The Folly of HB1632/SB1636

Josh Stites

by Josh Stites - In my four years on the Council I was considered a reliable conservative vote. But, it always bothered me when people assumed they knew how I would vote simply because an issue was declared “right” or “left”. In our culture of sound bites and snap judgments, consideration of every possible alternative is considered by many a weakness. But, I think the poverty-laced inclusionary zoning discussion is just one of these issues that doesn’t fit nicely into any box. For those who want background on the issue in Nashville you can go here, here, or here.

This week legislation was introduced on the state level to prohibit any local government from enacting legislation requiring inclusionary zoning. I’m not opposed to the state stepping into local affairs when it’s necessary to maintain a cohesive statewide business environment or protect citizens from harmful actions of a local government, but I think HB1632 passes neither of these tests. HB1632 is simply a Williamson County representative’s response to a small number of his financial supporters who themselves have a business interest in the zoning laws in Nashville. I get that and it’s nothing new. It happens across the aisle and at all levels of government. But, that doesn’t make it right or a good idea.

But my frustration is that Casada uses free market reasoning for his bill. I’m a big free market guy. And I agree that the free market could fix our affordable housing problem. Quickly. But, to those who have ever tried developing land or building anything in any big city, they know that land development does not happen in a free market. On the contrary it is a tightly controlled market by unelected but often well-meaning bureaucrats at the local planning departmentand the political and sometimes not well-meaning appointees of the Planning Commission. State law doesn’t just permit such meddling into the free market of local real estate - it requires it in Title 13, Chapter 4 of the state code. Each planning department, by state law, is required to create a general plan every ten years or so. This general plan serves as the tool by which planning departments dictate where a developer can build housing and what type of housing can be built. If Casada really wants to champion free markets, sponsor a bill prohibiting zoning. It’s worked well for Houston.

In Nashville the current plan (Nashville Next) generally calls for affordable and workforce housing to be concentrated in pockets along the major corridors of Nashville. Think: Murfreesboro Road, Lebanon Pike, Charlotte Ave, Dickerson Pike, Franklin Road, West End Avenue, Hillsboro Road. I’m not a class warfare conspiracist, but I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that the number of affordable units built along Hillsboro Pike and West End in the next decade won’t be enough to house the workers required for one downtown hotel. This “free” market that Casada hides behind in defense of his bill is anything but. It’s law already that the local government has the authority to dictate where affordable housing units are to be built, why all of a sudden does he care how many?

And the head scratcher for me is this; when affordable housing is torn down to make way for newer more expensive homes or other uses, where do those people needing affordable housing go? They move to where the affordable houses are - that is gradually further and further from the urban core and ultimately out past the county line. Developers who don’t want to contend with the burdensome regulations and requirements of the Metro Planning Commission are going to go to where land is cheap. So all the suburb representatives and senators, including Senator Haile of Sumner who is sponsor of SB1636, should be delighted that Metro wants to keep the poverty associated with affordable housing in Davidson County.

Advocates of IZ make a convincing case that the worst thing for someone growing up in poverty is to be around more people in poverty. Therefore, concentrating all of the poverty in certain areas by way of mandating the small areas where affordable housing exists is truly an institutionalized disservice to the least among us. The poor we will always have with us, but how we treat them and the opportunities we give them to advance says a lot about our character. And if you want to read more about that you can go here, here or here.

While I have a different view and am pleased to see legislation introduced that would ban mandatory inclusionary zoning, I am pleased to present an alternative point view from my friend, former Councilman Josh Stites. Rod 

Top Stories

Bob Corker and the elimination of slavery around the globe.

by Josh Stites,

Dwight Eisenhower and the integration of public schools.

George W. Bush and the fight against AIDS in Africa.

Bob Corker and the elimination of slavery around the globe.

Slavery in all of its evil forms has existed for thousands of years. Although slavery is illegal in every country in the world, it is estimated that there are still more than 27 million people living in slavery around the globe. In his new role as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker has made one of his first acts the creation of a $1.5 Billion fund to fight slavery in some of the darkest countries on earth. The funds would come in large part from private donors who have a passion to see the eradication of slavery around the world and the funds would be deployed through public-private partnerships.

One of the organizations that would likely be a partner is the International Justice Mission (IJM). In 2013 the Metro Nashville Council passed a resolution declaring its support of IJM and declaring October 1, 2013 as IJM Day in Nashville. IJM is one of the premier organizations on the front lines in the fight against human trafficking. The Metro resolution can be found here.

Fittingly, this bold initiative was first announced in Tennessee this past weekend via the Chattanooga TimesFree Press and the Tennessean.

At a time when there’s plenty in our government to criticize, it’s always appropriate and important to praise the good. I encourage you to familiarize yourself with this important initiative as Senator Corker’s office rolls out more information in the coming days. You can read a great column from David Cook here to learn more. And if you are as impressed as I have been, you should call (202-224-3344) or email Senator Corker and encourage him to keep up this worthy fight.

It is credited to Edmund Burke, who is regarded as the father of modern conservatism, as having said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” You need not look very long to see that evil is advancing in many parts of our world. Bob Corker is stepping up to the fight and if successful, history will remember him as having accomplished one of the great feats of our time.

Josh Stites is a member of the Nashville-Davidson County Metro Council representing District 13. 

Top Stories

Josh Stites will not seek reelection

Josh Stites

Yesterday, Josh Stites announced he would not be seeking reelection to the Metro Council. In my view, Josh Stites is one of the best councilmen to ever have served our city. He is solidly and consistently conservative and thoughtful and well-informed.

I knew there was a strong likelihood he would not seek reelection. He told me several weeks ago that he may not run, but I was hoping he would reconsider and decide to run. We need people like Josh in the Council. While I wish he was seeking reelection, I fully understand his reasoning for not doing so. Serving in the Council, if one works hard at the job and studies the issues and is faithful in serving one's constituents, is almost a full-time job and it can take a toll on family and career. 

I appreciate his service and wish him well. Below is the email where he announced his decision not to seek reelection.

