and affordable housing may no longer be the best use for this property. Instead of the affordable housing, which Karen Johnson opposes, gentrification may have reached Antioch and upscale condo's may be built instead.

For more on this issue, see Contact your Council member. Stop the trampling of property rights and the killing of an affordable housing development.


In Other Council Action
Following the prayer and pledge, the first order of business is two presentations, one is recognition of Wear Red Day which is a campaign to bring attention to heart health.  The presentation is used as an opportunity to educate people about what to do if you have chest pain and to educate people to stop smoking and otherwise live a healthy lifestyle. This presentations takes about six minutes. Following that presentation there is a presentation honoring the Ryman auditorium and that takes about six minutes.

There are seven mayoral appointments to boards and commission on the agenda but only one is acted upon.  There is no report on the others at all and no explanation has to why.  I don't assume there would be an issue with six nominees and if they would have withdrawn their nomination or the committee would have recommended a deferral, then that would have been reported. It was probably a scheduling conflict but that should have been explained. It should be.

There are 12 resolution on the agenda and they are all routine things such as accepting grants, paying settlements and approving of signs to overhang the right of way. None of the resolutions are of much interest.  In my view, the council should give some other body such as the Board of Zoning Appeals or maybe just some pubic servant such as the Director of Codes the authority to approve signs overhanging the sidewalk. This seems to be a mundane routine thing.  If the applicant has met the design and insurance guidelines then it seems some bureaucrat could sign the permit instead of requiring Council action on every sign that protrudes into the right of way. 

Bill BL2017-941  on Second Reading which would establish a Commercial Permit Parking Program.  is deferred one meeting.

Bill BL2017-1026  on Third Reading in councilman Scott Davis' district is deferred one meeting. This is a zoning bill disapproved by the planning commission. I have no opinion of the merits of the bill and am only calling attention to it because it is a disapprove bill. To pass a disapproved bill requires 27 votes.

Top Stories

The Council approves phase-out of non-owner occupied short term rental in residential neighborhoods

Nashville council approves Airbnb phase-out bill for residential neighborhoods

The Tennessean -... the council voted 25-5, with seven abstentions, to phase out short-term rentals that aren't occupied by their owners from residential-zoned neighborhoods.

Top Stories

What's on the 1-23-18 Council agenda: The mayor's $9 billion transit plan, trampling property rights and stopping affordable housing, new Airbnb rules, and creating a Police Community Oversight Board

Update: This meeting scheduled for Tuesday January 23rd is the meeting that was scheduled for Tuesday January January 16th and was rescheduled due to bad weather.

By Rod Williams - The Metro Council will meet Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 6:30 PM in the Council chamber at the Metro Courthouse. The hot topics are the mayor's transit program, a bill to create a police citizen's review committee, the bill that would trample a person's property rights and kill an affordable housing development, and bills that would change the rules on Short Term Rentals such as Airbnb. If you are going to watch the Council meeting, you need a copy of the Council agenda and the staff analysis  or you really will not know what is going on. You can get the agenda and analysis at the highlighted links.

Mayor's mass transit plan.
Bill BL2017-1031  is the bill to adopt  the Mayor's transit improvement program and approving  the program, and requesting the Davidson County Election Commission to call a county-wide referendum election to be held on May 1, 2018 to approve the tax increases to support the program.  While this should be controversial, expect it to pass overwhelmingly. At a three and a half hour public hearing on January 9th the proponents vastly outweighed the opponents, supporters have been organizing for months, the proposal has the support of Chamber and other movers and shakers in town and the Council meeting as a special council committee composed of the entire body voted 29 to 1 to recommend it. A group called Transit for Nashville Coalition has gathered over 30,000 signatures in favor of a mass transit program for Nashville but the signatures were supporting mass transit not a specific amount of taxes to support mass transit.


Despite the vote in favor of approved this is already determined, I expect a few speeches in favor and look to Councilman Robert Swope and Councilman Jon Cooper to possibly speak against it.  While the bill says the price tag for the plan is $5.4 billion, when all cost are included the price tag is closer to $9 billion.  This assumes no cost overruns. With cost overruns typical of similar projects the real cost is more likely to be between $15 billion and $22 billion. While the vote on Tuesday night well be overwhelmingly in favor of the plan, I am not assuming it will be approved in a public referendum especially if organized resistance emerges.  Some Council members will justify their vote in favor by saying they are simply letting the public decide the issue. That is not what the bill does. It puts the Council on record endorsing the plan. To fully understand the issue see page 6-14 of the staff analysis.

