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

What's on the 7/17/18 Council agenda: Effort to trample property rights and kill planned affordable housing resurrects, and regs and taxes of scooters.

By Rod Williams - The most important item on this agenda is Bill BL2016-219  on Third Reading which is the bill to

The Ridge at Antioch

trample private property rights and kill an affordable housing development while doing so.  This bill would cancel an approved Planned Unit Development and down zoning a persons property without their consent. This effort to pass this bill has been pending since June of 2016  If was first pushed by Karen Johnson and is now being taken up by Councilman Bedne. 

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 guess that with the threat of this hanging over the head of the developer, that it impacted the financing. Should this bill pass and the owner want to continue the fight, he probably has a winnable lawsuit to pursue.  This would most likely be considered a "taking" of property.  When government takes property the owner should be compensated and it should only be taken for a public purpose.  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. This is a bill disapproved by the Planning Commission and will require 27 votes to pass. For more on this story see this  link and this.

The Metro Council will meet Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 6:30 PM in the Council chamber at the Metro Courthouse. Here is a link to the Council agenda and the staff analysis for those who want to watch the Council meeting and follow along.  Below is a summary of what is on the agenda.

Elections and Confirmation: There are 6 mayoral appointments to Boards and Commission before the Council for confirmation. Usually, these are confirmed without controversy, discussion or dissension.

Public Comment Period:  This is new for Nashville.  Time is dedicated to allow members of the public who have registered in advance to speak upon matters related to the Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County community. The only public comments we have had heretofore have been on zoning matters and once a year on the budget.  We have never had an open comment policy. This is common in smaller cities and I don't know how common it is in other cities the size of Nashville.  I suspect liberal activist will use this platform a lot.  I hope conservatives will also. Unfortunately, liberals seem to be much more engaged in advancing a big-government, liberal agenda than are conservatives in advancing a conservative agenda.  I also expect to hear from a lot of people talking about pot holes, and stray animal, and the quality of trash pickup. I hope this does not make Council meetings a lot longer.  

Resolutions: There is one resolution on pubic hearing exempting Jefferson Street Cafe from the minimum distance requirements for obtaining a beer permit and there are 25 other resolution on the agenda. Initially all resolutions except a resolution on public hearing are on the consent agenda. A resolution stays on the consent agenda if it passes unanimously the committees to which it is assigned. Resolutions which receive negative votes in committee are pulled off of consent. Also any councilman may have a resolution pulled off of consent. Those remaining on consent are lumped together and passed by a single vote. Resolutions on the consent agenda are usually not controversial and tend to be routine matters, such as accepting grants from the Federal or State Government, entering into inter-agency agreements over mundane things, appropriating money from the 4% fund, settling lawsuits, or approving signs overhanging the sidewalk. This agenda has a resolution approving a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) deal to build affordable housing, a resolution to expand a foreign trade zone and a resolution to fund the Big Band daces in Centennial Park. I don't expect any of these to be controversial. They will likely pass on consent. Unlike a bill which requires three votes of the Council to pass, a resolution only requires one vote of the Council. Here is a resolution of interest.

Resolution RS2018-1309 request that the investment committee of the Metropolitan Employee Benefit Board divest funds invested with entities engaged in the operation of private prisons. I oppose this. Private prisons have become a liberal target but they save cities and states money and are usually safer and better managed than government prisons. CoreCivic, formerly Corrections Corporation of America is a Nashville-based national private prison company. Memorializing resolutions express an opinion of the Council, are not signed by the mayor and have no force in law. However, since the Council is in a position to take stronger action if they wish, this may have real impact. The council could direct the investment committee to do this instead of asking. This carries more weight than when the Council opines on a national or state issue   This should be defeated, but I ddon't know that anyone will choose to take a stand on this.

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

Bills on Second Reading: The only bills of interest are three bills that were previously on Second Reading and deferred to this meeting.