Friends,

Each of you played a part in helping me get elected to the Metro Council in 2011. Either through your time, talent or treasure you believed in what I set out to do. Sometimes I was successful and sometimes I was not. But I learned a lot along the way and I hope the people of Nashville are better off because of my efforts. Thank you for your help. Below is an email I will be sending out to the voters of District 13 later. I wanted you to know and thank you for helping me have this extraordinary opportunity. I will forever be grateful.

Josh

District 13 Neighbors and Friends,

Being elected to serve as your representative on the Metro Council has been one of the high honors of my life. However much has changed in the past four years, I have changed careers and Jenny and I had our first son in April. While being involved in our form of government is important, there is nothing more important to me than being a husband and dad. So, in order to make time for the things I value most, I have decided not to seek reelection this August. This isn’t a decision I make lightly. The campaigning and serving in this capacity has been a great experience, one I will cherish for a lifetime. Thank you for this opportunity!

Finally, after having a front row seat to self-governance the past four years, I want to encourage you to consider the words of Thomas Jefferson.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

If we are to remain free and prosperous it will require unyielding effort to be informed, involved and active in shaping our government. But it’s a fight worth having.

Thanks again,

Josh Stites

Top Stories

How the Council voted on same-sex Metro benefits & who simply did not vote.

On July 3rd the Metro Council passed a bill on second reading that would extend metro benefits to the domestic partner of same-sex couples.  The measure is estimated to cost between $400,000 and $900,000 a year.  While the cost is reason enough to oppose the measure, in my view a more compelling reason is that we should not be normalizing what is a perverted life style.  We should not treat as if married, two homosexuals who live together.  If we wanted to say that any two people who share a household and have financial entanglement could be treated the same as a married couple, then I would have less problem with the bill.  I am sure that among Metro's employees, there is a son caring for his elderly mother who lives with him, or there is a mother carrying for her disabled son who lives wither her, or there are two "old maids" who share expenses but do not share sex. If we want to extend this service to people who may be dependent on each other, why is it contingent that they have a sexual relationship?

The vote to approve the bill was 25 in favor, 6 opposed, and 3 voting to abstain.

 BILL NO. BL2014-779

An ordinance amending Title 3 of the Metropolitan Code to provide domestic partner benefits for Metropolitan Government employees. The bill was approved by the Budget and Finance Committee and Personnel-Public Information-Human Resources-Housing Committees. Mr. Westerholm moved to pass the bill on second reading, which motion was seconded and adopted by a the following roll call vote: “Ayes” Barry, Steine, Garrett, Tygard, Matthews, Harrison, Hunt, Banks, Scott Davis, Westerholm, Anthony Davis, Stanley, Moore, Allen, Gilmore, Baker, Evans, Holleman, McGuire, Harmon, Johnson, Potts, Bedne, Todd, Mitchell (25); “Noes” Pridemore, Pardue, Glover, Stites, Claiborne, Dominy (6); “Abstaining” Bennett, Blalock, Dowell (3).

Bill Pridemore
voted NO

Doug Pardue
voted NO

I am extremely proud of those six who voted "No" and want to put a picture with the face.  I am especially proud of the stand and comments made by Josh Sites.

Josh Stites
voted NO

Steve Glover
voted NO

Phil Clairborne
voted NO

Duane Dominy
voted NO

Three Council members voted to abstain. I do not understand a vote to abstain.  I think on controversial issues one should get off the fence and state how they stand.  Sometimes one votes to abstain when they have a conflict of interest. If a council member works for a company that is seeking a zone change, then a vote to abstain is appropriate, or if one has some other conflict of interest. On a bill like these there is no logic to a vote to abstain. Of the three abstentions  Karen Bennett and Davette Blalock who are both Republicans are very disappointing. I am not familiar enough with Jacobia Dowell to know how she would have voted, had she voted. I emailed Karen Bennett and Davette Blalock to give them a chance to tell me why they abstained, but I did not hear from either of them.

 Here are the pictures of those who chose to not take a stand and voted to abstain. 

Jacobia Dowell
Abstained

Karen Bennett
Abstained

Davette Blalock
Abstained

Twenty-five of the Council members voted "yes."  Many of them are obviously liberals and I am not surprised. Some of them I don't know well enough to have guessed how they would have voted. Some of them however disappoint me in how they voted. Maybe my evaluation of them was wrong, but these are the Councilman who disappointment. I am especially disappointing in Charlie Tygerd, and Carter Todd both of whom are Republicans.  

Here are the "yes" votes that either surprised me or disappointed me.

Charlie Tygard
voted YES

Emily Evans
voted YES

Carter Todd
voted YES

Tim Garrett
voted YES

There is one vacancy in the Council and Council Member Edith Langster was absent for the whole meeting. Other Council Member who did not vote at all and were present at least for part of the meeting were Jerry Maynard, Tony Tenpenny, Sheri Weiner and Robert Duvall. I do not know if Mr. Maynard was present for this vote or not. This vote was near the end of agenda and the meeting was almost five hours long, so he may have not been present and had a legitimate reason.  I did speak to Councilman Tenpenny, Sheri Weiner, and Robert Duvall. They all had left the meeting early with very legitimate reason. Council member Sheri Weiner had a health issue and Councilman Robert Duvall and Councilman Tony Tenpenny had family emergencies. I won't go into details but they all did what they needed to do by leaving early. All three told me that had they been there they would have been "no" votes and that they will continue to oppose this effort.

As disappointing as I am in those who I expected to be "no's" who voted yes and those who abstained, I am disappointed in the Christian community and those who advocate traditional values. The Social Conservatives were AWOL on this issue. Had the three who abstained voted "no" and the two of the four disappointing "yes's" voted "no" and Weiner, Tenpenny and Duvall been present, the vote would have been to 23 to 14. If there would have been a campaign from advocates of traditional values to stop this, I believe five more votes could have been switched and it could have been killed. An outpouring of opposition could still stop this between now and June 17th.