Police Community Oversight Board
Bill BL2017-951  on Second Reading would establish a Community Oversight Board to conduct investigations and provide citizen oversight of officers of the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department.  It would provide for an eleven member board, seven nominated by citizens groups or by petition confirmed by the Council, two appointed by the Council and two appointed by the mayor subject to Council confirmation. The Board would have the authority to investigate allegations that MNDP officers have committed misconduct in violation of policy or criminal misconduct.The Board would hold regular meetings and have a staff of researchers and lawyers. This would cost about $386,000 a year. A previous Council staff analysis said there are due process concerns with the way the board would operate. In my view this bill needs to be defeated. This bill will probably not be voted on due to procedural issues regarding council rules. More than likely the sponsor will have to start over with a new bill.  Nevertheless, depending on how lenient the vice mayor is, expect some passionate speeches in favor.

Trampling property rights and stopping affordable housing

The Ridge Apartments

Bill BL2016-219   is the bill that tramples a persons property rights, partially taking property without compensation, and kills an affordable housing development. This bill is on third and final reading and it is a bill disapproved by the Planning Commission which means it will take 28 votes of the Council to pass.  This has been in the works for a very long time. Most zone changes allow people to do something with their property they were previously not allowed to do; this bill is a "down zoning," taking away a right someone now enjoys.  The developer is already vested in the project having designed the development and arranged financing.  If this passes it is an outrage. There will likely be lawsuit which Metro will most likely lose and the state has threatened to withhold low income housing tax credits, an essential financing tool for most affordable housing developments.  For more on this issue, see Contact your Council member. Stop the trampling of property rights and the killing of an affordable housing development.

Changing the rules regarding Short Term Rental (Airbnb" or home sharing). 
Bill BL2017-608,  Substitute Bill BL2017-937,  Bill BL2017-981, and Bill BL2017-982   all concern short term rentals. I am supporting 937, the least offensive of the bills. The worst of the bill, which would phase out non-owner-occupied short term rentals in areas zoned residential is bill 608. Bill 937 is being supported by the the citizens groups of home sharing advocates. It was worked on for a very long time by a special Council committee and was the subject of numerous meetings. It is called the "compromise" bill but many of the more vocal neighborhood activist are not happy and want to abolish home sharing all together and favor 608 which would abolish non-owner-occupied short term rental. For a more detailed explanation of these bills follow this link, this link, or see the staff analysis starting on page 16.

    


Other agenda items:
There are seven mayoral appointees to Boards and Commission on the agenda for confirmation and as always they will be affirmed. There are no bills or resolutions on public hearing.  There are 10 bills on first reading. First reading is a formality that gets bills on the agenda and they are not considered by committee until after they pass first reading.  Normally bills on First Reading are all lumped together and pass by a single vote. It is rare that a bill on First Reading is voted on separately. I normally do not read bills until they get to second reading.
 
There are 12 resolution on the agenda and all are on the consent agenda at this time. A resolution stays on the consent agenda if it passes  unanimously the committees to which it was assigned. Resolutions which receive negative votes in committee are pulled off of consent. Also any councilman may have a resolution pulled off of consent. Those remaining on consent are lumped together and passed by a single vote. Resolutions on the consent agenda are usually not controversial and tend to be routine matters, such as accepting grants from the Federal or State Government, entering into inter agency agreements over mundane things, appropriating money from the 4% fund, settling lawsuits, or approving signs overhanging the sidewalk. Unlike a bill which requires three votes of the Council to pass, a resolution only requires one vote of the Council. None of the resolutions on this agenda are of much interest.

There are only four  bills on Second Reading and one of them is the bill to create a Police Community Oversight Board discussed above and another is the mayor's transit plan above. The only other bill on second reading of interest is this one:

Bill BL2017-941  would establish a a Commercial Permit Parking Program. The council would have to approve the geographic areas in which this applied. In those areas commercial vehicles could only park on the street if they had a permit to do so.  As we grow, parking become more of a problem with people parking on streets taking parking places that deny those spaces to those who have businesses or residence on the street a place to park. These seems reasonable.

There are 32 bills on Third Reading. One of them is the bill to trample property rights discussed above.  Others are the bill concerning short term rental discussed above. Bill BL2017-1026 is the only other bill of interest and it is only of interest because it is a bill disapproved by the Planning Commission and will require 28 votes to pass.  It changes from RS5 to RM20-A zoning on property located at 1308 Montgomery Avenue.