Bill BL2018-1200 would require that if hotels or roominghouses accept cash payment, they must also accept at least one other form of payment such as check or credit cards. I seldom carry cash and would find it inconvenient if I tried to do business with an entity that was cash-only, but why not let the market work this out?  Why must the government try to micromanage every aspect of commerce and our lives?

Substitute Bill BL2018-1202 proposed new rules for scooter prompted by the

arrival of Bird Scooter here in Nashville. It would require new fees including a fee of $35 per scooter. It seems to be the policy that everything must be taxed and regulated.  This does a lot in addition to a money grab, but if Bird can live with it and is not fighting it, then I would assume it is an OK bill. Bird and similar scooter companies are in lots of other cities. I hope we are not over regulating them. Something like Bird can be an important part of making our city more mobile and can take cars off the road. Some cities have welcomed scooters and merchants have installed scooter racks. I wish Nashville was less hostile to innovation and private enterprise.

Bill BL2018-1203  also deals with scooters, in-line skates, and roller skates by removing the requirement for wrist guards, elbow pads, and kneepads and updating audio device references. It redefines the word "scooter" to mean non-motorized scooters, so this section would not apply to the electric Bird scooters.They would be regulated by the regulations contained in 1202 above.

Bills on Third Reading: There are 33 bills on third and final reading. Most are zoning bills approved by the Planning Commission. There a few zoning bills that are disapproved by the Planning Commission in which cast those bills require 27 votes to pass. Council members can sometimes have a difficult time getting the 27 votes, especially if several council members are absent. I don't form opinions on the merits of most zoning bills. In addition to Bill BL2016-219 discussed at the top of this page, other bills on Third Reading of interest are these:

Bill BL2018-1099  is a disapproved zoning bill in Scot Davis' district.

Bill BL2018-1182,  a disapproved zoning bill in Karen Johnson's district.

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

Top Stories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Top Stories

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Trampling property rights and stopping affordable housing

The Ridge Apartments

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

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

    


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

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

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

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

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

Top Stories

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

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

Bill to take away property rights deferred.

proposed bill to kill The Ridge at 
Antioch deferred,

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

Nick Leonardo elected judge.

Ana Escobar loses General
Session Judge contest to
Councilman Nick Leonardo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Stories

Contact your Council member. Stop the trampling of property rights and the killling of an affordable housing development.

On Tuesday, January 2nd 2018 the Council will vote on  BILL NO. BL2016-219 on Third

proposed The Ridge at Antioch

and Final Reading.

This bill is the attempt to kill an affordable housing project and trample a person's private property rights by cancelling an approved Planned Unit Development and down zoning a person's property without their consent.  To take away a permitted use is a "taking."  Property rights are more than just holding legal title.  When property is taken it should only be for a public purpose and owners should be compensated for their loss.

This bill has been disapproved by the Planning Commission.  For more on this story see this link and this and this.  This bill has been in the works for a very long time.  To view the July 6, 2016 Public Hearing on the bill follow this link. It was deferred indefinitely following that public hearing. It was on the agenda on third reading on April18, 2017  and at that time it was deferred to this meeting, the second meeting in December. At that meeting it was deferred to the Jan.2nd 2018 meeting.  Being a dissapproved bill, this will take 28 votes to pass and there will be a roll call vote. I will record in this blog, how members of the Council voted.

Here are reasons members of the Council should vote against this bill"

• This is a "taking" of property.  It is wrong to take someone's property without taking it for a public purpose and compensating the owner.  Owning property is more than simply holding title, it is a bundle of rights. This is taking away from the property owner the right to develop his property a right he currently enjoys. The owner is already vested in the development of the property, having already invested in development cost and arranged financing. 

• We need affordable housing in Nashville. We cannot meet the need by building a handful of units as infill in established neighborhood.  The proposed development is for an apartment complex of over 200 units. This proposed affordable housing project should not be thought of as "the projects" or something similar. Unless someone told you, you would not even know this type housing had a subsidy. This planned development is a "tax credit" property. The people who will live there are people who work. The rent will not be based on an individuals ability to pay, but the rent will be "affordable" for a person of modest income. This is what is often called "workforce" housing. 