If anyone, I mentioned in this blog post would like to explain your vote or your abstention, please feel free to leave a comment, or email me and I will post your explanation.

Top Stories

What happened at the Council meeting of 2/4/2013: Borrowing money to buy laptops.

At 2 1/2 hours this is a long meeting. I am not going to give a play by play description. I am only hitting a few highlights. To follow the meeting in the agenda and the analysis follow this link. To see how the Budget and Finance voted on the most important issues, follow this link.

The public hearing portion of the bills takes up the first one hour and 48 minutes of the meeting.

The bill that would put new restrictions on outdoor music events is differed until the first meeting in March.

The two resolutions that are not one the consent agenda are below. Discussion of the two resolutions not on consent start at time stamp 1:55:24.

RESOLUTION NO. RS2014-948 appropriates $13,100,000 from the Undesignated Fund Balance of the Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools General Purpose Fund to the Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools General Purpose Fund Operational Account for the purpose of funding the purchase laptop computers, teacher technology training and a universal screener assessment for the implementation of Common Core testing, and an incentive program for teacher retirement. This is the bill by Bo Mitchell. It is deferred one meeting, which, I believe makes the second time it has been deferred. The bill was deferred "by rule" because Mitchell did not show up at the Budget and Finance Committee meeting or communicate what he wanted the committee to do with the bill. This bill will eventually be withdrawn or defeated.

RESOLUTION NO. RS2014-963 authorizes the issuance of $21 million in general obligation bonds! This is for the purchase of heavy equipment for various departments and $6 million for laptop computers to implement common core testing. The Metro charter calls for sitting aside 4% of the metro budget for the purchase of equipment and make repairs. This would be the first time the city, instead of using the that fund to purchase equipment or make repairs or other such things, will instead borrow the money to do so.  Discussion starts at 1:56:30. 

Josh Stites

For a better understanding of this bill see the B&F Committee meeting and read the staff analysis. In my view, this is a risky way to do business. The city should buy equipment as we go. The city has borrow a lot of money under Dean's administration and now we are borrowing for to finance living expenses. It is one thing to borrow to purchase a home, it is something else entirely to borrow to buy groceries and that is the equivalent of what the city is doing.

 Charlie Tygerd speaks against it but does not vote against it. Councilman Josh Stites take to the floor speaks with passion and clarity against the bill. Stites says, "This is a symptom of a much Larger problem...We are leveraging entirely too much. ....Someday the music will stop." (see 1:59:45). Congratulation Josh Stites!
Only Councilman Stites and Councilman Standley end up voting against the bill. I am disappointed in several of the Councilmen who call themselves conservative and who did not vote against this bill. This was an opportunity to take a stand against irresponsible spending. I expected a few others to oppose this bill.

The memorializing resolution which calls for adding five additional early voting sites for the May election passes.

Here is the Tennessean's report on the Council Meeting: Council approves plan to borrow $6M for equipment for Common Core testing.

Top Stories

Councilmenber's comment on Dean's plan to borrow to fund the pension obligation.

From The Tennessean: Dean looks to borrow $200M to cover pension obligations

Josh Stites

Metro Councilman Josh Stites called the administration’s plan irresponsible. “It’s the nature of pension bonds: You’re borrowing money to pay an obligation,” Stites said. “We, as individual taxpayers, don’t use our credit card to pay our mortgage. And that’s essentially what this is doing.”

Emily Evans

Councilwoman Emily Evans, a former municipal bond underwriter, said pension obligation bonds generally don’t work except in periods of high inflation, “and that’s not in the forecast right now.”

“This is widely considered in the municipal bond business to be a very bad practice,” she said. “To beat the interest rate, you have to take on more risk in your pension fund. And a lot of people out there are counting on that money who have no idea what we’re doing.”
 

Top Stories

Councilman Josh Stites wants BRT route study for Charlotte Avenue

Josh Stites

Good for Josh Stites.  I don't know the best route for the proposed BRT but do think other routes ought to also be considered..  There is a lot of opposition to the West End portion of the proposed route and concern about the impact on West End vehicular traffic, and there are people who actually want a Charlotte route. Charlotte would be less disruptive. 

I accept that the ARC needs to connect two destinations and it needs to go downtown. Connecting White Bridge Road and Five Points makes sense and passing by universities and hospitals makes sense. Also, Mid Town is set to have increased density and mass transit needs density to work. I would think a route that connects Green Hills to downtown would also make a lot of sense. We need to start somewhere and that route may be in the future.   If we want to create a mass transit system that is used my more than just the urban poor, the West End route is more attractive than the Charlotte route. However, before we fund any route we should at least look at other options and have some public input.

Nashville councilman wants BRT route study for Charlotte Avenue

by Michael Cass, The Tennessean, June 11, 2013-A Metro councilman wants to amend Mayor Karl Dean’s capital spending plan to require the Metro Transit Authority to study the feasibility of a bus rapid transit route along Charlotte Avenue.

The amendment, filed by Councilman Josh Stites for a council vote tonight, would preserve the $7.5 million in engineering funding Dean is seeking to advance the project known as The Amp. But while Dean has said the proper route is from the Five Points area of East Nashville to the White Bridge Road area of West Nashville along West End Avenue, Stites’ plan for the funding would “include a feasibility study of the use of Charlotte Avenue as an alternate route. (To read more and see an animation that shows riding bus rapid transit in Nashville follow this link.)

Top Stories

As a thorn in mayor's side, Josh Stites starts to see results, if not credit

This is a good article on Councilman Josh Stites that appeared in Sunday's City Paper.

As a thorn in mayor's side, Josh Stites starts to see results, if not credit 

By Steven Hale Sunday, June 9, 2013- When Mayor Karl Dean proposes an economic incentives package, it passes. If you’re a reporter, Josh Stites is the Metro Council member you call when it does.