To watch the Council meeting, you can go to the courthouse and watch the meeting in person but I wouldn't recommend it. There will be a mob of people for this meeting. You can watch the broadcast live at Metro Nashville Network's Government TV on Nashville's Comcast Channel 3 and AT&T's U-verse 99 and it is streamed live at the Metro Nashville Network's livestream site and you can watch it live on Roku. You can catch the meeting the next day (or the day after the next) on the Metro YouTube channel. If can stand the suspense and just wait, I will post the video on this blog the day after or the day after that and provide commentary.

Top Stories

(final update) What happened at the 1/2/18 Council meeting: trampling property rights deferred, Nick Leonardo elected judge, new short term rental regs advance, more transparency for corporate welfare approved, ...

At four hours and 20  minutes long this is a long council meeting.  I skimmed parts of it and I zipped through most of the bills on public hearing at double speed, so I may have missed something. If you are going to watch the Council meeting you really need a copy of the agenda and the staff analysis. You can get those documents as well as my commentary on the agenda at this link.

Bill to take away property rights deferred.

proposed bill to kill The Ridge at 
Antioch deferred,

In my view the most important item on the agenda was BILL NO. BL2016-219 on Third and Final Reading which would trample a persons property rights and kill and affordable housing project. It was differed by rule because the sponsor was not at the committee meeting considering the bill.  It will be back on the agenda January 16th.  For much more on this issue, follow this link: Contact your Council member. Stop the trampling of property rights and the killling of an affordable housing development.

Nick Leonardo elected judge.

Ana Escobar loses General
Session Judge contest to
Councilman Nick Leonardo

A high profile item on the agenda was the council election to fill a General Secession Court vacancy. The Council selected Councilman Nick Leonardo over Ana Escobar, a high-profile domestic violence victim advocate who was highly favored by the Nashville Bar Association. The Tennessean  provides a more detailed report on this issue which you can read at this link: Metro Council votes to appoint Councilman Nick Leonardo judge over prosecutor Ana Escobar.

Mr. Holliday who was also a nominee withdrew his nomination. The name of Ana Escobar is placed in nomination by Councilman Robert Swope. Pat Shea, former president and CEO of the YWCA of Nashville and Middle Tennessee, urged the council to support Ms Escobar. In my view, Ms Escobar was the better candidate to serve in this position which hears most domestic violence cases in Nashville. Escobar has worked both as a prosecutor of domestic violence cases and as a defender of those accused of the crime. She is an expert. I think the practice of giving preference to ones colleague simply because you served with them in the council is a practice which should end. Councilwoman Tanaka Vercher made a passionate speech in favor of Councilman Leonardo.

By a vote of 21-16 the Council selected Leonardo. It you wish to watch the council process and speeches relating to this election see time stamp 3:15-19:30. When the minutes of the meeting are posted I will post the record of how individual members voted.

New home sharing restrictions advance.
The item of most interest to the public on the agenda was Substitute Bill BL2017-937 and three other bills on public hearing all dealing with the issue of home sharing or "short term rental property." This issue has been being worked on by the Council for months. BL2017-937 was a bill that had the support of the home sharing community but did not go far enough to satisfy many neighborhood activist types. It was the result of an ad hoc committee of five council members assigned earlier this year to study the issue. It imposes new restrictions on home sharing and lowers the cap of how many such units may exist but does not take away from anyone currently providing this service the right to continue to do so.   

Bill BL2017-981  would allow “STRP–Owner-Occupied” as an accessory use in specified zoning districts and allow “STRP–Not Owner Occupied” as a use permitted with conditions in specified districts. So,  as I understand it, what the practical effect of this would be is short term rental could exist in residential areas where the owner lives in the property on the same lot as the short term rental unit.  A person would not be allowed, however, to own the house next door and rent it as short term rental. Those already existing however could continue to exist.  

Bill BL2017-982 also deals with short term rental but seems less significant than the others.  If adopted in conjunction with BL2017 608 or  BL2017 937 or  BL2017-981 its impact would be limited to allowing duplexes to be considered for owner-occupied permits under certain circumstances.

