Bill 2016-219 to trample property rights and kill an affordable housing project deferred again.

The Ridge at Antioch

At last Tuesday night's council meeting bill Bill BL2016-219 on Third Reading was deferred yet again. This is the bill to trample private property rights and kill an affordable housing development in the process. This bill would cancel an approved Planned Unit Development and down zoning a persons property without his consent. This effort to pass this bill has been pending since June of 2016.  Karen Johnson is the sponsor. Councilman Bedne has handled the bill in Karen Johnson's absence.  There are several other council members listed as co-sponsors. The bill was disapproved by the Planning Commission and will require 27 votes to pass.

If this bill passes, the State of Tennessee has threatened to withhold future tax credits used to help finance affordable housing developments. I don't know why this development has not already occurred.  I can only guess that with the threat of this down zoning hanging over the head of the developer, that it has impacted the financing. I have called the law firm listed as the agent for The Ridge at Antioch hoping to get some insight but have not received a reply.

Should this bill pass and the owner wants to continue the fight, he may have a winnable lawsuit to pursue.  If a public interest law firm wants to join the suit, I will make a contribution to the cause. This rezoning would most likely be considered a "taking" of property.  The Fifth Amendment to the constitution says, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."  Government taking of property does not have to mean taking title.  To take away a right that one previously enjoyed may be a "taking" of property.  If you owned a lot you were planning to build a house on and the government rezoned the property to where nothing could be build on the property, you would still hold title but the right to use the property would have been taken.

There is a limit to how often a bill can be deferred. I do not know if this bill has reached that limit or not.  That this threat to downzone this property has been hanging over the owner's head for over two years and is still, is a disgrace.  Johnson and Bedne may win even it this bill never is passed. A lot of  factors are involved in arranging financing for a project, especially a project that is trying to build affordable housing. Simply keeping this threat hanging over the head of the owner may be sufficient to kill the development. Also, the market may change and the developer may be able to make more money by building upscale housing as opposed to building affordable housing. This is a shame.

For more on this story see this  link and this.

Top Stories

My endorsements in the May 1 Nashville election

The most important issue by far on the May 1st ballot is the "tax for tracks: referendum which I will be voting against and which is the only reason I am going to the polls. There are various other races however and these involve candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for various offices. There are no Republicans seeking office. Since Davidson County is an overwhelmingly Democratic county and since the winner of the May 1st primary will not face Republican opposition, whoever wins the Democratic primary has essentially won the office.

Since I am going to the polls to vote against the tax for transit referendum,  I may vote in the Democratic primary to vote for the least offensive Democrat. Since we do not have party registration in Tennessee I am permitted to vote in the Democrat if I so chose. to do so.  If I vote in the Democratic primary, this is for whom I will vote:

Nashville public defender: Rod Williams. I will write in my own name since Martesha Johnson is the only name on the ballot for this position.

Register of deeds: Karen Johnson. The candidates are Richard Exton, Pam Murray, and

Karen Johnson

Councilwoman Karen Johnson. I certainly don't want Pam Murray to get it. She has a checkered past and does not deserve to be elected to any office. I don't know anything about Richard Exton.

Readers of this blog might be surprised that I would vote for Karen Johnson, since I have been so highly critical of her for her attempt to trample property rights and kill an affordable housing project in her district. The reason I am voting for Karen Johnson some might consider "sexist."  I am voting for her, if I vote in the Democratic primary,  because she is so damn pretty!. She should win a beauty contest. She also has a charming personality to match her good looks. Also, while I abhor her stand on property rights, she strikes me as a good and capable person.

Juvenile Court clerk: Undecided, but not Sherry Jones. I am waiting to learn more about the candidates. The candidates are Jeff Crum, Lonnell Matthews Jr., Michael Joyner, Rep. Sherry Jones, Metro school board member Tyese Hunter. At this point, I would probably vote for Matthews simply because he has the most name recognition other than Sherry Jones, and I do not want her to get it.

Sheriff: Daron Hall. I really like Daron Hall and think he is an excellent sheriff. I wish he were a Republican. Even if there was a Republican contender, I would most likely vote for Daron Hall anyway. He deserves to be reelected.

