Beacon Issues Second Warning to Nashville Metro Council

BY BRADEN H. BOUCEK, The Beacon Center, December 8, 2016  -Today, we, along with Southeastern Legal Foundation, wrote the Nashville council for a second time regarding their affordable housing mandates. If this is the first you have heard of the issue, an affordable housing mandate forces developers of residences to use a complicated formula set by the city to sell their homes at below-market prices. In other words, the city is forcing people to lose money on something they sell. All of this is just to address an alleged crisis in affordable housing that does not exist.

This is price control, pure and simple. It is unnecessary. It does more harm than good. It does nothing to address the larger problem even in the best of cases. And even if none of this was true, forcing a property owner to lose money on homes that they build makes as much sense as addressing hunger by making a grocer lose money on the produce they sell.

We have written this second letter in the hopes that Nashville will fix the law. The law is illegal and unconstitutional for the reasons we explain at length in the letter. So ultimately Nashville will be forced to fix the law after ordered by a court. Responsible lawmaking can avoid this. We are happy to help.

There’s a particular reason to revisit the law. It was only supposed to be about residential apartment units. Everyone involved believed this to be true. Yet, buried in the law is an easily overlooked loophole that demands that “all proposed residential developments” who trigger the law “shall comply.” Nashville officials have told concerned parties to ignore that “shall” because the law is not supposed to impose the same obligations on residential units. The plain language says different. If this is a mistake, Nashville should fix it.

For us, litigation is a last resort. But when cities are willfully indifferent to the rights of others and won’t change even when warned, there is no choice. Litigation, however unfortunate, is sometimes necessary. It is all too easy for lawmakers to figure people will just bend instead of spending the time and money to protect their constitutional rights (which is why public interest litigation is so important). They may be right in most cases. This is not how a constitutional republic is supposed to work.

We hope for the responsible consideration of Nashville lawmakers.
You can read the full text of the second letter here.

My Comment: I am immensely pleased with the work of the Beacon Center. They are one of the organizations I financially support.  I appreciate their successful efforts to combat Nashville government's progressive agenda and defend our constitutional rights. To learn more about The Beacon Center, to get on their mailing list,  or make a contribution, follow this link. 

Top Stories

NashVegas Cab Asks Metro for the right to grow. They are the only taxi company using 100% of their issued permits.

Press Release - On February 25, 2016, Nashville-based NashVegas Cab will be on hand, once again, asking Director Billy Fields and the members of the Metro Transportation Licensing Commission to lift the stay on enforcement of Rule #3 and issue to them any unfilled permits currently held by the other taxi companies. During the annual meeting held last month, the board had the opportunity to issue more permits to NashVegas, but instead delayed action on the issuance of new permits. The delay has spurred some taxi companies into offering temporary weekly fee or “lick”reductions, in an attempt to fill their currently unfilled permits. Why didn’t these companies lower their fees before? The lick trick shouldn’t fly with our TLC! 

“We ask that the TLC enforce all of its rules and award our company with additional permits,” said Solomon Tadele, President of NashVegas Cab. Studies generated by the Convention and Visitors Bureau show that as our city continues to grow, the demand for safe, affordable, and dependable transportation also continues to grow.  NashVegas wants to continue to meet that demand! The issuance of additional permits to NashVegasCab helps them hire more local drivers from all parts of the world who have established citizenship. Furthermore, additional permits helps NashVegas support their families and support our local tax base. NashVegas stands apart from their rideshare competitors who do not contribute to our local tax base.

Tadele further stated, “We are the only company with all of our permits completely filled with happy drivers, but we can’t grow our business and employ new drivers until the TLC decides we can. Please don’t punish us for being successful!” The driver-owners of NashVegas Cab Corporation asks that Mayor Barry, the Metro Council, and the members of the Metro Transportation Licensing Commission enforce the law and its rules and end the current practice of issuing permits to companies unable to fill them. Nashville’s own NashVegas Cab Corporation just completed its second year of providing the utmost in service to visitors and residents of Nashville. In only a short period of time, NashVegas has proven itself as a company willing to provide service to those in underserved communities by establishing a service grid, with cabs strategically placed throughout the city, all accessible by way of the NashVegas Cab app.

My Comment: I adamantly disagree with the statement, "NashVegas stands apart from their rideshare competitors who do not contribute to our local tax base." That is ridiculous! Certainly drivers for Lyft and Uber also contribute to our local tax base. The independent business men and women who drive for rideshare companies also earn money which they spend locally and support their families and support our local tax base. That disagreement with the unnecessary jab at Uber and Lyft aside however, I am 100% in favor of giving NashVegas the permits they need to expand their company and hire more drivers. Simply because other cab companies have permits they are not using is no justification for denying new permits to NashVegas.

The way the taxi cap companies operate is that a taxicab company gets issued a permit for so many caps and pays an annual fee of $255 for each permit. The company then hires  taxi drivers who are forced to pay a weekly fee, called a "lick," of between $200-$350 a week for the right to use a permit issued to the company by the TLC. The taxi driver actually owns his own cab but does not own the permit to operate his cab.

My view is that we should abolish the permit system and let any taxi driver register his cab and operate. Metro should simply get out of the business of controlling the number of cabs permitted to operate and let supply and demand determine the optimum number of cabs needed to serve the community. It is immoral that a cab company owner, who has very little in the way of investment in the company, pays $225 a year for the right to place a cab on the street then charges a driver over $18,000 a year to work as a taxi driver using that $225 permit.

NashVegas is using all of the permits they have been issued and have more drivers who want to go to work for them but cannot put them to work because Metro will not allow the company to expand. That is simply wrong. While I would prefer we totally abolish the permit system, in the meantime, NashVegas should be issued all of the permits they can use.

Top Stories

State legislation would ban housing price-fixing, mandatory inclusionary zoning.

Bill would ban housing mandates 

Measure’s aim: Block city requirements that builders set aside low-income housing 

by JOEY GARRISON The Tennessean, Jan. 20, 2016 -  Some Nashville poverty advocates continue to push for the creation of a new Metro policy that would mandate affordably priced homes be included in new residential projects.