Bill BL2017-1005 would allow Hotel/Motel use within the Urban Zoning Overlay (UZO) district on no more than three percent of the residentially zoned properties within each census tract. This bill is disapproved by the Planning Commission. A UZO is essentially the old part of the city and it generally calls for pedestrian friendly construction with parking behind a business rather than in front of it and it imposes other restrictions. While this is not exactly a short term rental ordinance, some hotel-motels rent rooms primarily on sites like Airbnb and are much like non-owner occupied multifamily short term rental, so this would put a cap on those type businesses. 

Not on pubic hearing but a bill which is worse than any of the other is BILL NO. BL2017-608 which would be a radical change and would establish distinct land uses for “Short term rental property – Owner- Occupied” and “Short term rental property – Not Owner-Occupied”, and establishing a phase out date in year 2021 for “Short term rental property – Not Owner-Occupied.” If this passes in addition to ending short term rentals of homes not occupied by the owner, in order to offer home-sharing services, one would have to get their property rezoned. 

All of the bills on public hearing were all lumped together to hear from the public. Unlike a regular pubic hearing, where the council hears from the proponents first and then the opponents, the vice mayor allows people to line up an one by one and have their say on any or all of the four bills either pro or con. The public hearing goes on and on and on and gets real repetitive. If you are already familiar with the arguments pro and con, there is not much to be gained by watching the public hearing. To get a flavor of the public hearing you may want to sample a few but their is little to be gained by watching the complete public hearing.   To view the public hearing and the discussion see timestamp 53:52- 3:55:49. For a good clear explanation by Councilman Shulman of what bill 937 would do go to timestamp 3:31: 37 -3:30:24 in the video. The Tennessean does a good job of reporting on the public hearing and provides some background. For more on this issue see my commentary and to read The Tennessean's reporting see, Nashville council advances new Airbnb rules, setting up legislative showdown.   

Substitute Bill BL2017-937 passes by a machine vote of 19 in favor, 14 opposed, 4 abstentions and 3 not voting. I will post the results of the vote in a later blog post.
Bill BL2017-981 passes by a machine vote of 17 for, 16 agaisnt, 4 abstentions and 3 not voting. 
Bill BL2017-982  passes by a machine vote of 28 to 13 and 4 abstentions.and 3 not voting.
Bill BL2017-1005 fails by a machine vote of 6, 21,10, and 3 not voting.


More transparency for corporate welfare.
BILL BL2017-983 which would require certain information for the assessment of economic and community development incentives offered in the form of PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) agreements and Council approval of such agreements passed by voice vote. This bill was supported by a liberal activist group and labor unions and opposed by some business interest and the Chamber of Commerce. On this issue I found myself allied with the liberals.  In my view more transparency in awarding incentives to business is a good thing. To read The Tennessean's account of the council action on this bill see, Nashville council passes new transparency rules for future city incentives.

Other Council Action
Mayoral appointments to boards and commission were approved without dissent as this council almost always does.  All bills on First Reading were approved by a single vote as is the norm. Other than the short term rental bills discussed above none of the other bills on public hearing generated much controversy, most were approved without anyone from the public speaking on them.

Bill BL2017-938  on Public Hearing which would exempt religious institutions from current sidewalk requirements, provided the religious institution is within the General Services District and does not abut an existing or planned sidewalk was deferred to the first meeting in March.


Bill BL2017-1029 on Public Hearing which would require contributions paid in lieu of the construction of sidewalks to stay within council districts is deferred to the April public hearing. 

Bill BL2017-1030 by Councilman Glover on Public Hearing which would  require an annual study be conducted by the Department of Public Works to determine the cost of sidewalks within Davidson County and to preclude in lieu payments absent such study is deferred to the April public hearing.

Bill BL2017-951 on Second Reading which would establish a  Community Oversight Board for the police department is deferred indefinably.

BILL BL2017-1031 on Second Reading which is the mayor's $5.2B mass transit bill is deferred one meeting.

Bill BL2017-608  on Third Reading which is the worst of the proposed short term rental bills and would phase out all non-owner-occupied short term rentals is deferred one meeting in order to be on the same agenda as the other short term rental bills.

SUBSTITUTE BILL BL2017-953 on Third Reading which imposes various regulations regarding commercial solicitation  including restricting door-to-door commercial solicitation to the hours of after sunset or 7:00 pm, whichever occurs later passes.

Top Stories

AirB&B says, "Stand up for home sharing in Nashville by attending the City Council meeting."