County clerk: Brenda Wynn, probably or not vote.  Wynn has served in this office since 2012 and is running unopposed. She is a likable persona and there have been no scandals in the office, so I will probably vote for her or just skip voting in this race.

Criminal Court clerk: Howard Gentry, I have no complaints against him and he seems like a nice guy. His opponent is not impressive.

Trustee: Charlie Cardwell. He is running unopposed. He has held this office since 1993. He is capable and a very nice person. He was serving in some capacity, Director of Finance I believe it was, back when I served in the Metro Council in the 80"s. I always thought he was a person of integrity and he is likeable. I would support him even if a Republican was running.

Circuit Court clerk: Richard Brooker or not vote in this race or maybe write in my own name. Brooker has served in this office since 1993 and I do not personally know him and have no complaint against him.

Chancery Court judge, Part 2: Undecided. The candidates are  Anne Martin, Joy Sims, Scott Tift. At this point, I don't have an opinion.

Criminal Court judge, Division 2: Angelita Dalton. The candidates are Judge Angelita Blackshear Dalton and Joy Smith Kimbrough. At this point in time I would vote for Dalton simply because she was appointed to the position by Bill Haslam and although she is running as a Democrat, I think maybe she is a secret Republican since she was appointed to the beech by a Republican governor. I am open to having my mind changed if I learn more about the candidates.

Anna Escobar

General Sessions judge, Division 3:  Ana Escobar.  I do not support official affirmative action polices but when a candidate is a minority and at least as qualified as the other candidates then I think we should give a slight preference to the minority. Except for one council members, I do not believe there are any Hispanics serving in Metro government.

In  this case, Escabar may not only be as qualified as the other contenders, but it appears she may be better qualified. The last two times the Council had the opportunity to fill a judgeship vacancy, they passed over Escobar and gave the position to one of their own. The incumbents is Judge Nick Leonardo and I have nothing negative to say about him, I just think Escobar deserves the seat.

When the Council was elected a person to fill the court vacancy, the name of Ana Escobar was placed in nomination by Councilman Robert Swope. This division of the Court, hears most of the domestic violence cases in Nashville.  When the Council considered who to appoint to the position, Pat Shea, former president and CEO of the YWCA of Nashville and Middle Tennessee, was among those who urged the council to support Ms Escobar. Ms  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 and deserves to be elected.

General Sessions, Division 10: Sam Coleman. He is the incumbent and I slightly know him and don't know the others. The candidates are Judge Sam Coleman, Frank Mondelli Sr., Joyce Grimes Safley, and Tillman Payne. Also Sam, Coleman showed up at the Davidson County Republican Party Christmas Party which either shows some nerve or a desire to get himself known among Republicans.

Top Stories

Bill trampling property rights and stopping affordable housing deferred to July

by Rod Williams - Bill BL2016-219  the bill that tramples a person's property rights, partially taking property without compensation, and kills an affordable housing development is deferred until July 2018. The bill was on third and final reading Tuesday night and 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, being 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 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 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.

When the video of the Council meeting is available I will post it and provide a summary and commentary. Please check back

Top Stories

A victory for private property rights and affordable housing in Antioch

The Ridge at Antioch

A ruling from the State Court of Appeals  upholding a Davidson County Chancery Court ruling ends the long fight to deny a property owner his property rights and stop the construction of an affordable housing apartment complex in Antioch.  Property rights and affordable housing won.

Last year a developer proposed building a 96-unit apartment complex in Antioch. The development met the existing requirements and did not require a property zone change. Neighbors in Antioch did not want additional affordable housing in their community and fought the development. Councilman Karen Johnson introduced legislation to "down-zone" the property to a zoning that would not allow the construction of apartments.  A down zoning is a form of "taking." The owner retains title but the government takes away the development rights the owner previously enjoyed. At the public hearing to down-zone the property, neighbors favoring the down-zoning argued the development would "ghettoize" their community. Johnson did not have the votes to pass the bill which was disapproved by the Planning Commission and would have required 27 votes to pass on Third Reading, and she differed it indefinitely. (link)


Meanwhile, some Antioch residents filed suit to stop the development and lost in court, appealed and lost the appeal. The apartment complex knows as The Ridge at Antioch will be priced to be affordable to people who make 60% of the median Nashville area income, which for a family of three is $37,140. The financing of the project included $11 million in tax credits awarded by the Tennessee Housing and Development Agency. When the councilman tried to kill the project, THDA threatened to withhold future tax credit grants to Nashville if that occurred.