• If this passes, Nashville is likely to be sued and will likely lose the law suit.

•  The Tennessee Housing and Development Agency  has said that if this bill passes, they will withhold low income housing tax credits from Nashville and give them to other jurisdictions. This would be a blow to the future development of affordable housing in Nashville.

• Traditionally Nashville has not rezoned someone's property without the owner requesting it. 

• This is a disapproved bill. Generally, the council should follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and respect the process.

Please contact your council member and the council members at large and ask them to vote against BILL NO. BL2016-219.   You can find the council members phone numbers and email addresses at this link. When you open the link, click on " Council Roster 2015-2019" for phone numbers.  

Top Stories

What happened at the 12-19-2017 Council meeting: Bill to trample property rights and kill an affordable housing project deferred, more transparency for corporate welfare approved, $2.9 million in incentives to Philips company approved.

The most important news of the December 19the Council meeting is that BILL NO. BL2016-219  which would trample a persons property rights and kill an affordable housing project was deferred "by rule."   It will be back on the Council agenda next meeting.

Another important action was the approval of  RESOLUTION RS2017-986 which awarded $2.9 million in incentives to Philips company. The company plans to hire 815 employees over the next two years and the company will receive a grant of $500 per employee.  The average wage of the employees will be $60,000.  The incentive package was approved by a vote of 28 to 1 with three abstentions.  The "no" vote was by Councilman John Cooper and the three abstentions were Kathleen Murphy, Dave Rosenberg and Jacobia Dowell. There was no floor discussion.

BILL BL2017-983 which would bring greater transparency to corporate welfare packages was approved on second reading. This bill would require companies getting an incentive to provide such information as to the type and number of jobs that will be created,  both during and after construction, and whether those jobs will be temporary or permanent, and the number of jobs that will be filled by Davidson County residents. This bill was opposed by the Chamber of Commerce and supported by a liberal organization by the name of NOAH and supported by the Central Labor Council. Some of the most liberal members of the Council supported it and some of the more conservative council members opposed it. While on most issues I would find myself not on the same side of an issue as organized labor and liberal activist, and I would find myself on the same side of an issue as council members like Robert Swope and Stenve Glover, I support this bill.  I support greater transparency in the awarding of corporate welfare. This bill established no policy guidelines, it simply required companies seeking incentive grants to provide more information. To see the discussion see timestamp 31:35 - 51:03 in the video.

On a Motion to Reconsider  RESOLUTION RS2017-966, the motion failed by a vote on only one in favor, 33 opposed, and one abstention The motion was not debatable. Having failed, the action taken at the last council meeting to approve RS2017-966 was unchanged. That resolution was the resolution to approved the law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, as special counsel to pursue claims against manufacturers and distributors of prescription opioids that have "wrongfully caused drug addiction in Davidson County." The opposition to selection of this law firm came mostly from Black members of the Council, concerned that the firm did not have a sufficient number of Black attorneys working for the firm. 

If you are going to watch the Council meeting, you need a copy of the Council agenda and the Council staff analysis or you really will not know what is going on. To access the agenda, staff analysis and my commentary on the agenda, follow this link.




In other council action, Roy Dale and Anna Maddox were reappointed to the Stormwarter Management Board after previously having had their confirmation delayed.  There was no discussion and no negative votes.

The Nashville Songwriters Association was honored with the presentation of a resolution. (see video timestamp 8:30- 13:24,)

RESOLUTION RS2017-779 , RESOLUTION RS2017-780, and RESOLUTION RS2017-781 all of which deal with right-of-way closures are deferred indefinitely.

All bills on Introduction and First Reading are considered together and pass by a single vote, as is the norm, including BILL BL2017-1031 which is the bill "adopting a transit improvement program for the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, approving a surcharge for the program, and requesting the Davidson County Election Commission to call a county-wide referendum election to be held on May 1, 2018." 

BILL BL2017-865  on Second Reading which creates new public works reporting requirements is deferred to the second meeting in March.