From AirBnB - On Tuesday, January 2 at 6pm, the Nashville Metro Council will be voting on Bill 937, which allows existing permitted hosts to continue sharing their homes, while supporting a fair number of non-owner occupied listings. 

Your attendance will show the Metro Council that Nashville residents want to protect their right to share their homes responsibly and make important extra income, while enabling guests from around the world to travel affordably and spread tourism dollars across the city. Please wear blue in support of home sharing. 

When: Tuesday, January 2

Time: 6pm

Where: Historic Courthouse One Public Square, Suite 204

Nashville, TN 37210

Top Stories

Battle Heats Up Over Some Short Term Rentals In Nashville

WTVF, NASHVILLE, Tenn. - The battle has heated up over regulations for short term rentals like Airbnb in Nashville.

Two Metro Council Members are proposing an amendment that would temporarily stop the issuing of new city permits for non-owner occupied short term rental properties. ....Burkley Allen....

.... However, the Beacon Center of Tennessee is calling for the state legislature to get involved in the regulations.  President Justin Owen said the issue comes down to property rights for Nashvillians, and Metro leaders are taking the wrong approach.


“Instead of trying to clarify the law and focus on the real problem, here they are trying to tell even more people not to rent out their homes,” said Owen.  “They are trampling on the property rights of even more people.”
(link)

Top Stories

What's on the Council Agenda for Oct. 3rd, 2017: Banning Short-term rentals for all but owner-occupied

The big item on this agenda is the bill to ban short-term rentals for all but owner-occupied homes. The Metro Council will meet Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 6:30 PM in the Council chamber at the Metro Courthouse. If you are going to watch the Council meeting, you need a copy of the Council agenda and the Council staff analysis or you really will not know what is going on. You can get the agenda and analysis at the highlighted links. I am providing this agenda summary and commentary a little early this time as I may not be available to do it later so I am dong this without benefit of the staff analysis. I will try to update prior to the meeting, but if I do not then be aware that this was done without benefit of the staff analysis so I may have missed something important or not fully understood some issue. If you are one who has more than a casual interest in what is on the Council agenda and I do not update, you may want to look at the staff analysis yourself.

Boards and Commission and elections to fill positions. 
There are two mayoral appointees to Boards and Commission on the agenda for confirmation and as always they will be affirmed.  There are four positions on Boards the council must fill. One is  the election of committee chair of the Planning Commission for a two-year term expiring August 31, 2019 and another is chairman of the Parking and Traffic Commission for a two year term. The council will also fill two seats on the Audit Committee.  Without the staff analysis, I am unsure of the qualifications or requirements of these positions. I think the Planning Commission and the Traffic and Parking commission seats usually are selected from members of the Council but am unsure. There is often a lot of lobbing to fill these positions, especially the Planning Commission and the Traffic and Parking Commission.

Public Hearings
There are 21 bills on public hearing. The bills on public hearings are all rezoning bills or related to planning and zoning policy.  While some cities, mostly smaller cities, have a kind of an open mic public hearing policy, where anyone may address their council on any topic, Nashville does not have such a policy.  Only zoning and zoning related bills are on public hearing and once a year the operating budget and the capital improvements budgets.

Rezoning hearings bore me and I don't even try to form an opinion on the merits each rezoning bill before the Council.  Rezoning bills usually are of interest only to people who live near the proposed rezoning. People who don't care one way or the other do not show up and with rare exceptions the only people who speak in favor of rezoning bills are those who will benefit from the rezoning such as the property owner or the developer.  Opponents always make the same argument which boils down to one of these: 1) the change will result in stressing the infrastructure such as too much traffic on the roadway or overcrowd the schools, 2) will cause flooding, and 3) will change for the worse the character of the community. If you are interested in knowing what is permitted in different zoning districts, follow this link.

There is only one bill that I find of much interest on this public hearing:

BILL BL2017-852 in Councilman Mary Carolyn Roberts district would expand an Urban Zoning Overlay District by 1591 acres.  This is a huge expansion. This was previously on the agenda but deferred to this meeting. 