In less than two years in office he has developed an outsized profile for a first-term district councilman, bolstered by his consistent opposition to Dean’s economic development method of choice. When it comes to corporate tax breaks the administration frequently uses to keep companies in Nashville — or lure them here — Stites has been a “No” man on a council that is often maligned as a rubber stamp for the mayor’s plans. (read more)

Top Stories

Council meeting of 2/05/2013 with notation and commentary

Above is the video of Tuesday night's council meeting. It is 2 hours and 19 minutes long.

There are nine bills on public hearing.

Most of them are zoning issue that would impact no one except the immediate neighbors of the proposed rezoning so I not going to attempt to describe this purely local bills, except to call attention to them.

BILL NO. BL2013-348 would rezone 81.70 acres in midtown. This apparently is part of that proposed massive rezoning that was to coincide with the new east-west bus mass transit proposal, however I am not sure of that. In any event it is deferred until May 7th.  

BILL NO. BL2013-351 is a rezoning in mid town that proves controversial. The discussion starts at 7:55 in the video and does not end until 43:02 and it passes.

BILL NO. BL2013-353 sponsored by Councilman Tenpenny is a bill that would rezone a piece of property in Woodbine to benefit a tire recapper and it generates quite a bit of public comment. I find this interesting because this is the former district I used to represent many years ago and I still have an interest in things that happen in my old district and because the local Internet group has been abuzz with discussion about this , and also because Rick Williams, a citizen activist who many of us know, speaks in favor of it and former Council member Anna Page speaks in opposition. This bill was disapproved by the Planning Commission but passes on a voice vote. (see 43:56 to 1:31:18)

BILL NO. BL2013-354: This ordinance would delete the "historic home event provisions" in their entirety and would create a new use called “special events center” to be permitted in the mixed-use, office, and commercial districts, and permitted with conditions in the mixed-use neighborhood and commercial neighborhood zoning districts. These events would not be allowed in residential zoning districts.

I really don't know what the impact of this would be and thankfully it is deferred indefinitely. There are some old historic homes in Nashville which are permitted to act as bed and breakfast facilities and to host events such as weddings and receptions and corporate retreats.  Some of these old homes are so grand that it not allowed to operate in this capacity they would probably deteriorate and eventually become condemned and be lost forever. I live in a neighborhood with one of these historic homes that operates in this fashion. Some neighbors have relentlessly tried to prohibit it's operation, opposing horse-drawn carriages delivering brides to the home for weddings, counting cars to try to catch the venue violating the valet parking requirements and timing the required ending time of events to catch people not leaving by the required time. I actually think having this historic home in my neighborhood is a plus, but some neighbors try to drive them out of business. I hope this ordinance is not an attempt to destroy the operation of these historic homes.

There are twelve resolutions, all were originally on the consent agenda however 558 and 559 are removed from the consent agenda.  A resolution is on the consent agenda if it passed the committees to which it was assigned unanimously. Bills on the consent agenda are usually not controversial and tend to be routine matters, such as accepting grants from the Federal or State Government or authorizing the Department of Law to settle claims against the city or appropriating money from the 4% fund. Resolutions on the consent agenda are passed by a single vote of the Council rather than being considered individually. However, any member of the body may have a bill pulled off of the consent agenda. All that remain on the consent agenda pass.

The resolutions amending the Capital Improvements Budget and Program (RESOLUTIONNO. RS2013-558) and the bonding authority for additions to the Capital Improvements budget (RESOLUTIONNO. RS2013-559),  which authorize and funds the improvement to the rear of the Bridgestone Arena which will now be across from the front of the new Music City Center and the relocation of the central police precinct, which is now located in the Bridgestone Arena on Broadway, are substituted and pass.  The substitutes are only minor changes. Given that we have already built the new conventions center, in my view, these improvements seem reasonable. These resolutions pass without opposition.

Bills on First reading almost always pass. There are twenty bills on first reading. They are considered as a group and are seldom discussed. First reading is a formality that allows the bill to be considered. Bills are not assigned to committee or analyzed by council staff until after they have passed first reading.  

 Bill 360, which is another bill concerning the pay and benefits, including health insurance benefits, of former Metro Council members is passed on first and differed indefinitely. Council remember Evans explains why (1:40:25).

Bills on Second Reading: It is on Second reading, after bills have been to committee, that discussion usually takes place.  There are only three bills on second reading and none of them are of any importance.

Bills on Third Reading: Third Reading is the final reading. If a bill passes third reading it becomes law unless it is vetoed by the Mayor, which has only rarely happened. Below are the bills of interest on third reading.

• SUBSTITUTE BILL NO. BL2012-283 is the new Metro Solicitation bill that would impose new regulations on commercial door-to-door solicitors. (Read more about this issue.)  This bill is deferred until the first meeting in March.

• BILL NO. BL2012-320 is the bill that would reduce the health insurance benefit to future former Metro Council members. This benefit currently costs Metro approximately $300,000 per year. Due to term limits there are a growing number of former metro council members. This cost is going to continue to increase. This bill passed second reading by a vote of 25 to 13.

Here is how council members voted on second reading:

"Ayes”- Barry, Steine, Garrett, Tygard, Banks, Scott Davis, Westerholm, Pridemore, Jernigan, Glover, Stites, Stanley, Claiborne, Tenpenny, Allen, Baker, Langster, Weiner, Holleman, McGuire, Harmon, Blalock, Dominy, Todd, Mitchell (25);
"Noes”- Maynard, Matthews, Harrison, Hunt, Bennett, Pardue, Moore, Gilmore, Evans, Johnson, Potts, Bedne, Dowell (13).

On third reading it fails. These are the members who voted for it an third: Tygerd, Banks, Glover, Stites, Clairborne, Holeman, McGuire, Harmon, and Mitchell.

The logic for the defeat is to have a full comprehensive compensation study to include a consideration of the size of our forty-member council.  