Having worked in the non-profit housing sector most of my career, I am well aware of these type tax credit properties.  They are not "the projects." The rent price is not based on an individual's ability to pay, but on what is "affordable" for a person of that income bracket.  While I do not know the actual rent these units will bring, affordable rent for a person making $37K would be $925 a month. Many people living in apartment developments of this type are not even aware they live in property restricted to people of modest income. There are a lot of single mothers with two children whose income does not exceed $37K and lots of young couples with one child just starting their careers whose income does not exceed $37,000.  One will not see old junker cars or any indication that a project of this type is priced to be affordable housing. The people living in these units are not generally people on welfare but are often young working people.

While a lot of lip service is paid to affordable housing, there are a lot of metro policies that discourage the development of affordable housing and a lot of hypocrisy around the issue.  Some of the Council's biggest advocates of  "affordable housing" supported Johnson's effort to kill this development.  While I am pleased this affordable housing project can move forward, I am more pleased that there was a victory for private property rights.  While I am not an opponent of planning and zoning and think that establishing land uses is proper function of government, it is morally wrong to take away one's property rights.  In this case it was especially reprehensible, because the developers and owners were already vested in the development. Plans had been drawn, financing arranged and the project was ready to move forward when the councilman and community tried to take away the property owners right to build. This was a good outcome.

To read The Tennessean story, follow this link.

Top Stories

Bid to stop an affordable housing development and take away property rights advances.

Everyone likes affordable housing in the abstract but they don't want it their back yard.  Affordable housing has been a battle cry of Mayor Megan Barry, numerous council members, liberal pressure groups and advocates.  Saying you are for affordable housing is almost as popular as saying you are for clean air and water. It kind of ranks up there with being in favor of apple pie, motherhood, and sidewalks.

A planned 96-unit affordable apartment complex for the Antioch area is being opposed by perhaps the Council's most vocal advocate of affordable housing. The project itself is in Councilman Karen Johnson's district and she is trying to stop it. Karen Johnson has reached her annual limit on how many amendments to Planed Unit Developments she can propose, so the bill to attempt to stop the project is being sponsored by Councilman Fabian Bedne who chairs the council's Ad Hoc Committee for Affordable Housing.

The proposed project is currently allowed under the area's present zoning.  The ordinance backed by Johnson, sponsored by Bedne, would down zone the property so that only single family homes could be build on the property.  That would constitute a "taking."  The city does not actually have to confiscate your property and take title to be guilty of "taking."  If the current rights you have to something with your property are diminished then you have had your property rights taken away.  There is a stronger case that the city has taken your property rights if you have already exercised  those rights, that is if you already have a vested interest in the project under current zoning; if  you have already spend money toward a project and the city kills the project, then you have a strong case that your property has been taken.  By the time someone gets as far as having a site plan and arranging financing for a project they may have already spent ten's of thousands of dollars on the project. In my view, taking property without a public purpose and without compensating the owner is wrong and immoral.  If the city is going to down zone any property then the owner should be compensated for the loss of value caused by the down zoning.  In this case, if the property is down zoned, the owners will likely have a winnable lawsuit against the city.

developer of the property has been awarded $11 million dollars in low-income tax credits by the Tennessee Housing and Development Agency (THDA).  This awards are made on a competitive basis. Not everyone who wants these credits gets them.  THDA Executive Director Ralph Perrey is obviously displeased that this project may be killed. He said that when the THDA board meets in July, they may look at changing guidelines in rewarding these tax credits if this project is stopped. He said the board could opt to reduce the maximum number of low-income tax credits that could go to Nashville moving forward, among other possible actions.  At the same time that Nashville is trying to encourage more affordable housing, losing lon-income tax credits would be a serious blow.

“What concerns us in this instance is we gave tax credits to a place that was properly zoned a year ago, and this is an attempt to zone that place out from under the developer whom we’ve given the tax credits,” Perrey told the Tennessean. “If that succeeds, we will essentially have wasted an award of tax credits that we could have put to work in Greenville, Johnson City, Jackson, any number of other places,” he said. “And at that point, it raises some troubling questions for us, and then we and the board would be obliged to consider: Does it make sense to send tax credits that’s going to waste it in that matter?”