There are 30 resolutions all of which are on the consent agenda. A resolution stays on the consent agenda if it passes  unanimously the committees to which it was assigned. Since the committees have not met yet, some resolutions which are listed as on the consent agenda may not be on the consent agenda when the council meets. Resolutions on the consent agenda are usually not controversial and tend to be routine matters, such as accepting grants from the Federal or State Government, entering into inter agency agreements over mundane things, appropriating money from the 4% fund, settling lawsuits, or approving signs overhanging the sidewalk. Resolutions on the consent agenda are lumped together and passed by a single vote of the Council rather than being considered individually. Any member of the body may have a resolution pulled off of the consent agenda or have their "no" vote or abstention recorded. Unlike a bill which requires three votes of the Council to pass, a resolution only requires one vote of the Council. Below is the resolutions of and significant interest. 

RESOLUTION RS2017-902  authorizes the sale of up to $300 million of water and sewer revenue bonds. This is most likely routine, but $300,000,000 is a lot of money. In reading the resolution one thing that caught my attention was that the city is authorized to take all steps necessary to make the bonds marketable as "Green Bonds." If I were serving on the Council, I would want to know that this is a benefit to the city and not a cost. I also would like to know who, if anyone in the city, gets a free trip to New York City to be wined and dined as a result of the sale. It may be no one, but I would want to determine if that is the case.

 Bills on First reading: There are 27 bills on first reading. First reading is a formality that gets bills on the agenda and they are not considered by committee until after they pass first reading. I do not read them until they get to second reading. Bills on First Reading are all lumped together and pass by a single vote.

Bills on Second Reading. There are 10 bills on Second Reading. None are very important and likely to generate controversy. These are the ones of a little interest:

BILL BL2017-905 and BILL BL2017-906 would establish a a merit-based grant program for non-profits. Currently Metro gives lots of money to worthy non-profits but it seems there is no logic to who gets the money and who does not. Some agencies that get metro funds have had council members as their board members. This would establish a criteria for which organizations get grants. I tend to support this but frankly, I think Metro should not give any money to non-profit organizations. United Way has a bureaucratic mechanism for determining community need and deciding which non-profits gets United Way dollars. I think support for non-profits should be left to the charitable impulse of the people. There are circumstances however, where I think Metro should contract with non-profits to provide specific services that the non-profit can provide better than the city.


BILL BL2017-907  would exempt from the minimum distance requirements for off-sale beer permits those establishments that had on on-sale beer permit following approval of a council resolution. This seems reasonable.

Bills on Third Reading:

BILL NO. BL2017-608 is the bill that would phase out Short Term Rental for all but  owner-occupied properties. This bill also does a lot else. Please see the staff analysis.  The city has been meeting on this issue for months and this bill was first introduced in February of this year. I am surprised to see this on the agenda. I thought the city would propose something different. I would not be surprised to see this substituted with whatever the ad hoc committee that has been studying the issue came up with although I expect it to will phase out non-occupied short-term rental. I oppose this bill. Property owners should have the same right to rent their property short term as they do month to month or long term.

SUBSTITUTE BILL BL2017-801 would require a report from the Department of Public Works regarding obstructions or excavations which close or occupy any portion of the public right of way for a period in excess of six (6) months. This substitute makes the bill less strong or imposes less red tape than did the version before substituted. Not a bad bill as it now stands.

BILL BL2017-867 would strengthen the hand of the government in punishing those with overgrown lots  and BILL BL2017-868  would strengthen the hand of government in punishing those who repeatedly violate property standards laws.

To watch the Council meeting, you can go to the courthouse and watch the meeting in person, or you can watch the broadcast live at Metro Nashville Network's Government TV on Nashville's Comcast Channel 3 and AT&T's U-verse 99 and it is streamed live at the Metro Nashville Network's livestream site and you can watch it live on Roku. You can catch the meeting the next day (or the day after the next) on the Metro YouTube channel. If can stand the suspense and just wait, I will post the video on this blog the day after or the day after that and provide commentary.

Top Stories

What happened at the Council meeting of 7/6/17: Sanctuary city bill withdrawn, ending lifetime health care for Council members withdrawn, ban on hourly motel rental passes.

The big news of the night is that the sanctuary city bill  was withdrawn as the sponsors had previously stated they would do. If you are going to watch the meeting, you need a program. To get a copy of the agenda, the staff analysis of the agenda and my commentary on the agenda follow this link.

The opening prayer is by Mary Murphy, Chaplin of Vanderbilt hospital, and is a not too subtle advocacy of illegal immigration.  She prays that the Lord will open the eyes of the Council to see that all people are created in God's image, male or female or trans, resident or immigrant.