But newly filed state legislation would prevent cities from adopting such a plan, known as mandatory inclusionary zoning.

 As he promised in the fall, Tennessee Rep. Glen Casada, R-Franklin, has introduced a bill that would prohibit local governments from requiring that a certain percentage of existing or newly constructed private residential units be reserved for affordable or workforce housing. Sen. Ferrell Haile, R-Gallatin, has signed on as the sponsor of the Senate version of the bill.

Tennessee already has a law that says local municipalities can’t control the cost of rent. Whether that restricts local governments from adopting a zoning policy that mandates affordable housing units among rental properties has been debated. (link)

Top Stories

Inclusionary zoning study completed. "A quasi mandatory program."

On Wednesday the Planning Commission released their recommendations for new affordable housing policies.  According to The Tennessean and other sources, the inclusionary zoning recommendations developed by the Planning Commission avoid the most onerous characteristics of most inclusionary zoning.  For starters, thanks to a State law, Metro cannot impose rent control.  This was clear from the very first and anyone who wanted to know, knew that back in July 2015 when the Council directed the Planning Commission to develop an inclusionary zoning ordinance to present to the Council. Since State law prohibits rent control, a mandatory inclusionary zoning ordinance addressing rental property was out of the question from the very first.


What the Planning Commission has developed is a recommendation that relies on incentives for developers to build affordable housing. I much prefer incentives to punitive requirements, but incentives can be disguised punishment for those who do not get the incentives. The lead consultant on the project is quoted in The Tennessean as saying, “To some, this recommendation could be characterized as an incentive zoning ordinance, but to others, it might appear stronger. For us practitioners and researchers who talk to a lot of people around the country, some might call this a ‘quasi mandatory program.’"

The primary incentive appears to be bonus incentives. As an example of how an "incentive" program can really be mandatory is how it is applied to density.  In order to build downtown a certain amount of density may be necessary to make the development feasible. If in order to to be permitted to build to that density, you must build a certain number of affordable units, then the incentive density bonus program is not really voluntary but mandatory. 

I should be clear when we talk about "affordable housing" that people know what we are talking about. We are not talking about public housing or Section 8 housing, nor are we talking about housing the homeless.  "Affordable housing" means housing that is priced so that it does not take more than a certain percentage of a family's income. Usually that percentage is 30%. So, affordable to whom one might ask? According to the recommendations of the Planning Commission the affordable housing units for-sale under their proposal would be reserved for families whose income is 80 percent of Nashville’s area median income and for rental projects, it would be 60 percent. It is unclear what family size this applies to.

In Nashville 80% of the Area Median income for a family of two is $42,800.  An affordable monthly house payment for this family would be $1070 a month. That amount of house payment including the escrow for taxes and insurance would finance a house that would sell for about $175,000. Today we are experiencing record low interest rates. If rates go up to 5% that would finance a house costing about $150,000.  $175,000 is not a shabby house, but if developers are building condos that sell for $350,000 to a million dollars, that is way below market.

According to the Planning Commission proposal, a developer willing to build for-sale projects of five units or more in the urban zoning overlay could net $20,000 for "each affordable" unit.  Rather than accept the $20,000 incentive, most developers would prefer to build the more expensive units. This incentive alone will probably result in few affordable units.  For areas outside the urban core, the incentive is only $10,000. While $20,000 may not be sufficient to entice a builder to build affordable units, the density bonus may. This is just a supposition of how it may apply, but if by current zoning a builder can only build 12 stories high but if he agrees to build x number of affordable units, he can build 24 stories high, then that is such an incentive that it becomes in effect a mandatory requirement.

While inclusionary zoning may sound good, the unintended consequences may be that overall fewer units get built. The same developer looking to build in Nashville, may simply choose to develop in another city where requirements are less stringent and where he can earn more money.  Less development, means less housing supply and more pressure on housing prices and even less property that is "affordable." This proposal needs to be looked at very carefully, if it really is a mandatory program, the State should intervene to prohibit for-sale price controls.

I will post more on this topic as more is known.  If there is someone who is knowledgeable of this topic and what Metro is proposing, please submit it to me for publication. To read The Tennessean's article follow this link.

Top Stories

Rent control is illegal in Tennessee

Well, Gol-ly, I could have told 
you that and you wouldn't have had
 to spend all that money on consultants.

by Joey Garrison, The Tennessean - Metro planning consultants have made their opinion clear on a question that looms large as they work to draft a new affordable housing policy for Nashville.

They say a state law that bans cities from controlling the price of rent prevents Nashville from adopting what is known as a mandatory inclusionary zoning policy that would apply to rentals. ...But some affordable housing advocates, including...At-large Metro Councilman Bob Mendes said he believes it is unclear....But David Schwartz, vice president of Economic & Planning Systems Inc.,..... “In this case,” he said of Tennessee rent control law, “it prohibits — plain and simple — mandatory inclusionary zoning for rental projects.” 
 (link)

Top Stories

Why am I not considered a "stakeholder" in the Inclusionary zoning discussion?

Yesterday evening I attended a 5:30 PM meeting at the Planning Commission on inclusionary zoning. Someone forwarded to me the announcement of the meeting and I did not learn of it until Monday morning. Due to my wife's ill health, I have limited flexibility in my ability to be away from home. Louella's caregiver agreed to work late but I had to be home by 7PM, so I could not stay for the whole meeting but I was able to attend part of it.

The meeting was a meeting of "stakeholders." At the start of the meeting everyone was allowed to introduce themselves and when I introduced myself I said that by virtue of being a citizen and a taxpayer, I was a stakeholder. After the presentation by the consultant, when it was Q and A time, I tried to ask a question but the Planning commission person conducting the meeting said this was not a public hearing and only invited stakeholders would be allowed to speak. I had a question in mind that was not at all confrontational, but a legitimate question  seeking clarrification of what was presented.

NOAH and VOICE were at the table and allowed to participate. Why are these liberal advocacy groups considered "stakeholders" but I am not?  For that matter, why are developers considered stakeholders but not me? I'm pissed.