I am very disappointed that some of whom I think of as the "good" council members voted against this bill. Congratulation for Claiborne for trying. (See the discussion at 1:49:22 - 1:59:09)

BILL NO.BL2013-338 by Tygard and Dominy says that no sole source contract for the purchase of goods or services in excess of $250,000 may be entered into unless the contract has been approved by a resolution adopted by the council by twenty-one affirmative votes. Unfortunately, this bill is amended to exempt contracts  for development services, which means the city's contract with the Chamber for Partnership 2020 will not have to have Council approval. This is too bad. This is still a good bill but does not address the serious issue of Partnership 2020. It passes. 

BILLNO. BL2013-339 and BILL NO.BL2013-340 are more incentives to private business to get them to stay or relocate to Nashville. Councilman Stites tries to amend the bill to require that companies getting these incentives be accountable for the job creation they promise in exchange for tax abatement.  Councilman McGuire argues against the Stites amendment. 

Councilman Stites has been the lone voice critical of these incentives. This time he picks up some support. Stites does a great job arguing his position. Also, congratulations to Councilman Duvall. "Folks, we are giving away the people's money,"  he says. 

This practice must end or every company that stays or locates to Nashville will expect a bribe for doing so. While Stites loses, it looks like the idea that performance standards accompany tax incentive deals is gaining ground. Five council members vote against the deal: Stites, Standley, Gilmore, Dominy, and Duvall. 

(See 2:00:49- 2:15:02) (See the Tennessean and City Paper articles below to learn more about the issue.)

Below is the Tennessean's coverage:

Metro Council signs off on arena improvements, other spending

 by Joey Garrison, The Tennessean, Feb 5, 2013- Major exterior upgrades are in store for Bridgestone Arena's south side, including new retail and restaurants to anchor a second stadium entrance, as part of a $110 million capital plan the Metro Council approved Tuesday.

Also Tuesday, the council agreed to forfeit millions of dollars in tax revenue for the promise of job creation after approving separate property tax discounts for Nashville-based AmSurg Corp and Seattle's Oberto beef jerky. The deals are intended to spur investments from the companies. (link)

Here is the City Paper coverage: 

Council passes AmSurg, Oberto tax breaks despite last-minute amendment effort

By Steven Hale, City Paper,Tuesday, February 5, 2013 - 
...
Councilman Josh Stites, a consistent opponent of Metro’s tax incentive packages, offered amendments that would have required the companies to reach job-creation benchmarks in order to receive the full tax break. They were defeated, but the idea of including more accountability in similar deals going forward found support. (link)

Top Stories

What happened in the Council Feb, 5, 2013: Bridgestone improvements and more corporate welfare

Here is the video of last night's council meeting. It is 2 hours and 19 minutes long. I have not watched it yet myself. If you wait, I will watch if for you and tell you what is important and where to go in the video to see the rousing rhetoric, passionate speeches and exciting debates. I also may tell you what to think about it. If you can't wait, have at it.

Below is the Tennessean's coverage:

Metro Council signs off on arena improvements, other spending

 by Joey Garrison, The Tennessean, Feb 5, 2013- Major exterior upgrades are in store for Bridgestone Arena's south side, including new retail and restaurants to anchor a second stadium entrance, as part of a $110 million capital plan the Metro Council approved Tuesday.

Also Tuesday, the council agreed to forfeit millions of dollars in tax revenue for the promise of job creation after approving separate property tax discounts for Nashville-based AmSurg Corp and Seattle's Oberto beef jerky. The deals are intended to spur investments from the companies. (link)

Here is the City Paper coverage: 

Council passes AmSurg, Oberto tax breaks despite last-minute amendment effort

By Steven Hale, City Paper,Tuesday, February 5, 2013 - 
...
Councilman Josh Stites, a consistent opponent of Metro’s tax incentive packages, offered amendments that would have required the companies to reach job-creation benchmarks in order to receive the full tax break. They were defeated, but the idea of including more accountability in similar deals going forward found support. (link)

Top Stories

The HCA Deal and the Race to the Bottom. Maybe Stites was right.

On Tuesday night when the Council voted to lavish $66 million on HCA to entice them to move their headquarters all the way from Brentwood to Nashville and to develop a prime piece of property, only one Council member voted against the give-away deal, Josh Stites.

He argued that the city had just raised property taxes and now we were turning around and giving away massive amounts of money to one of the wealthiest corporate citizens in Nashville. He also argued that by exempting so many companies from paying taxes, that our tax collections would suffer and there would be insufficient revenue to improve schools. Quality of education he said, is one of the prime factors that cause companies to choose to move to a particular city, so while we are enticing companies with massive tax abatement giveaways, we are making our community less attractive to companies by insufficiently improving schools,

Stites also argued that giving such money to big companies was simply not fair and we should also provide the same incentive to small business.

I opined that while in principle I was sympathetic to Stites argument, that if I were serving in the Council, I would have nevertheless held my nose and voted for the deal. I wish we gave no financial incentive to TV and movie production companies, sports teams or companies. The truth is, however, that if we did not we would never get a TV show or movie, we would not have professional sports teams, and would probably loose the areas biggest employers.  Giving money to one company and not another is picking winners and losers and that offends me. I don't like the way we have to do business, but I am pragmatic enough to know we are in competition with other cities. To compete, we have to compete in giveaways and tax abatements.

I don't like it that sports teams or movies or companies can hold us hostage, but they can and they do. If the Country Music Hall of Fame was to announce that they planning to move to either Knoxville, Austin, Atlanta, or Lexington and started a bidding war to go or stay, how high would the bidding go?  How much should and would we pay to keep it?  I don't know, but I would want us to compete to keep it here.

In an editorial appearing in yesterday's New York Times called Race to the Bottom, the problem of cities and states using incentives to lure businesses is explored. The editors must have been listening to Josh Stites when they say, "The Times found that state and local governments are giving out $80 billion a year in tax breaks and other subsidies in a foolhardy, shortsighted race to attract companies. That money could go a long way to improving education, transportation and other public services that would have a far better shot at promoting real economic growth."


I would like to print the whole piece but respecting Fair Use, I am only posting a couple other excerpts:

• Though they promise that the subsidies are smart investments, far too often the jobs either don’t materialize or are short-lived, leaving the communities no better off. 