Only one of the three appointees to Boards and Commission were approved and that was that of Mr. John Spragens to the Beer Board. The other two were deferred one meeting and why is not stated. The Rules and Confirmation Chairman, Councilman Jim Shulman, says the nominee was approved eight in favor and one against and then says, there are only eight people on the committee and the "no" vote voted against all resolutions on the agenda and the "no" vote was by Adacus Elrod, "who is the young son of Councilman Elrod." The nominee was approved on voice vote with no recorded "no" votes.  What?  I am baffled.  Adacus Elrod is not a member of the Council.  Why is someone not on the Rules and Confirmation Committee voting in that committee. I assume this was an attempt at humor and Adacus Elrod is a very young son of Councilman Elrod and was there and verbally said "no" when the vote was called for.  I don't know, but that must be it. I have asked for an explanation.

Public Hearing
I am only making note of those bills that were disapproved by the Planning Commission or have greater impact beyond a single neighborhood or generate a lot of public comment or for some other reason are of interest to me. 

BILL NO. BL2017-701  by Karen Johnson is a bill disapproved by the Planning Commission.  It would apply an Urban Design Overlay District on 11.25 acres on Moss Springs Rd and Bluewater Trace. An Urban Design Overlay is a tool to insure that future development or redevelopment is in character with what already exist in the neighborhood and addresses such things as height of buildings and construction material and orientation of the front door and location of the garage. Since this is a disapproved bill the Planning Commission makes a presentation and explains why the bill was disapproved.  The Planning Commission spokesman explains that the proposed UDO requires design features such as building material and driveway width that are to a higher standard than that of the existing housing. As an example, the proposed UDO requires garages to be detached or "side-loading" and he says there are existing housing that has attached "front-loading" garages. To see the discussion of this bill see timestamp 10:13. The bill is approved on a voice vote. A dissaproved bill has to have 27 positive votes on third reading.

BILL NO. BL2017-704 would ban rope lighting on a property that adjoins an arterial and collector street everywhere in Davidson County except in the core of downtown Nashville. This is deferred to the public hearing in August.

BILL NO. BL2017-719  is a bill disapproved by the planning Commission. It would change from R6 to SP zoning on one piece of property. It passes on a voice vote and no one speaks on the bill.  

BILL NO. BL2017-782 is a disapproved bill that would change from CS and R6 to RM15 zoning on property located at 622 Croley Drive. No one speaks in opposition. It passes.

Resolutions. The public hearing is concluded and resolutions are taken up at timestamp 1:27:40 in the video. None of the resolutions are of particular interest. Bills on First Reading all pass by a single vote as is the norm.

Bills on Second Reading 

BILL NO. BL2017-705  would establish an incentive program for neighborhoods that are in full compliance with codes.  A neighborhood could be awarded $5000.  Under this plan, if a neighbor has an overgrown lot, codes could review the violation but not impose penalties and the neighborhood could exert pressure on the offender to come into compliance. I oppose this. I do not want to give more power to neighborhood leaders who may have been elected by only the tiny fraction of the neighborhood that showed up at a community meeting called by the association.  Neighborhood organizations have no official status and no legal authority. I don't want to give them power.  This was deferred from the May 16 Council meeting to the June 6th meeting and then deferred again to this July 6th meeting. It is deferred indefinitely at the request of the sponsor.  No money for this was included in the annual budget so if passed it would have no effect since it is not funded.

BILL NO. BL2017-706 by Scott Davis would reallocate the tax money collected from homesharing (airbnb, STRP) and create a new program. Currently Metro collects a tax on STRP and the revenue is dedicated to the Barnes Fund for Affordable Housing. This bill would create a new Metropolitan Neighborhood Improvement Fund (NIF) and direct that half of the revenue collected from STRP be directed to this fund. This NIF would be a new bureaucracy with an appointed board and various powers and a mission to improve neighborhoods.  I oppose this.  We do not need another bureaucracy. We already have various agencies to deal with the issues that this NIF would deal with.  I also do not think more agencies should operate off their own dedicated funds.  Funding priorities should be decided by the mayor and the council. This was on the agenda of the May 16th meeting and deferred to this July 6th meeting. It is deferred indefinitely.

Robert Swope watches Bob Mendes
give his speech advocating sanctuary policies.

BILL NO. BL2017-741 would require that private parking lots or garages post a sign listing the amount of any fines or penalties that may be charged by the parking facility and to post such information not only at entrances but also at each automatic pre-payment station for those with that type arrangement. Parking facilities must already post their parking fees at the entrance of the facility. This seem reasonable. It passes.