While I think council members should do the right thing and not take someone's property without a public purpose and compensation, I do understand the pressure on a council member to try to be responsive to their constituents.  Trying to be responsive to the desires of constituents however does not justify trampling on someone else's rights.

There are three issues at play in this situation, ones is property rights, the other is good zoning, and the other is how to develop affordable housing.  The argument against the project, other than we don't want more poor people in our neighborhood, is that it will lead to a greater concentration of poverty which proponents of killing the project says would violate the Fair Housing Act. There are already a couple other tax credit properties in the area. That argument is not persuasive to THDA's Ralph Perrey who said the proposed development is "not remotely comparable" to developments that were in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Tracey McCartney, executive director of Tennessee Fair Housing is not buying the argument either, in fact saying stopping the project may violate the Fair Housing Act because many of the potential residents of the project will be African-American.

The proposed project is targeted for people who make  60% of the area median income.  The project will not be income-based in that rent will be calculated off of a person's income, but rents will be set to be affordable for a person earning 60% of  the area median income. So, for a single mother with two children and no child support or other income, she would have to earn about $37,000 a year. Projects of this type have been shown not to contribute to crime.  These developments are not public housing. They will not be an eyesore. The people who live in this units will be people who work for a living.


From a zoning standpoint, the current zoning conforms to the general plan which calls for high density housing along major corridors.  This also simply makes good planning sense. If Nashville is to ever have good mass transit, we need greater density along major routes. On Thursday, the Planning Commission disapproved the down zoning request.  A disapproved bill must get 27 positive votes to pass the Council. This bill has 29 co-sponsors. Hopefully, some of the sponsors will have a change of heart now that the bill has been disapproved. This ought to be fun to watch. It is always fun to watch someone talk out of both sides of their mouth and watch the process of trying to square a circle. It should be interesting to watch an advocate for affordable housing, make an argument for killing an affordable housing project.

I hope this bill fails. It is wrong to take someones property without a public purpose and compensation and if we really believe in affordable housing we have to allow it to be built.

For more on this issue see, Antioch affordable housing project could get killed, and Bid to block Antioch affordable housing project disapproved

Top Stories

Temper flare, Councilmembers fight back over relocation of jail

On Wednesday night Council members from southeast Davidson County showed some spunk. They put Sheriff Daron Hall on the hot seat about the proposed relocation of the county jail to a new $110 million facility to be build in southeast Davidson County.  This new facility would combine all of the jail facilities into one location on Harding Place. This was announced by the mayor recently, catching members of the council and the public by surprise. There had been no neighborhood meetings on the issue and council member had not been briefed prior to the public announcement.

Councilman Duane Dominy ask if all of the facilities are fully accredited and getting an answer in the affirmative he then ask if facilities were fully accredited last year, how did we get to the place that  we need new facilities now. He says last year the city paid $1.5 million for a study of the correction facility and a master plan and he probes as to what we got for our money. He can not get straight answers. Things get a little testy (see time stamp 19:25).

Council member Jacobia Dowell gets recognized and ask how the conclusion of the study that recommended relocating the jail to Harding Place was reached. Budget and Finance chair Pridemore tries to shut her up, saying she needs to restrict her questions to the 2015-2016 budget. She argues that it is relevant to the budget and ask what would be wrong with putting off the decision to build a new jail and letting the council evaluate the study. Sheriff Hall gets defensive and goes on the offence saying, "I think you are doing a disservice to this city."  In my view, he is insulting. He says the opposition is politically motivated due to pending elections.

Councilmember Karen Johnson then begins questioning, echoing the line of questioning of Councilmember Dowell. She says when the council funded the study we were told we would be involved and consulted along the way and that has not happened. Councilmember Johnson is very calm and polite and Hall goes into attack mode. When Johnson makes a comparison of putting the jail in Southeast Nashville to dumping all of the cities garbage in Boudreaux for many years, the B&F chairman says her remarks are inappropriate and ask her to restrict her remarks to something new concerning the budget. Things get real testy and Pridemore cuts her off her mic. Bedne comes to her defense and she is allowed to continue.  Tempers flare. (see time stamp 34:26 to end)

It is refreshing to see Councilmembers get riled. I commend Councilman Dominy, Johnson, Dowell and Bedne for showing some backbone and fighting back. Too often the council just rolls over and plays dead. Unfortunately we have a weak council. Part of that is because of the go-along, get-along hiding-in the herd mentality of the current council, but part of it is structural. One of the few powers the council has is to modify the budget presented by the mayor. The council can cut budgets and can shift money within the budget. That can get the attention of department heads.