• The fact is, numerous studies show that such incentives result in only a small increase in jobs and that any gains usually come at the expense of other cities and states. 

• The senseless race to give away billions in subsidies is, of course, hard to stop when elected leaders think a pledge of potential jobs might help in their next election.

 You can read the whole article here. Also, the Times is doing an in depth three-part series exploring how cities lose by giving away money. Part one of that series can be found here.

Stites may be right. I just wonder how one can get off the giveaway treadmill while other cities are going full steam ahead.
 

Top Stories

Highlights and summary of the 12/04/2012 Council meeting

HCA gets the Deal, Private property rights advocates speak against down zoning,

This council meeting is 2 hours and 16 minutes long. I am only highlighting those bills that I deem to be of a general interest or are especially controversial. In addition to the bills I highlight, there are other zoning bills on public hearing that are of interest to the neighbors who reside in the part of town where the rezoning is proposed.

Bills on Public Hearing:

BILL NO. BL2012-292 would permit home recording studios in residential neighborhoods. This is not uncommon in Nashville. Under this proposal a recording studio could have up to ten clients, customers, musicians, or other visitors come to the property per day. Currently they are only allowed to have one visitor. The noise ordinance would still apply.

Several prominent songwriters and musician speak in favor of the bill, including Bryan Cunnings who composed the instrumental "Do the Dog" and has a distinguished career including lead guitar player with ShaNaNa, touring with everyone from Al Jarreau to K.T. Oslin and has written a slew of song.

Less Kerr, another prominent entertainer also spoke in favor of the bill. Speaking in opposition was David Pomeroy, a prominent bass player and head of the musicians union. His argument is that the restrictions would be unenforceable and that a better bill needs to be drawn. The bill is deferred and referred to committee. Council Member Barry promises to get input of the music committee and work on improving the bill. (see 14:03-26:33)

BILL NO. BL2012-301 by Council Member Karen Johnson would down zone a piece of property, allowing only a two story building, where currently the Planned Unit Development on the property would allow a four story building. (see 26:34-58:00.)

Four  people, who are members of the community, speak for the bill. Speaking against the bill is one of the owners of Vastland, the company that owns the property and the developer of Nashboro village for about the last fifteen years. He explains that a large development such as Nashboro Village cannot be developed in a short period of time, and that just because time has passed since the plan was approved is not reason to change the zoning.

Next to speak was an investor in the project who explains that without certainty that one can develop a property the way it is zoned, then one cannot secure financing. He was explaining the complexity and the steps that must be taken and the factor that go into consideration in developing a piece of property, when his time expired.

Next is Daniel Lewis (see 43:51) chairman of the Davidson County Libertarian Party. He says this is a fundamental attack on private property and quotes John Locke and gives a good history lesson. (Not that I would always agree with him, but I wish we had Daniel Lewis or someone like him in the Council. If we did, then things like the unanimous support of limo price fixing and unanimous support of giving EPA dictatorial powers and things like giving eminent domain power to other governmental agencies would not occur. We need at least one dogmatic champion of liberty in the Council.)

Engineer and former Councilman Roy Dale (54:45) is among others speaking against the bill saying this is bad for business. Saying if this passes it sends a bad message to investors.

The vote is 28-8 by machine vote. Those voting against the bill are Tygerd, Banks, Stites, Claiborne, Baker, Langster, and Weiner. Robert Duvall was absent, but some of the other councilmen who I think of as the "good councilmen" disappoint me and voted for it. If I would have been in the Council I would have voted against the bill.

Other bills of interest are BILL NO. BL2012-309 (1:02-1:18:50) would rezones a piece of property to permit a used tire store and BILL NO. BL2012-291 (1:23:09- 1:44:05)   which amends the definition of “recycling facility” to clarify that it does not include the conversion of material into a fuel product or asphalt.

There are fourteen resolutions on the consent agenda. None are pulled. A resolution is on the consent agenda if it passed the committees to which it was assigned unanimously. Bills on the consent agenda are usually not controversial and tend to be routine matters.

There are two resolutions not on the consent agenda, RESOLUTION NO.RS2012-488.and SUBSTITUTE RESOLUTION NO. RS2012-489. These are part of the HCA deal. (see 1:48:55-2:00:27) 

Councilman Josh Stites takes to the floor (1:55:050) and argues against the bills saying we just raised property taxes and yet we are here giving a tax break to a wealthy company. He says he does not blame HCA for seeking the deal but says, "their obligation is to their shareholder; our obligation is to tax payers. It is a distinction we should not forget."

He makes a good argument against the bill. While I admire Stites for taking the lone stand against the bill and while I agree in principle that we should not be offering incentives for companies or movie or TV production projects or sports teams, we must compete with other cities that are offering such incentive. Unfortunately we are in an environment in which sports team, movies or companies will go somewhere else with their project unless they are bribed given an incentive. If I would have been in the Council, I think I would have had to hold my nose and reluctantly vote for the bill.

All Bills on First reading pass. Bills on first reading are considered as a group and are seldom discussed. First reading is a formality that allows the bill to be considered. Bills are not assigned to committee or analyzed by council staff until after they have passed first reading.

Bills on Second Reading all pass with little discussion. 

Bills on Third Reading: Third Reading is the final reading. If a bill passes third reading it becomes law unless it is vetoed by the Mayor, which has only rarely happened. Below are the bills of interest on third reading.

BILL NO. BL2012-294 by Councilman Duane Dominy simply brings a minimum level of accountability and oversight to the purchasing process. It would require all sole-source contracts over $250,000 be approved by the council. One of the few sole source contracts that come before the council is the city's contract with the Chamber of Commerce for the Partnership 2020 program.

Partnership 2020 is a public-private partnership developed by the chamber whose purpose is to recruit new businesses to the Nashville area. Metro’s appropriation for this program in recent years has been $300,000 a year. While the program serves a ten county area, Metro funds a greater share of the program than the other nine counties combined. Many feel that Metro funds the program, yet the bulk of new relocations to the Nashville area go to surrounding counties.