BILL NO. BL2017-743 is a companion bill to the sanctuary city bill.  This one would have
terminated a contract between Metro and the U.S. Marshal Service to house federal inmates. The bill is withdrawn but that does not keep the sponsor from making a speech touting the righteousness of his cause. See timestamp 1:41:14.

BILL NO. BL2017-790   modifies the provision of health insurance benefits for Council members after they leave office.   Currently policy allows Council members to participate in Metro's health insurance program under the same terms and conditions as are available to regular Metro employees. After leaving office, members who were participants in the health care plan are allowed to continue, provided they pay the full amount of the premium with no subsidy from Metro. However, if a Council held office for eight  years or more they are permitted to continue the health care plan, only paying an employee's portion and the balance of the insurance premium paid by Metro. This would leave unchanged this benefit for current or past council members but for new council member, this generous benefit would be reduced. Except in a few circumstances, no Council member serving after August 31,2019 would be eligible for the subsidized health care benefit after leaving office. I support this. Members of the Council should not get lifetime healthcare simply for serving in the Council. It is deferred indefinitely which most of time means it is killed.  

Bills on Third Reading

BILL NO. BL2017-611 is an anti Short Term Rental Properties bill.  Already an applicants for a STRP permit is  required to  include a statement with his application that "the applicant has confirmed that operating the proposed STRP would not violate any Home Owners Association agreement or bylaws, Condominium Agreement, Covenants, Codes and Restrictions or any other agreement governing and limiting the use of the proposed STRP property. "This would add requirement that an applicant advise "the department of codes administration of any objection or opposition to the application by any such association of which the applicant is aware." The bill is substituted and I am not sure what the substitute does. It is deferred indefinitely at the request of the sponsor but he explains why he is proposing the bill and says he hopes the bills objectives will be achieved in future legislation that a committee of the Council is developing that addresses several aspects of STRP.

BILL NO. BL2017-726   would add a requirement for the Department of Finance to maintain a written debt management policy for the metropolitan government. While revenue has been increasing to Metro, we have at the same time been increasing our debt obligations.  Our debt is manageable now, but if and when Metro's growth slows, along with insurance obligations to retirees and Metro Pension obligations, much of the budget will be untouchable and essential services will have to be cut. My view is that now is a time we should be reducing debt, not adding to debt. This bill would require Metro to have a debt policy including pension liability and establishes certain criteria for establishing the debt policy.  This alone will not bring fiscal responsibility to Metro Government; that takes courage and will, but this is a good step in the right direction. It is approved on a voice vote. I would like to point out that the sponsor is Bob Mendes who is also the prime sponsor of the sanctuary city bill. While I think the sanctuary city bill is the worst bill on the agenda, I think this is the best bill on the agenda. One can do something you strongly disagree with and then do something you strongly agree with in the same meeting. I would consider the sanctuary city bill a liberal proposal, but this a fiscally responsible conservative proposal.

BILL NO. BL2017-737 would subject "platform vehicles" in Nashville to the regulations of the Transportation Licensing Commission. This is vehicles like open deck buses are a trailer pulled behind a tractor.  This does not adopt specific regulations but would make these vehicles subject to regulations to be adopted by separate future legislation. It passes.

BILL NO. BL2017-738 would prohibit motels from marketing or renting rooms for a period of

Councilman Colby Sledge defends illegal immigration
before withdrawing the sanctuary city bill.

less than ten hours.  In my view, why you rent the room for less than ten hours, should be no ones business. For a city so liberal  that it promotes acceptance of homosexuality among the youth of our city, this seems somewhat puritanical. It passes without discussion.

BILL NO. BL2017-739  is the sanctuary city bill and ends up being withdraw as the sponsor said he would do.  Councilmen Colby Sledge, the prime co-sponsor of the bill, takes to the floor to defend the bill prior to withdrawing it.  He says the illegal immigrants embody the principles of the July 5th holiday we just celebrated. He says we have an "us" versus "them" problem.  He chastises the  collective "we" for not defending illegal immigrants. He defends those who illegally enter this country.  I have posted numerous times about this controversial piece of legislation. To learn more about this issue, scale down and see previous postings. To see Colby Sledge's pro illegal immigration speech in which he essentially calls those who don't support illegal immigrants as bad people, see timestamp 2:04::20 to 2:08:24.

Top Stories