The office of Sheriff is a little different than other departments, because the Sheriff is elected by the people and while his budget must be approved by the Council, he must stand for election and this gives him more power and prestige than other department heads such as the chief of police or fire chief. Duran Hall has been a popular sheriff but if he continues this heavy handed approach of forcing this jail relocation on Antioch then he may be open to a challenge next election.

I hope the members of the Council unite and vote to take the appropriation for the new jail out of the capital spending plan. I know the downtown property where the jail sits is valuable property, but I think the jail should stay right where it is. Also, I am very skeptical of the claim that it is cheaper to tear down the existing building and build a new building rather than perform maintenance on the current building. One thing I have learned, and maybe it sounds skeptical, but consultants are often paid to tell you what you want to here.

Antioch, about twenty years ago was the booming, thriving part of town but now it is becoming the poor part of town. With the once thriving Hickory Hollow mall mostly abandoned and low-income people forced out of downtown and relocating to Antioch and with the Antioch zip code being the fifth worst state zip code hit by the housing crisis and still not yet fully recovered, this part of town does not deserve to be the dumping ground for all of our county prisoners. This will lead to a proliferation of pawn shop, pay day lenders and bail bondsmen.  Also, when released from jail some inmates will remain in the area.  A new mayor may have an emphasis on spreading the wealth and lifting up all parts of the county and may have a different vision for Nashville. This decision should be put off until after the next election and the decision should not be rushed.

Top Stories

What happened in the Council on 12-18-2012

• Council passes on second reading a plan to reduce the insurance subsidy for future former council members.
• Voluntary retirement buy-out for Metro employees passes.
• Council voted to purchase 600 acre Stones River property for a park.
• Council member Karen Johnson's attempt to down zone a piece of property in Nashboro village fails.

Check back for video with notation of highlights and commentary.

Council health insurance change moves ahead

The Tennessean, Dec 18, 2012- A plan to dramatically scale back the controversial lifetime health insurance benefit for Metro Council members won preliminary approval Tuesday but could face challenges when it goes up for a final vote next month.

Council approves Metro employee buyout program on final reading

City Paper, by Steven Hale, Wednesday, December 19, 2012- The Metro Council gave quick final approval to a buyout program for Metro workers, in what was an otherwise relatively uneventful meeting Tuesday night. The council’s final meeting of the year began with a moment of silence for the victims of last Friday’s elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn. Councilman Sean McGuire led a prayer for the victims families.

Top Stories

Public Hearing on BL2012-301

From: The Nashville Libertarian Party Meetup Group

Please come and speak against BL2012-301.  This is very bad legislation.

Vastland Companies owns a 4.5-acre parcel in Nashboro Village.  They purchased the land as a part of undeveloped parcels in Nashboro Village about 15 years ago.   Vastland Companies has built roughly 750 housing units under the existing PUD plan.  The Metro Planning Commission found the existing PUD should continue to be implemented as it was adopted.

BL2012-301 seeks to take away the property rights of our owners and investors without any offer of compensation.  This bill would overrule the Planning Commission and its professional staff, along with the entire process of orderly, planned development that allows for quality growth in Nashville.  Adoption of BL2012-301 will cost a Nashville business hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars. BL2012-301 also sends a message to Nashville's development community that developers cannot count on this Council and our city to protect private property rights, even when a developer plays by the rules, meets all the city's requirements and does its best to help create a better community.  BL2012-301 violates the Planning Commission’s own rules and was unanimously disapproved by the planning commission.

Vastland Companies has a pending offer on this property for a three-story development containing 96 units.  This is a 50% reduction in the height that is currently allowed and a one-third reduction in the number of allowable units.  Yet this offer was rejected by Councilwoman Johnson and the other supporters of BL2012-301.    Vastland Companies has even offered to sell the property to the city or homeowners' association at fair market value.  If they have better ideas for how to develop the property Vastland Companies is open to that option.  They have had no offers close to market value.