The presentation was very factual and quantified with numbers and illustrated by charts and graphs what we all already know and that is that housing is becoming more expensive in Nashville and that a lot of people who work in Nashville live outside the county and housing prices are rising faster than area median income.

My impression is that the consultant is unbiased and at least at this first meeting is providing data and is not advocating an inclusionary zoning policy. In fact, David Swartz of Economic & Planning Systems stated his role was not that of an advocate but to present data. 

Inclusionary zoning is essentially housing price fixing. It very well may be ruled a "taking" by the Supreme Court when the Court considers the issue, as it appears it is likely to do. While dozens, it not hundreds of cities have adopted some form of inclusionary zoning, three states have outlawed it.

Under most inclusionary zoning laws, developers of over a certain number of housing units, often as few as ten units, must set aside a certain percentage as "affordable" for people making x percentage of the area median income. According to a bill pasted by the Metro Council a few months ago, the Planning Commission is charged with developing a set of rules for the Council to consider adopting than would implement a local inclusionary zoning ordidance.

There is "really bad" inclusionary zoning and then just "bad" inclusionary zoning. The really bad mandates; the simply bad bribes by offering incentives for developers to include x number of "affordable" housing units in their developments. While I dislike policies that bribe developers to do certain thinks, if we must have an inclusionary zoning policy I would prefer to have one that rewards developers rather than one that punishes.

What happens with this form of price control known as "inclusionary zoning?"  The market rate units must have their price increased to subsidize the below market rate units.  The result may be that fewer total units get built and total housing cost increases for everyone else except those fortunate enough to get one of the set-aside unites.. The unintended consequences of inclusionary zoing is that fewer units get built and housing prices increase more than they otherwise would have. Builders do not have to build in Nashville and if they can make more money building elsewhere they will.

With Megan Barry serving as our new mayor and a much more liberal Metro Council, I think it will be difficult to stop Nashville from passing some form of inclusionary zoning.  I hope the Supreme Court outlaws this form of "taking." I also hope the State legislature passes a law to prohibit it. If neither of these things occur, I hope we adopt a bad form of inclusionary zoning rather than a really bad form of inclusionary zoning.

To view the power point presentation at last nights meeting follow this link.

Below are excepts from The Tennessean's report on last nights meeting.

Stakeholders weigh affordable housing options

by Holly Meyers, The Tennessean, Oct.13,2015 - Should new residential developments in Nashville be required to have affordable housing units?  ....planning department brought together housing development stakeholders for the first time Monday night to hear a consultant's data-packed presentation on factors that contribute to the national and local housing climate. The 50-person stakeholder group, which includes developers, lenders, housing advocates and members of the Metro Council, will provide input as the planning department sorts through solutions. ... inclusionary zoning is a divisive issue, David Schwartz, the company's vice president, emphasized to stakeholders at Monday's meeting that his firm wants to find the common ground and build consensus.

For more information on the topic, follow this link. 

Top Stories

Taking Inclusionary Zoning All the Way to Supreme Court

From The Atlantic:

... California's inclusionary zoning laws are heading to the Supreme Court.

The California Building Association is arguing that the law--which requires market-rate developers to set aside a portion of their units as affordable housing--constitutes an illegal seizure of property by government forces. Their argument failed at the state's supreme court, so they're now taking it all the way to SCOTUS:

Developers in California are taking their fight against the state’s inclusionary zoning laws to the U.S. Supreme Court, just as cities across the nation are increasingly committing to similar laws to address affordable housing shortages. The California Building Association opposes the soon-to-kick-in law mandating that developers discount a percentage of units in new housing projects for low-income families. They claim it constitutes an illegal “taking” of private property by the government and hope that SCOTUS justices will agree with them. (link)

My Comment:  I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the challenge to inclusionary zoning and will strike down inclusionary zoning laws. I am also hopeful that the State Legislature will ban such laws.

On July 21th of this year the Nashville Metro Council passed  BILL NO. BL2015-1139 which directed the planning commission to come up with a specific proposal to implement this form of housing price control known as "inclusionary zoning." The bill required that the final proposed text change to the zoning ordinance from the Planning Commission provide that 14% of new construction or renovations be set aside as "affordable." The planning commission's proposal will have to come back to the council for approval 180 days from the date it was passed by the council. 

The new Council is going to be much more "progressive" than the old council, which was bad enough.  We cannot expect the new council to reject a final inclusionary zoning ordinance and we certainly cannot expect Mayor Barry to veto it.  It is my hope than the State legislature will pass a law prohibiting Metro from enacting this policy of taking private property and price control. Three states have outlawed inclusionary zoning and Tennessee should follow suit.

For more on this topic, follow this link.    

Top Stories

What happened at the July 21 Council meeting? Housing price and rent control advances.

At 4 hours and 40 minutes long this is a long meeting. Most of it is hearings on zoning matters and I have just skimmed those quickly.  To watch the meeting at a faster speed but if not offered that option, follow this link  and click HTML5. That should then give you that option. I can usually watch it at double speed and not lose much content. One thing that makes this a long meeting is that the voting machine is not working and all roll call votes have to be taken by a show of hands.

To find a link to the agenda, the council staff analysis and my analysis and commentary follow this link.

Here are the items on public hearing of interest:

BILL NO. BL2015-1153 on amends the metro zoning code to provide for more alternative zoning districts. The purpose of this is so that neighborhoods can be rezoned to allow a more pedestrian friendly environment and a more urban feel without requiring a SP zoning overlay. Some of the new zoning districts address things such as smaller lots, alley access, and setbacks.It passes. No one speaks on it.

BILL NO. BL2015-1209  on public hearing which would rezone 525 acres from in North Nashville from  AR2a and R10 to SP zoning to SP to permit a mixed use development is withdrawn at the request of the sponsor because the area has not undergone a Master Plan process for the Bordeaux Redevelopment District.