BILL BL2017-941 on Second Reading which would establish a a Commercial Permit Parking Program is deferred two meetings.

SUBSTITUTE BILL BL2017-953 as amended imposes various regulations regarding commercial solicitation  including restricting door-to-door commercial solicitation to daylight hours or no later than 7PM whichever is later.  It passes on Second Reading.

Top Stories

What's on the Council agenda for Dec. 19, 2017: Trampling private property rights and killing an affordable housing development, $2.85 million in corporate welfare, selection of a law firm being reconsidered.

The most important item on the Council agenda for this meeting is BILL NO. BL2016-219 on Third

proposed The Ridge at Antioch

and Final Reading. This bill is the attempt to kill an affordable housing project and trample a person's private property rights by cancelling an approved Planned Unit Development and down zoning a person's property without their consent.  To take away a permitted use is a "taking."  Property rights are more than just holding legal title.  When property is taken it should only be for a public purpose and owners should be compensated for their loss.  I know we now have a very liberal Metro Council, but I suspect even many liberals are not comfortable trampling property rights.  If they are unconcerned about trampling property rights, they are probably concerned about exposing the city to a law suit the city is most likely going to lose and the loss of future State assistance in the form of tax credits the state has threatened to withhold  should this bill pass.

The opposition to the development of this property is that it will concentrate poverty and that Antioch does not need more affordable housing. Some of the council members supporting this bill and opposing the affordable housing project are the leading advocates of affordable housing. Hypocrites! They want affordable housing but not where the market says it is affordable.  This proposed affordable housing project should not be thought of as "the projects" or something similar. Unless someone told you, you would not even know this type housing had a subsidy. This planned development is a "tax credit" property. The people who will live there are people who work. The rent will not be based on an individuals ability to pay, but the rent will be "affordable" for a person of modest income. This is what is often called "workforce" housing.

This bill has been disapproved by the Planning Commission.  If this  passes the State of Tennessee has threatened to withhold future tax credits used to help finance affordable housing developments. For more on this story see this link and this and this.

This bill has been in the works for a very long time.  To view the July 6, 2016 Public Hearing on the bill follow this link. It was deferred indefinitely following that public hearing. It was on the agenda on third reading on April18, 2017  and at that time it was deferred to this meeting, the second meeting in December.  Being a dissapproved bill, this will take 28 votes to pass and there will be a roll call vote. I will record in this blog, how members of the Council voted.



The Metro Council will meet Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 6:30 PM in the Council chamber at the Metro Courthouse. If you are going to watch the Council meeting, you need a copy of the Council agenda and the staff analysis  or you really will not know what is going on. You can get the agenda and analysis at the highlighted links.


Appointment of Roy Dale and Anna Maddox to the Stormwater Management Board.
There are two mayoral appointees to Boards and Commission on the agenda for confirmation. These are the same two that were on the agenda last meeting and deferred to this meeting.  They are the appointments of Roy Dale and  Anna Maddox to the Stormwater Water Management Board. It is very unusual that a  mayoral appointment is just not automatically rubber stamped by the Rules and Confirmation Committee of the Council and the full Council. Last meeting both candidates received a recommendation of a deferral by the rules committee by a vote of 5 to 3 and the Council voted to defer the confirmation of appointments. The Committee chairman said the recommendation was due to unanswered questions from constituents.  I do not know what those questions were and do not know if questions have been answered.  Roy Dale is a former member of the Council and a major developer in town.  This is just a guess but I would bet some members of the public saw his roll on the Sormwater Management Committee as a conflict with his roll as a developer. However that does not explain the opposition to Anna Maddox.  I monitor some neighborhood activist sites but have not seen opposition to these candidates. I have no insight as to what is behind the deferral and have heard nothing. Watch to see what happens. If someone knows what is going on, please contact me or post a comment.