Top Stories

Update: What happened at the Metro Council 2-7-2012: The School Unions, John Arriola and more.

Council Highlights: Council meetings can be very boring, so I have highlighted the interesting parts of this meeting. I watch the whole council meeting so you don't have to. 
.  

Council Highlights:

Ordinance 2011-83 to allow Metro water services to extend water lines to residential properties currently served by private wells is deferred until the second meeting in March. Councilman Stanley explains the bill. (See 25:06 in the video above)

A memorializing resolution by Councilman Robert Duvall calling for the resignation of John Arrriola. (see video at 34:55)

A memorializing resolution by Councilman Tygard urging the State to expand the prohibition of the manufacture or sale of synthetic drugs. Tygard has various samples of the drugs which he shows to the council. Tygard’s presentation is informative and he makes a passionate argument in favor of passage. (See 36:29) We need to see more presentations like this on the Council floor.

A memorializing resolution calling on Metro Public Schools to abide by the current labor union negotiation policy.  This bill required a suspension of the rules and could have been stopped from consideration had two people objected but none did.  Councilman Karen Johnson, a former School Board member, makes an argument that the Director of Schools changed policy without bringing it to the Board. Councilman Glover counters her argument and makes a good presentation explaining the state law and why the Director is following the law and Board policy. He is clear and his thoughts are well organized. Councilman Bo Mitchell make a pro-union argument and several other members weigh in on the issue. The vote was 29 yes votes, 5 no’s, 2 abstentions and 4 members not present. The four no’s were member who are generally thought to be conservative or Republican members of the council.  They were Glover, Stites, Claiborne, Tenpenny, and Todd. The two abstentions are from members identified as Republicans also, Tygard and Dominy.  Two other Council Members who are considered Republican, Duvall and Blalock, voted with the majority and supported the resolution. (The discussion starts at 40:20)

The Unions win, Arriola condemnation put off two weeks. 

On the memorializing resolution urging embattled County Court Clerk John Arriola to resign, the Rules Committee vetoed 10 to zero to defer until the DA had acted. Councilman  Phil Williams of Channel 5 reported that the committee room was full. He tweeted that there were lots of county court clerk employees present to support their boss.  

Jason Holleman argued the Council should wait until the District Attorney takes action as did the Council in the case of David Torrence.  In the Council meeting, the bills sponsor, Councilman Robert Duvall argued against deferral. Duvall said he "takes no malice with the committee," but said he disagrees with their position. He reviewed the comptroller's audit and said, "These violations are much worse than anything David (Torrence) did." He argued for an up or down vote. The Council voted to defer the resolution for only two weeks. This is a partial victory for Duvall. The DA may not act for months. This drama will be played out again in two weeks.

The Metro Council sided with the SEIU and the Steelworkers union which represent school custodians and bus driver sand voted against Director of Schools Jessie Register's effort to curtail union power. Register recently ended the district's Memorandum of Understanding policy with those union. "He should not unilaterally change existing policy," argued Council Member Karen Johnson, a former School Board Member. The vote was 29-5-2.

A Bill calling for preparation of a fiscal impact statements on most legislation passed on second readings. Council Member Sherri Weiner is the lead sponsor of this bill.

The Council approved on third reading a bill that authorized $2.5M to complete infrastructure in subdivisions that were never finished.

The Council approved Mayor Karl Dean's appointment of former Council Member Anna Page to the MDHA board. She is a former one-term council member who was supported by the Mayor in her reelection bid and who was defeated by current Council Member Tony Tenpenny.

The Council unanimously approved a rules change to have public hearings every month instead of the current every other month.  The change begins in June.

Top Stories

Update: Nashboro Village Not Ready to Give up Promised Golf Course for Park

Karen Johnson

A 144-acre golf course in Nashboro Village could very soon belong to Metro government, and not everyone's happy about it.  That's because the city plans to turn all 18 holes into a park. (link)


This could be a big challenge for Karen Johnson. It will be interesting to see how she handles it. In my opinion Karen Johnson is one of the council members worth watching. She is smart, attractive and charismatic. While obviously liberal she has friends across the political spectrum. And while she is Black, like Joe Biden said about Barack Obama, she "is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." Well, not "guy" but otherwise you could say that could describe Karen. I predict that if Karen wants it, she could obtain higher office. Maybe "Mayor Johnson?"