BILL NO. BL2015-1210  on public hearing amends the Metro zoning code to create “natural gas compressor station” as a new use to be permitted in the industrial zoning districts. That would mean they would be permitted only in industrial zoned districts. The impetus for this is to stop a proposed gas compression station planned in Joelton. There are a whole lot of people in support and a few in opposition. Those in opposition are people associated with the gas line project. State Rep Brenda Gilmore speaks in support and their are about 40 people wearing yellow tee shirts with the slogan "no pipeline compressor" in the audience and several speak in support. Without this bill the pipeline companies could build gas compression stations wherever they thought they were needed, subject to getting a certificate of convenience and necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).  However, the staff analysis says that Federal law prohibits local governments from regulating natural gas facilities through zoning so even if passed the courts would likely rule it not enforceable.  See the public hearing see time stamp at time stamp 1:36:07 where Ken Jakes, citizen activist and candidate for Councilman at-large, speaks in favor. It passes second reading on a voice vote. For the full discussion see time stamp 52:21- 1:59:34.

BILL NO. BL2015-1273 creates the Bordeaux Redevelopment Plan which would cover an area of 525 acres and would allow Tax Increment financing to be available in the area covered by this plan. Under TIF the increased property tax revenue generated by a development is used to pay the debt service on loans for the construction of improvements related to the project. Redevelopment plans must be approved by the council under state law for the purpose of redeveloping blighted areas. It passes.

BILL NO. BL2015-1274   approves the Cayce Place Redevelopment Plan. Casey Homes is one of the cities oldest and worst public housing projects, just off of Shelby Avenue. This plan would demolish that housing and replace it with a mixed income housing development. As explained above, this would make TIF available for this development. It passes.
  
BILL NO. BL2015-1167  by Councilman Scott Davis changes from SP to RS5 zoning on about 238 acres. “Specific Plan District,” generally known as “SP,” zoning refers to a type of base zoning district which is not subject to traditional zoning districts’ development standards. Under an SP zoning, design standards are established for that specific development and are written into the zone change ordinance. RS5 is a medium density residential zone requiring a minimum 5,000 square foot lot and intended for single-family dwellings, prohibiting duplexes. This is deferred to the August 4th meeting.

BILL NO. BL2015-1168 on public hearing also by Councilman Scott Davis effects about 636 acres and would change the current zoning by making applicable the provisions of the DADU overlay. DADU allows for accessory dwelling units, such as garage apartments, on a property and provides a way to create affordable housing options while also maintaining the character of the existing street-facing homes. It is also deferred to the August 4th meeting.

Resolutions on the consent agenda pass. Included are these:

• RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-1573 appropriates $2,150,000 from four percent account of the General Fund to fund 30 different non-profit organizations. To receive funding a non-profit had to apply and their application was scored. Most to the funds go to fund after school programs that serve disadvantaged children but also lots of other causes get funding such as Second Harvest, Fifty Forward, and ARC. There is no funding for the liberal political advocacy "charities" such as the Neighborhood Resource Center or any organization of that kind and there is no funding for Planned Parenthood. I assume the process of selecting which charities get the money is a fair process and see no reason to oppose this appropriations. It passes.

• RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-1575 is a tax giveaway to benefit HCA. See the staff analysis for the mechanics on how this works. It passes.

These are resolutions of interest not on consent:

• RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-1572 appropriates $1.86 million from the undesignated fund balance to fund some items not included in the recently passed annual operating budget. This is unusual. Somebody screwed up and left this money out of the budget.  The bulk of it is to fund pay plan improvements, but $375K is an additional subsidy for the show Nashville. It passes on a voice vote.

• RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-1574  gives $875,000 to subsidize season 4 of the TV show Nashville. This is in addition to $340,000 from the Nashville Convention and Visitors Corporation and $335,000 from the Events and Marketing Fund and the $375,000 included in Resolution RS2015-1572 above. It overwhelming passes by a show of hands.

• RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-1498 by Charlie Tygard request the  Metropolitan Civil Service Commission to consider and recommend an amendment to the General Pay Plan to partially base the compensation of Members of the Metropolitan Council upon Council and committee meeting attendance.
   
  Recently, Channel 5 did an investigative piece and revealed that some Council members almost never attend committee meetings. As Tygard said, "It's not fair for certain council members to do all of the homework and others to get the same rate of pay and do nothing of the work.”
  
  With a large council, the council must have a strong committee system.  It is in committee where the real work of the Council is done. It is in committee where the council can ask hard questions and get answers.  There is no way a council member can know all there is to know about the  bills on the agenda. Some of the Councilmen said they had regular jobs and could  not take off work to attend committee meetings. In my view, if a council member does not have flexibility in his job to attend to his council duties, he should not run for council.  If he cannot attend Council committee meetings he should resign from the council. The worst offenders were Emily Evans, who missed 83 committee meetings since 2013, Robert Duvall, who's missed 93 committee meetings in that time period, and Sean McGuire, who's missed 132 committee meetings since 2013! Among the top twelve members with the worst attendance records was Council member-at-large and Mayoral candidate Megan Barry. This resolution was on the agenda for two meetings and was deferred both times and is now back on the agenda. To see the discussion see time stamp 2:55:30. It failed by a vote of 6 against defeat of the bill-25 for defeat with 2 abstentions on a roll call. When available, I will post how members voted.  

• RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-1515 as amended by Charlie Tygard requests the Davidson County Delegation to the Tennessee General Assembly to introduce and support the necessary legislation to require full-time Davidson County elected officials to submit an annual report to the Metro Clerk detailing the dates they worked. A recent report in The Tennessean revealed that many elected officials often do not work. This was discovered by an examination of when they used there swipe card to gain access to their office. It passes on a roll call vote.

All bills on First Reading pass as is customary.

There are 26 bills on Second Reading. These are the ones I find interesting:

• BILL NO. BL2013-569 amends the zoning text as it relates to car sales lots, car washes, auto repair centers and maybe some others. It does a lot of things including dictating the type of fence or wall that is permitted in front of the establishment, to requiring at least 1,000 feet between car lots. This bill was disproved by the planning commission. It was first introduced in October 2013 and was deferred several times and then deferred indefinitely on March 4th 2014. It was placed back on the agenda on July 7th and then deferred to this meeting. While a lot of people think that when a bill is deferred indefinitely that means it is defeated, that is not the case. Months later when the interested parties have stopped paying attention a deferred bill can be resurrected and placed back on the agenda. It is deferred one meeting.