This bill fails. The vote is 18 for and 15 against, 3 abstentions and 4 members absent. The bill failed. It required 21 votes to pass. (see 2:08:24) This was a good bill. I commend Councilman Dominy for trying. It is tough to go up against the Chamber.

BILL NO. BL2012-295 establishing rules for handling the eggs and keeping chickens on school property is withdrawn. The sponsor explains that the issues necessitating this bill had been resolved administratively.

BILL NO. BL2012-297 is part of the HCA deal. Again Josh Stites takes to the floor to argue against it but again is the lone dissenting vote. (2:11:53)

Top Stories

HCA incentives take step forward, to be decided next month

The Tennessean, by Joey Garrison, Nov 20, 2012- Mayor Karl Dean’s proposed $66 million incentive package for Nashville-based HCA took a step forward Tuesday, setting up a definitive December vote on the private hospital chain’s plans to relocate its headquarters to new office towers on West End Avenue.

Without discussion, the council approved on a second of three votes an ordinance that outlines a 100 percent property tax abatement for up to 20 years, capped at $3 million per year. Meanwhile, the council delayed voting on two other elements of Dean’s proposal— a $500 incentive grant per employee over seven years and a one-time $1,000,000 relocation fee.

The council opted to consider the deals all at once at its Dec. 4 meeting.(link)

Top Stories

The Tennessean: HCA deal is among Nashville's biggest

by Joey Garrison, Nov 19, 2012

The nation’s largest private hospital chain is close to landing Metro’s third-most-generous financial incentive package ever, totaling a projected $66 million, in exchange for filling a prominent midtown eyesore with headquarters offices and bringing 1,750 new jobs to Davidson County.
 .....
Dean has aggressively pursued direct incentives to companies during his time in his office, while his predecessor Bill Purcell never executed the strategy. The current mayor’s approach has only a handful of council skeptics.

“I feel like a broken record,” said Councilman Josh Stites, who has voted against tax breaks awarded to LifePoint Hospitals Inc. and Ryman Hospitality Properties over the past year. He intends to do the same with HCA. “You can look at downtown and there are some buildings that shaped downtown, as this would do for West End, that received zero tax abatements.

“It is a huge fallacy to say that we have to give tax abatements in order for these companies to come here.” (continue reading)

Top Stories

Josh Stites is not guilty of endorsing the EPA

In a recent post, I was critical of the Council for passing a resolution endorsing the EPA's enforcement of Co2 emissions and the Co2 emission limits the EPA has established.

When the clean air act was passed by Congress, there never was an intention that it gave the EPA authority to regulate Co2 emissions.  The EPA assumed this authority which will allow the unelected bureaucrats of EPA to halt industrial developments, to mandate vehicle mileage standards and mandate the level of allowable energy plant emission and allow or disallow virtually all development, should the EPA choose to use its authority.

I was especially critical of many of the "conservative" members of Council who voted for the resolution endorsing this EPA power grab  and I listed by name some who particularly disappointed me. I stated in my recent post that RESOLUTION NO. RS2012-478 had passed the Council unanimously. I was incorrect.

The EPA resolution was on the consent agenda. All resolutions that pass unanimously the committee to which they are assigned  are placed on the consent agenda and considered as a group and passed by a single voice vote of the Council.  At the council meeting, any council member may pull a bill off of the consent agenda and have it voted upon separately and he may also have himself recorded as voting against the resolution should he desire.

No one pulled the pro EPA resolution off of the consent agenda and no one asked to be recorded as voting no.

I wrote several of the Council members asking them to explain their vote. Below is the response I got from Council Members Josh Stites:

While I was there Tuesday night, I was not there during the Resolution portion of the meeting as I arrived late.  I'm sure no one requested that it be pulled from the consent agenda. I'm a little surprised that it was not pulled. It may be poor legislating but I'm sure it's safe to assume that some of the people you have listed below don't actually buy into the global warming hysteria, myself included. 

Josh

I appreciate his response and glad to set the record straight and learn that at least one of the Council members who I respect did not support this endorsement of the EPA's power grab of dictatorial power to enforce arbitrary standards.

The Vice Mayor never votes except in a tie, so it is incorrect to count her among the supporters of this bill, although I am quite sure she would have voted for it had she been casting a vote.  Of the 39 council members who may vote, three were not present when the vote was cast so were not guilty of voting for the bill. In addition to Josh Stites, Councilman Steve Glover  and Erica Gilmore were not present.

Here is how council members voted on the consent agenda, which included the pro EPA resolution. This is from the minutes of the meeting. I have highlighted those who especially disappointed me.

“Ayes” Barry, Steine, Garrett, Tygard, Maynard, Matthews, Harrison, Hunt, Banks, Scott Davis, Westerholm, Anthony Davis, Bennett, Pridemore, Pardue, Jernigan, Stanley, Claiborne, Tenpenny, Moore, Allen, Baker, Langster, Weiner, Evans, Holleman, McGuire, Blalock, Dominy, Johnson, Potts, Bedne, Dowell, Duvall, Todd, Mitchell (36);

“Noes” (0).

In addition to Stites, I also heard from Davette Blalock. I did not get a response really, but I got a link to the below website extolling the virtue of the resolution and showing that other cities are also doing the same thing. No comment accompanied the link.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climatelawinstitute/cleanaircities/index.html

I have still not heard from any of the other council members explaining their vote. I can only assume they stand by their vote and their vote represented their honest believe about global warming, the roll of the EPA, and the EPA's establishment and enforcement of CO2 emissions.

If any Council member wishes to explain his vote, I would be pleased to print his explanation. 

Top Stories

The unanimous Council support for EPA CO2 regulation.

Below is the text of the resolution putting the Council on record supporting the EPA's regulation of CO2 and putting the Council on record agreeing that global warming is a scientific fact.  Out of our forty member council there is not a single global warming skeptic in the Council. I am surprised. 