Karen has so far distinguished herself by taking a free market position and auguring that a new cab company, Volunteer Cab, should be allowed to enter the market. In my view, that already makes Karen one of the "good councilmen."

Personally, unlike the comment of some of the park opponents, I think a park is an asset to a neighborhood not a detriment. However, many people pay a premium to live on a golf course. I can understand why those who bought in Nashboro Village to be on a golf course would not want to swap a golf course for a city park. With a $595,000 price  tag and a threatened tax increase this year, all councilmen should be very conservative about spending this type of money.  Half a million here and half a million there and soon you are talking about real money.

Immediately after posting the above I found this on Karen's blog:

Metro Will Not Purchase Nashboro Golf Course

Posted: Jan 06, 2012 1:27 PM CSTUpdated: Jan 06, 2012 7:12 PM CST

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Metro has pulled the plug on a plan to buy the Nashboro Village Golf Course, just one day after a community meeting raised big concerns.

On Friday a Metro Councilwoman sent a letter to Metro Parks asking them to withdraw legislation that authorizes the purchase of the Nashboro Village Golf Course- and Parks Director Tommy Lynch says he will comply with that request

The letter from councilwoman Karen Johnson stated that based on turnout at Thursday night's community meeting, it "is the strong preference of the neighbors" to have local attorney David Waynick purchase the property.

Metro Parks had planned to buy the property, which closed in November, to use as an open green space as part of the Open Space Plan the city adopted two years ago.

The $595,000 purchase price for the Nashboro Golf Club would come out of a $5 million previously set aside for open spaces that includes private donations from The Land Trust of Tennessee.

Those who live in the area felt that the purchase and transformation will destroy their property values and ruin their neighborhood.

Smart move, Karen.

Top Stories

Approve Volunteer Cab. Let the Market Determine the Need for Taxi Service.

by Rod Williams

Here in Nashville, a group of 61 cab drivers wish to form their own cab company.The cab drivers are all Ethiopian, all of them legal immigrants, some of them already American citizens and others in the process of becoming citizens. They are currently driving cabs for other companies.

Here is the way the taxicab system works in Nashville: A cab driver owns his own cab, he pays for his own fuel, maintenance and insurance. However he does not own the permit to operate a cab and must pay a weekly fee, called a "lick," of  $150 to $200 to the company that owns the permit.

The Ethiopian cab drivers have applied to Metro Government for the right to form a new company called Volunteer Cab. So far, they have been denied and a vote has been deferred until December 20. Existing cab companies are auguring against the entry of this new company into the market saying the market is saturated and the applicants can not show a need for a more cabs. Others are arguing that it is often hard to get a cab in Nashville and that there is a need for more cab service.

It is an outrage that Metro Government is denying this new company the right to form.  The whole taxi regulation system that views its function as protected existing cab owners rather than protecting the public needs to be repealed. We need to have an unlimited number of taxicabs and let the market determine the cab fare and the number of cabs.

I am not opposed to all regulations of taxi cabs or limousines. Tourist need to be assured that if they get into a cap that it is driven by a licensed driver, that the cab is carrying insurance, the vehicle is road-worthy and they are not likely to ripped off. Regulation should be for the benefit of the consumer, not protectionism for the provider. If we need for the government to set the taxi fare, the rate should be the maximum not the minimum. We need to rethink regulation of transportation. Nashville does not have to follow the model of other cities, we could become a leader in free-market transportation.

Congratulation Councilwoman Karen Johnson

Karen Johnson

Congratulation go to Councilwoman Karen Johnson, who has argued before the Taxi Licensing Commission on behalf of the drivers wishing to form the new taxi company. She has argued in favor of free enterprise and against a limit on the number of taxicabs. She has told the licensing board that free enterprise is the American way and that they should not limit the number of cabs. She told them, "The more the better." Perhaps Karen Johnson will emerge as the champion of free enterprise in the Metro Council.

To read the Tennessean article on this issue, click here.

To read how Metro tries to drive out of business economy limousine service in order to protect expensive limousine service, click here.

Top Stories