• BILL NO. BL2015-1212  would prohibit the sale of single cans or bottles of beer by off-sale permit holders located within 100 feet of a facility that provides food to homeless persons. I oppose this type of bureaucratic micro-management. This is deferred one meeting.

• BILL NO. BL2015-1277 as substituted says that if someone donates art work to Nashville, valued at over $5,000 or will have an installation cost or maintenance cost of over $5000, then it must be approved by the Council after having been approved by the Arts Commission. It passes on a voice vote.

• BILL NO. BL2015-1278 would allow the Council to grant a waiver from the distance requirements that apply to beer retailers. Currently places selling beer must be a certain distance from churches, schools, day care centers, parks and homes. The only time the Council can grant a waiver from these requirements is if the establishment already has a State liquor license. This would allow an applicant to appeal for a waiver just as those establishments with  liquor license are now permitted to do.  It passes.
  

• BILL NO. BL2015-1279  by Council member Blalock, says that if a place has a beer permit and a school moves within the 100 feet of the establishment with the beer license then the establishment does not lose its beer license. It is deferred.

These are the bills of interest on Third and final reading:

• SUBSTITUTE BILL NO. BL2015-1120  would expand where one may build secondary dwelling units. This would amend the zoning code to create a Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (DADU) Overlay District. I think this is a positive development and it is one way to increase density and increase the stock of affordable housing. While I oppose price fixing to increase affordable housing, I do think increasing the stock of affordable housing is a worthwhile goal. Also, if Nashville is to grow and avoid massive urban sprawl and if Nashville is going to ever have adequate mass transit, and if we are to afford the services we want and need, without massive tax increases, we need greater population density. Some, however, raise the issue of parking, road capacity, sewer capacity and maintaining the character of existing neighborhoods as reasons to oppose greater density. It is deferred.

• BILL NO. BL2015-1121 would permit "Artisan manufacturing" in a whole bunch of zoning districts that now permit manufacturing. It would allow people to live and work in these districts and sets standards such as parking requirements and screening requirement for loading docks when such would adjoin residential areas. I think this is a good bill. It is approved.

• BILL NO. BL2015-1129  would establish a Codes Offender School, much like we have a traffic violations school or a "John's School" for those arrested for solicitation of a prostitute. I don't feel strongly one way or the other. I am not sure codes violators would benefit from a codes school the same way a traffic violator or solicitors of prostitution benefits from school. Apparently the fee paid by the "student" would cover the cost of the program. It is approved.

• BILL NO. BL2015-1139 is the bill that advances housing price control known as "inclusionary zoning." This directs the Planning Department to create rules and regulation that implement "inclusionary zoning" and directs that such rules establish that 14% of the units in any new development or renovation of existing developments or conversion of existing rental developments to for-purchase units, be set aside as "affordable."  It define "affordable," as affordable to someone making between 60% and 120% of the area median area income. The effect of this is that the cost all new developments would increase and development of new residential property would be slowed and prices of all new development would increase. Housing prices would increase for everyone else not eligible for a set-aside priced house to cover the subsidy to the set-aside homes. Obviously some people who can now afford new housing will not be able to do so. You cannot lower the price of some housing without raising the price of other housing. The final rules established by the Planning Commission would have to go back to the Council for approval. It is my understanding that State law would have to be changed before Metro could do this, however that is not certain. This is one of the worst bills ever considered by the Council! On second reading it passed by a vote of 27 to 11. 

Councilman Tygard moves to amend the bill to establish a committee of stakeholders such as the Chamber of Commence and lenders and developers to work with the consultants over the next 180 days to help craft the proposal that will come back to the Council. Anthony Davis and Ronnie Stein speak against the amendment. The amendment fails on a roll call vote! Back on original bill Emily Evans urges caution on this bill and says it could have unintended consequences. Claiborne moves to defer one meeting. That motion fails on a roll call, then Councilman Clairborne attempts to suspend the rules to move to amend out the 14% set aside mandate in the bill. The effort to suspend the rules fails. The bill is then passed on a roll call vote.

Council members Phil Claiborne, Robert Duvall, Tony Tenpenny and Charlie Tygard were the lone "no" votes. I am disgusted that those council member who claim to be conservatives voted for this bill. To see the discussion see time stamp 3:49:32- 4:18:25. 

Here is The Tennessean's report on the meeting: Metro Council approves affordable housing bill.

Top Stories

Why affordable housing mandates don’t work

by Wood Caldwell, For The Tennessean, July 20, 2015 - Metro Council may pass an ordinance Tuesday evening that will make Nashville’s current affordable housing situation worse.

The ordinance — # BL2015-1139 — would mandate that 14 percent of the units in all new or renovated residential real estate in Nashville/Davidson County be set aside as “Affordable Housing” or “Workforce Housing,” which means they must be rented or sold at below-market rates.

While it may sound like an attractive idea to simply mandate that Nashville’s affordable housing issues disappear by councilmatic decree, the reality is anything but attractive.(link)

Since The Tenneseean's content is now hidden behind a paywall and you may not be able to access this article I will summarize it. Here are the main points:

• This is  basically a tax on the development of residential real estate and the more you tax any activity, the less of it you get.
• Affordable housing has to be subsidized by someone. Artificially reducing rent for 14 percent of the residents in a development means the other 86 percent have to make up the difference by paying above-market rates.
• There is still affordable housing in the Nashville, but maybe not where one wants to live. If you want affordable housing you may have to live in Madison or Antoch rather than Greenhills or Downtown.

Unfortunately, the ordinance passed Tuesday night with only Council members Phil Claiborne, Robert Duvall, Tony Tenpenny and Charlie Tygard voting against it. The money we are going to spend on consultants to develop this price control ordinance and the effort expended in advancing this proposal for rent and housing price control  may have been wasted. At an event for Governor Scott Walker on Tuesday night, I had the opportunity to speak to several state legislators. State law may already prohibit this type price control and if it does not, such legislation may be introduced to prohibit it. City government and our Metro Council would have been wise to ensure what they were proposing was legal before advancing this price control proposal. This is not over. Now may be the time to direct attention to the State legislature to stop this move before it further advances. The Council and Metro legal would have been wise to seek a determination of the legality of this objective before advancing it. If this is passes it is likely to result in less affordable housing, not more.
 