 
This resolution passed unanimously. Unanimously! That means the "good" councilmen voted for it. That means Robert Duvall voted for it and Duane Dominy voted for it, and Josh Stites, and Karen Bennett, and Tony Tennpenny and Charlie Tygard and a handful of others, who I thought were conservative. Davette Blalock who I think of as one of the "good" councilmen  is even one of the sponsors.


Not a single one of them disagreed with this bill.  Please read it and see if you agree with it. I myself tend to believe global warming is a reality and I tend to believe the activity of mankind is a contributing factor.  However, I do not support this resolution. I do not want to give this much power to unelected bureaucrats.

CO2 is the stuff we exhale when we breath. When congress passed the Clean Air Act, they never intended to give the EPA power to regulate CO2. 

With this new power, EPA can rule by fiat. They can dictate the mileage standard for new cars. They can impose Carbon Pollution Standard for New Power Plants, they can prohibit the construction of new industrial facilities.  The ability of EPA to regulate greenhouse gases gives the EPA control of most of the U.S economy, should they chose to exercise it.  To learn more of what the EPA may regulate, visit the EPA's own website. 

One did not even have to argue the merits of the issue  to vote against it, one could simply ask to be recorded as voting "no." Even if one wants the EPA to regulate CO2 one could oppose this bill because it is not a matter that a city council should express an opinion on.  If we are going to have a local body express an opinion on this matter why not, the Federal Reserves inflating the money supply $40 billion a month?  Why not the Benghazi policy failure and cover up?  Why not the looming fiscal cliff.  There are no end to national issues the Council could opine about if they want to start debating national issues. 

I am going to forward this post to the "good" council members.  If any of them want to explain their vote, I will post it.

If you see your council member, you may want to ask him why he voted for this resolution. 

RESOLUTION NO. RS2012-478

A resolution supporting the reducing of greenhouse gas pollution under the Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Act.

WHEREAS, the scientific community, most notably NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC support the following findings; and

WHEREAS, the decade from 2000 to 2010 was the warmest on record, and 2005 and 2010 tied for the hottest years on record; and

WHEREAS, the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 392 parts per million (ppm); and

WHEREAS, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, Dr. James Hansen, stated in 2008: “If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 392 ppm to at most 350 ppm”; and

WHEREAS, the Environmental Protection Agency determined that current and future greenhouse gas concentrations endanger public health, and according to the Global Humanitarian Forum climate change is already responsible every year for some 300,000 deaths, 325 million people seriously affected, and economic losses worldwide of $125 billion; and

WHEREAS, extreme weather events, most notably heat waves and precipitation extremes, are striking with increased frequency, with deadly consequences for people and wildlife; in the United States in 2011 alone, a record 14 weather and climate disasters occurred, including droughts, heat waves, and floods, that cost at least $1 billion each in damages and loss of human lives; and

WHEREAS, climate change is affecting food security by negatively impacting the growth and yields of important crops, and droughts, floods and changes in snowpack are altering water supplies; and

WHEREAS, scientists have concluded that by 2100 as many as one in ten species may be on the verge of extinction due to climate change; and

WHEREAS, the world’s land-based ice is rapidly melting, threatening water supplies in many regions and raising sea levels, and Arctic summer sea ice extent has decreased to about half what it was several decades ago, with an accompanying drastic reduction in sea-ice thickness and volume, which is severely jeopardizing ice-dependent animals; and

WHEREAS, sea level is rising faster along the U.S. East Coast than it has for at least 2,000 years, is accelerating in pace, and could rise by one to two meters in this century, threatening millions of Americans with severe flooding; and

WHEREAS, for four decades, the Clean Air Act has protected the air we breathe through a proven, comprehensive, successful system of pollution control that saves lives and creates economic benefits exceeding its costs by many times; and

WHEREAS, with the Clean Air Act, air quality in this country has improved significantly since 1970, despite major growth both in our economy and industrial production; and

WHEREAS, between 1970 and 1990, the six main pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act — particulate matter and ground-level ozone (both of which contribute to smog and asthma), carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur and nitrogen oxides (the pollutants that cause acid rain) — were reduced by between 47 percent and 93 percent, and airborne lead was virtually eliminated; and

WHEREAS, the Clean Air Act has produced economic benefits valued at $2 trillion or 30 times the cost of regulation; and

WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts vs. EPA (2007) that greenhouse gases are “air pollutants” as defined by the Clean Air Act and the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate them; and

WHEREAS, The City of Nashville prides itself on being a leader in the fight against climate change and for clean air and, by creating the Mayor’s Office of Environment and Sustainability, has shown its ability to be a green leader in the Southeast; and

WHEREAS, The City of Nashville strives to meet the goals set out by the Green Ribbon
Committee’s 2009 Summary Report, which addresses environmental and livability issues in Nashville.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY:

Section 1. That the Metropolitan County Council hereby goes on record as supporting the reduction of greenhouse gas pollution under the Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Act.

Section 2. The Council further goes on record as noting that climate change is not an abstract problem for the future or one that will only affect far-distant places, but rather climate change is happening now, we are contributing to it, and the longer we wait to act, the more we lose and the more difficult the problem will be to solve.

Section 3. We, the Metropolitan County Council, on behalf of the residents of Nashville, do hereby urge the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa P. Jackson, and President Barack Obama to move swiftly to fully employ and enforce the Clean Air Act to do our part to reduce carbon in our atmosphere to no more than 350 parts per million.

Section 4. The Metropolitan Clerk is directed to send a copy a copy of this Resolution to Lisa P. Jackson of the Environmental Protection Agency and to President Barack Obama.

Section 5. This Resolution shall take effect from and after its adoption, the welfare of The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County requiring it.

Sponsored by: Jason Holleman, Erica Gilmore, Brady Banks, Burkley Allen, ,Lonnell Matthews, Sean McGuire, Bo Mitchell, Davette Blalock

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Referred to:	Health, Hospitals and Social Services Committee
Introduced:	November 13, 2012
Adopted:	November 13, 2012
Approved:	November 14, 2012

Top Stories