Resolution on Motion to Reconsider
RESOLUTION RS2017-966  is the resolution which authorizes the Mayor to employ the law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, as special counsel to pursue claims against manufacturers and distributors of prescription opioids that have "wrongfully caused drug addiction in Davidson County." This resolution was on the agenda meeting before last and deferred to last meeting and at the last meeting it was approved by a machine vote of 30 in favor, 6 opposed and 4 abstentions. Now it is back on the agenda, placed on the agenda under a "motion to reconsider." A motion to reconsider is authorized under Rule 35 of the rules of the Council . This is what rule 35 says:

 A motion to reconsider a vote of the Council on any ordinance or resolution can be entertained only on a final reading and an affirmative vote and then only when the following have been complied with:
(a) The maker of the motion to reconsider must have voted with the prevailing side.
(b) The motion to reconsider must be made before the next order of business.
(c) Not less than four (4) members of the Council must second the motion, and these four members need not have voted with the prevailing side.
Such motion, properly made and seconded, must be considered and finally acted on at the next regular meeting of the Council or at a special meeting called for that purpose. Such motion shall not be debatable prior to its consideration and final action.
No statement that a member is proposing to offer a motion to reconsider at a later meeting is to be entertained by the Council.

I did not know the motion to reconsider had been made and passed last council meeting but rewatching the council meeting I see that it was.  The maker of the motion and the discussion of the motion between the vice mayor and the attorney for the council is  low volume and barely audible. To see this action at the last council meeting see timestamp 1:14 in the video at this link. It appears this is properly back on the agenda.

The primary opposition to this resolution is that of the Black council members who are concerned that the chosen law firm does not have a sufficient number of Black lawyers. This is complicated legal work and only a few firms have the expertise to litigate this matter. Also, the firm must have deep pockets to front the expenses, Sometimes cases like this can take years to be settled. There is an urgency to proceed or Nashville could miss the boat.

Under the contract with the selected legal firm, in some cases the law firm could get up to 20% of any money awarded the city. However, if the law firm won no award, the city would pay them nothing. To see the discussion on the resolution that occurred at the last Council meeting, see timestamp 43 to 1:14:06 in the video.

There are no bills on Public hearing on this agenda.

There are 16 resolutions all of which are on the consent agenda. A resolution stays on the consent agenda if it passes unanimously the committees to which has been assigned. Since the committees have not met yet, some resolutions which are listed as on the consent agenda may not be on the consent agenda when the council meets. Resolutions on the consent agenda are usually not controversial and tend to be routine matters, such as accepting grants from the Federal or State Government, entering into inter agency agreements over mundane things, appropriating money from the 4% fund, settling lawsuits, or approving signs overhanging public sidewalk. Resolutions on the consent agenda are lumped together and passed by a single vote of the Council rather than being considered individually. Any member of the body however, may have a resolution pulled off of the consent agenda or have their "no" vote or abstention recorded. Unlike a bill which requires three votes of the Council to pass, a resolution only requires one vote of the Council. Below are the resolution I find of interest. 

RESOLUTION RS2017-779 , RESOLUTION RS2017-780, and RESOLUTION RS2017-781 all  deal with right-of-way closures. These resolutions would increase the fee for closing a right-of-way,  would specify requirements for a right-of-way site management plan permit, and request that all fee revenue from right-of-way temporary closure permits be used for staffing, expenses, and other direct costs of administering such permits. I do not expect this to be controversial. With Nashville's rapid growth and downtown construction right-of-way closures have been a problem.  Sometimes, streets are narrowed or closed for months while downtown construction takes place causing traffic problems and interfering with the functioning of businesses in the area of the right-of-way closure.

RESOLUTION RS2017-986 awards an economic and community development incentive grant to  Philips Holding. Phillips Holding is a Netherlands-based health technology firm. This would award them  $2.85 million in city incentives and the firm would bring 815 new jobs with an average annual salary of $60,000. To read The Tennessean's coverage of this issue see Barry proposes $2.9M incentive package for Philips' Nashville expansion. While I wish this was not the way business was done, unfortunately it is.  If we do not offer this type of bribe or corporate welfare, some other city will and the company will locate elsewhere. I have a concern that sometimes we award these grants unnecessarily. Some of the firms we give the money to would have probably located in Nashville anyway without the incentive. Sometimes the jobs do not materialize.  A positive feature of this deal is that the jobs are good paying jobs.  The money is awarded as the jobs are created. It makes more sense to lure companies to Nashville that provide good paying jobs rather than companies that pay low wages. I hope the budget and finance company carefully reviews this resolution to determine if it is a good deal for the city.