Top Stories

How the Council voted on Rent Controll, health benefits for future former members of the Council, and tax giveaways.

Below is how the council voted on several important bills at the last council meeting.

How they voted on Rent Control: SUBSTUTUTE BILL NO. BL2015-1139  on the July was the ordinance to establish a requirement for "affordable and workforce housing units," and to authorize the Planning Department to establish rules and regulations to implement it. In essence this was one more move toward rent control and housing price control.

Those voting in favor were: Megan Barry, Ronnie Steine, Tim Garrett, Maynard, Matthews, Harrison, Hunt, Banks, Scott Davis, Westerholm, Anthony Davis, Bill  Pridemore, Doug Pardue, Larry Hagar, Josh Stites, Stanley, Moore, Allen, Gilmore, Holleman, McGuire, Harmon, Johnson, Potts, Bedne, Dowell, Carter Todd (27)

Those who voted against were:  Charlie Tygard, Karen Bennett, Phil Claiborne, Tony Tenpenny, Baker, Sheri Weiner, Emily Evans, Davette Blalock, Duane Dominy, Robert Duvall, Bo Mitchell (11).

Congratulation to Bo Mitchell above who is not normally one of the "good" councilmen, but who voted the right way on this issue.

How they voted on providing lifetime health insurance benefits for future former members of the Metro Council: BILL NO. BL2015-1211. This would not have done away with the benefit but greatly reduced it. It would not have taken anything away from people currently entitled to the benefit but would have reduced it for future former council members.

Those who voted in favor of reducing this benefit were: Megan Barry, Ronnie Steine, Tim Garrett, Charlie Tygard, Banks, Westerholm, Bill Pridemore, Josh Stites, Stanley, Phil Claiborne, Allen, Holleman, McGuire, Todd, Mitchell (15).

Those who vote "no," voting to keep the benefit the way it is, were:  Maynard, Matthews, Harrison, Hunt, Scott Davis, Anthony Davis, Doug Pardue, Larry Hagar, Tony Tenpenny, Gilmore, Baker, Sheri Weiner, Emily Evans, Duane Dominy, Johnson, Potts, Bedne, Dowell (18)

Those “Abstaining:” Karen Bennett, Moore, Harmon, Davette Blalock (4). Many of the liberals in the council voted the right way on this bill and several of the conservatives voted the wrong way. 

How they voted on the Tax giveaway for American General:  SUBSTITUTE BILL NO. BL2015-1127   authorized the Industrial Development Board to accept payments in lieu of ad valorem taxes (PILOT) from  American General Life Insurance Company.

Those voting “Aye:” Barry, Steine, Tim Garrett, Charlie Tygard, Maynard, Matthews, Harrison, Hunt, Banks, Scott Davis, Westerholm, Anthony Davis, Bill Pridemore, Stanley, Moore, Allen, Gilmore, Baker, Sheri Weiner, Holleman, McGuire, Harmon, Davette Blalock, Duane Dominy, Johnson, Potts, Bedne, Dowell, Carter Todd, Mitchell (30).

Those voting "no." Bill Pardue, Larry Hagar, Josh Stites, Phil Claiborne, Tony Tenpenny, Emily Evans (6).


How they voted on the other Tax giveaway: BILL NO. BL2015-1143

Voting “Aye:” Megan Barry, Steine, Tim Garrett, Charlie Tygard, Maynard, Matthews, Harrison, Hunt, Banks, Scott Davis, Westerholm, Anthony Davis, Bill Pridemore, Stanley, Phil Claiborne, Moore, Allen, Gilmore, Baker, Weiner, Holleman, McGuire, Harmon, Davette Blalock, Duane Dominy, Johnson, Potts, Bedne, Dowell, Carter Todd, Mitchell (31).

Those voting "No:" Pardue, Hagar, Stites, Tenpenny, Evans (5).

Those in bold red typeface underlined above are councilmen who I usually think of as the "good" councilmen, who should know better and who disappointing me by there vote. The others in the lighter red are "good" council members who voted the right way. 

Top Stories

What Happened at the Council Meeting of July 7th? Housing and Rent control advances, Council members keep life-time health insurance, more tax giveaways.

The big news of the night is that the Council voted to advance the form of housing price and rent control that goes by the good sounding name of "inclusionary zoning."  It passed, but eleven members voted against it.

To read my analysis of this meeting and to get your own copy of the agenda follow this link. At the time I did my analysis, the Council staff analysis had not been published and I did not have benefit of reading the staff analysis prior to the council meeting. To get your copy of the council staff analysis follow this link.

At over four hours long, this is a long meeting.  If there is anything I think worth watching, I will note the timestamp and you can go to that point in the video to watch the action.  If you want to watch the meeting however, and not devote four hours, you may want to watch it in double time and then slow it down when you hear something interesting. I can usually watch a meeting in double time and not lose much content. To do that click on the video, then click on the "YouTube" logo and you will be asked it you want to watch the video on YouTube. Do that. Then click on the gear. If given the opportunity to watch it in time and half or double time, you will see that option. If not, follow this link and click on "HTML5" unless you get a message saying "the HTML5 player is currently used when possible." Go back to the video and you should now be able to watch it at faster speeds.