RESOLUTION RS2017-998  is a memorializing resolution "recognizing the Ryman Auditorium - “The Mother Church of Country Music” - and its 125 years in Nashville as Music City’s most famous and respected music venue attracting hundreds of thousands of visitors to Nashville each year."

Bills on First reading: There are 10 bills on first reading. First reading is a formality that gets bills on the agenda and they are not considered by committee until after they pass first reading. I do not usually read them until they get to second reading. Bills on First Reading are all lumped together and pass by a single vote except in extremely rare cases. One bill of note on First Reading is BILL BL2017-1031 , "an ordinance adopting a transit improvement program for the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, approving a surcharge for the program, and requesting the Davidson County Election Commission to call a county-wide referendum election to be held on May 1, 2018, regarding the levying of the surcharge on certain taxes to fund the program." While I generally think everything should pass on First Reading, if I were serving in the Council, I would vote "no" on this bill on First Reading.

Bills on Second Reading. There are 22 bills on Second Reading. These are the ones of interest.

BILL BL2017-865  creates new public works reporting requirements.  This bill creates more transparency regarding Metro public works projects. The council would get regular reports on the cost and status of projects and Public Works would be required to maintain on-line map of the projects providing various data, such as cost and status of the project. This is a good bill.
 
BILL BL2017-941 would establish a a Commercial Permit Parking Program. The council would have to approve the geographic areas in which this applied. In those areas commercial vehicles could only park on the street if they had a permit to do so.  As we grow, parking become more of a problem with people parking on streets taking parking places that deny those spaces to those who have businesses or residence on the street a place to park. These seems reasonable. This would not impose such a system all at once. Area businesses and residences would have to petition to have such a system in place in their neighborhood. This is a good bill. This bill was on the agenda of 11-7-2017 on Second Reading and deferred to this meeting.

SUBSTITUTE BILL BL2017-953  imposes various regulations regarding commercial solicitation  including restricting door-to-door commercial solicitation to daylight hours. As one who once sold cable TV door-to-door when Viacom was new to Nashville, this seems overly restrictive, especially in the winter when it is dark at 5:00PM. When I was selling cable, I often worked till 8PM. I am pleased to see that a second substitute is anticipated that would  alter the proposed time restrictions by prohibiting door-to-door solicitation after sunset or 7:00 pm, whichever occurs later. With that change, I would support this bill if I had a vote. This was on the agenda on Second Reading last meeting and deferred to this meeting. 

BILL BL2017-983 would require certain information for the assessment of economic and community development incentives offered in the form of PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) agreements and Council approval. PILOTS are a form of corporate welfare used most often to entice businesses to locate or expand in Nashville. It is often offered by the Industrial Development Board but has recently been offered by the Metro Development and Housing Agency in order to encourage the development of affordable housing. Under a PILOT agreement, the business is exempt from paying property taxes but instead pays a fee in lieu of those taxes which is considerably less than the company would pay in taxes. Currently companies getting incentive grants have to provide Metro with certain information such as how many jobs they will create and other things and then the Council has to approve the incentive grant.  This bill would apply those same standards to those getting PILOT deals.  This is a good bill.  Currently the PILOTs are awarded without Council oversight.  This was on the agenda on Second Reading last meeting and deferred to this meeting.

Bills on Third Reading. There are 40 bills on third reading. Most are zoning bills that have been approved by the Planning Commission or are approved subject to modification as recommended by the Planning Commission. BILL NO. BL2016-219 is addressed at the top of this page and none of the others are of much interest.

Top Stories