There are 33 bills on public hearings and I do not even attempt to understand them all. I only report on bills that have wider implications than one neighborhood or for some other reason I consider important. Below are the meeting highlights:

BILL NO. BL2015-1098  on public hearing which concerns '“Community Education' siting" and would allow schools to locate in zoned districts where they are not now permitted and would relax the lot size requirements for a school is deferred indefinitely.  I think this is a good bill and is one to watch. Included in this is a provision that schools could now be established in IWD districts (Industrial Warehousing/Distribution, intended for a wide range of warehousing, wholesaling, and bulk distribution uses). The bill also provides for "adaptive reuse," meaning a school could be located in an existing building, regardless of lot size, that was not originally intended for a school. On the face of it this seems like a good thing to do. Why not allow a school to locate in a relocated church building or an empty mall? Some people in the Greenhills area are opposed to any relaxation of the current school siting requirements because they are concerned that Hillsboro High will relocate and the valuable land which is now Hillsboro High will be redeveloped. They want to make it very difficult for Hillsboro high to relocate simply because they oppose new commercial and multifamily development in Greenhills. Council member Evans, the bill sponsor ask the bill be deferred to the first meeting in August. Councilman Bedne ask instead to have the bill deferred infinitely. The sponsor says she is Ok with that. She can still bring it back up. The motion to defer indefinitely passes.

SUBSTITUTE BILL NO. BL2015-1120  on public hearing is a bill that would expand where one may build secondary dwelling units. It passes. This would amend the zoning code to create a Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (DADU) Overlay District. I think this is a positive development and it is one way to increase density and increase the stock of affordable housing. While I oppose price fixing to increase affordable housing, I do think increasing the stock of affordable housing is a worthwhile goal. Also, if Nashville is to grow and avoid massive urban sprawl and if Nashville is going to ever have adequate mass transit, and if we are to afford the services we want and need, without massive tax increases, we need greater population density. Some, however, raise the issue of parking, road capacity, sewer capacity and maintaining the character of existing neighborhoods as reasons to oppose greater density.

One of my favorite public figures and a Council member at-large member candidate, Ken Jakes argues against it, saying it could change the character of neighborhoods across Davidson County. The sponsor explains that this is only a tool and this overlay would have to be applied to a neighborhood and passed by the Council.

BILL NO. BL2015-1121 which would permit "Artisan manufacturing" in a whole bunch of zoning districts that now permit manufacturing passes. No one speaks in favor or opposition.  It would allow people to live and work in this districts and sets standards such as parking requirements and screening requirement for loading docks when such would adjoin residential areas. To me, this seems like a positive development.

BILL NO. BL2015-1139 is one of the bill that advances housing price control known as "inclusionary zoning." This directs the Planning Department to create rules and regulation that implement "inclusionary zoning" and directs that such rules set a goal that 14% of the units in any new development or renovation of existing developments or conversion of existing rental developments to for-purchase units, be set aside as "affordable."  It define "affordable" as affordable to someone making 60% or less of the area median income. "Affordable" means that one's house payment for rent does not take more than 30% of one's income.  The effect of this is that the cost all new developments would increase and development of new residential property would be slowed and prices of all new development would increase. The final rules established by the Planning Commission would have to go back to the Council for approval. It is my understanding that State law would have to be changed before Metro could do this, however that is not certain.

Several people speak in favor and in opposition. Those in support include representatives of NOAH and VOICE, Kay Bowers who is with a non-profit housing group, Dinah Gregory, Director of Planning and Coordination with Metro Social Service and Rev. Bill Barnes a long time activist for progressive causes for whom the Barnes Fund is named. Several speakers mention that this implements a goal of NashvilleNext.

Among those speaking in opposition is Council member at-large candidate Ken Jakes (see time stamp 53:26), He says no government should ever tell one the price for which they must rent or sell their home. Other opponents include a spokesman for the Greater Nashville Apartment Association and the Greater Nashville Association of Realtors. Marty Heflin a teacher of Real Estate Finance at the Owen School of Management at Vanderbilt University gives examples of how inclusionary zoning has failed to achieve its goals in other locations where it has been adopted and actually led to higher home prices(time stamp 59:27). He point out that with inclusionary zoning total housing developments go down and it pushed all housing prices up and acts as a tax on development and leads developers to build outside the county instead of in the county.

The bill is substituted with a version that is slightly less bad than it was originally. The original said the Planning Commission was to come up with rules and regulations that required a 14% set aside of affordable units; the substitute says they are to develop a plan that has a goal of 14% affordable units.  Council member Sherri Weiner speaks in opposition to the bill and speaks in favor alternative bill 1147 which in my view is also a bad bill, but not as bad as this bill. Bill 1147 does not mandate or set a goal of 14% set aside. Under 1147 instead of requiring developers to build affordable housing, the Planning Commission could incentivize developers to do so. Councilman Tygard and Evan unsuccessfully try to persuade their colleague to remove the goal of 14% from the bill.

The bill passes by a vote of 27 for and 11 opposed. As soon as the information is available, I will post how members of the Council voted. To see the full discussion of the bill see time stamp 16:14-1:37:26.

BILL NO. BL2015-1169  on public hearing, which would apply a "contextual overlay" to about 78 acres in Councilman Westerholm and Anthony Davis's district to allow accessary dwelling units, is disapproved by the planning commission because their had been insufficient community awareness of the proposed change. Several speak in favor and in opposition. Arguments in favor are that it will expand affordable housing. Arguments against are that it will lead to developers tearing down existing homes to build bigger homes so they can then also build bigger accessory units, a general opposition to greater density, a desire to preserve the character of the neighborhood, and that it will lead to destruction of trees.  I favor this type rezoning. Greater density reduces urban sprawl, provides units of affordable housing, and grows the tax base. Change like this however, should not occur without residents of the neighborhood being informed. The bill is approved and referred back to the planning commission.

RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-1515 by Charlie Tygard requests the Davidson County Delegation to the Tennessee General Assembly to introduce and support the necessary legislation to require full-time Davidson County elected officials to submit an annual report to the Comptroller detailing the dates they worked. A recent report in The Tennessean revealed that many elected officials often do not work. This was discovered by an examination of when they used there swipe card to gain access to their office. This is again deferred.

RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-1568 request the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the Davidson County Delegation to the Tennessee General Assembly to take the necessary action to plant vegetation or erect a barrier to block the view of the Nathan Bedford Forrest statue from Interstate 65. I think this is a waste of effort. I don't like the statue myself, but do not think we should waste effort trying to hide it. The resolution passes on a voice vote. There are a few audible "no's" but no one ask for a roll call or to be recorded as voting "no."

BILL NO. BL2015-1129  on second reading, which would establish a Codes Offender School much like we have a traffic violations school or a "John's School" for those arrested for solicitation of a prostitute, passes.

BILL NO. BL2015-1211 on second reading ,which would reduce the life time health insurance benefit for members of the Metro council who have served at least two terms in the council, fails. Currently, for any member who has served two terms, the Metro government pays 75% of the health insurance premium for the former council member and his family for the rest of his life. Back when this passed, it applied to few members because without term limits there were simply not that many former member who were eligible for this benefit because their were fewer former council members. There was a lot less turn over in the council. With term limits there are a lot of former Council members who have served two terms. This bill would reverse the ratio; the city would only pay 25% and the council member would pay 75% of the premium. I support this bill. Councilman Claiborne makes an excellent presentation but the bill, on a roll call machine vote, fails. When the record is a available I will post how members of the Council voted.  To see the discussion, see time stamp 3:38:34.

BILL NO. BL2015-1212  on second reading would prohibit the sale of single cans or bottles of beer by off-sale permit holders located within 100 feet of a facility that provides food to homeless persons. I oppose this type of bureaucratic micro-management. The bill is deferred one meeting.

BILL NO. BL2015-1127 on third reading is a tax give-away deal to benefit American General. It passes on a machine vote.

BILL NO. BL2015-1143 is a bill which authorizes The Industrial Development Board  to negotiate and accept payments in lieu of ad valorem taxes with respect to CHS Realty Holdings III, LLC. What this means is that the city, though this board, funds the construction of the building and actually owns it for a certain number of years and as a tax exempt entity they do not pay taxes. However, the company for which they build the building pays something in lieu of taxes but not anywhere near what they would pay if they were paying taxes. This is one of the means by which the city entices companies to locate in Nashville. It provides that the company for whom this building is being build pays nothing during the period of construction and continues to pay nothing until 2019 and then pays only 40% of what they would otherwise pay until 2028, then they pays 75% through 2027, at which time they would began paying 100% of their tax bill. There is more to it than that. The company must hire a certain number of people to keep this deal. There are benchmarks of employment for different periods. It passes on a machine vote. Once available, I will post how members voted.

BILL NO. BL2015-1146   on third reading is a bill which would allow "free-floating car-sharing vehicles to be exempt from the limitations imposed on vehicles lacking a residential parking permit when parking in a residential parking permit area."  There is a new service that allows members of a car sharing enterprise to get a car and drive it where they need to go, which may be on the street near there home where cars that park there are supposed to have a sticker saying they are allowed to park on that street. A member of this car sharing program may, for instance, take the bus to work but need to run an errand on their way home and they find an available car on their smart phone app and drive it home. This is a good innovation which helps make it possible for more people to survive without owning a car. I am pleased to see the city accommodate this innovation. It passes.

BILL NO. BL2015-1147 is another one of the bills to advance rent control and home price fixing called "inclusionary zoning." The planning commission would have six months to come up with a specific proposal to implement this form of housing price control. That proposal would then have to come back to the council for approval.   While this bill is not as bad BILL NO. BL2015-1139 it is still a bad bill. It is deferred two meetings.

To see The Tennessean's coverage of the council meetings see the below link:
Affordable housing bill advances in Metro Council
Metro Council asks state to block view of I-65 Forrest statue

Top Stories

What is on the July 7th Council agenda? Home price fixing know as "inclusionary zoning," zoning text changes, and hiding General Forrest.

If you don't know what the Metro Council is voting on and you watch a council meeting, you will find it really, really boring. If you have your own copy of the Council agenda and staff analysis the meeting will still be boring but not really, really boring. To get your own copies, follow the highlighted link. The staff agenda is not yet available so check back for an update. I rely heavily on the staff analysis for my own commentary, so I am doing this post without the benefit of that source of information. Check back for an update.

There are four appointees to Boards and Commissions on the agenda for Council confirmation. None of them or to the objectionable or controversial boards and commissions and it would not matter anyway as the council seldom takes it's confirmation duties seriously and rubber stamps whomever the Mayor appoints.

There are 33 bills on public hearing.  Most bills on pubic hearing are zoning bill and would usually concern no one but nearby neighbors.  I make no attempt to learn the pros and cons of every rezoning proposal.  However, occasionally there is a bill on public hearing that is so controversial as to merit attention, has wider impact than just the effected property, or changes the text to the code so that I do pay attention. These are the bills on public hearing that I find interesting:

• BILL NO. BL2015-1064 would allow detached accessory dwellings as a use permitted with conditions in the CL zoning district. I favor allowing greater density and think secondary dwelling units on some property is appropriate and think that we should get away from regulations that strictly segregate zoning uses, however some may not.  CL zoning is Commercial Limited, intended for retail, consumer service, financial, restaurant, and office uses. Neighborhood activist may want to be aware of this. I don't know if this is a good bill or not.
• BILL NO. BL2015-1098  concerns '“Community Education' siting" and would allow schools to locate in zoned districts where they are not now permitted and would relax the lot size requirements for a school. Included in this is a provision that schools could now be established in IWD districts (Industrial Warehousing/Distribution, intended for a wide range of warehousing, wholesaling, and bulk distribution uses). The bill also provides for "adaptive reuse," meaning a school could be located in an existing building, regardless of lot size, that was not originally intended for a school. On the face of it this seems like a good thing to do. Why not allow a school to locate in a relocated church building or an empty mall? Some people in the Greenhills area are opposed to any relaxation of the current school siting requirements because they are concerned that Hillsboro High will relocate and the valuable land which is now Hillsboro High will be redeveloped. They want to make it very difficult for Hillsboro high to relocate simply because they oppose new commercial and multifamily development in Greenhills.
• SUBSTITUTE BILL NO. BL2015-1120  is another bill that would expand where one may build secondary dwelling units. This would amend the zoning code to create a Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (DADU) Overlay District. I think this is a positive development and it is one way to increase density and increase the stock of affordable housing. While I oppose price fixing to increase affordable housing, I do think increasing the stock of affordable housing is a worthwhile goal. Also, if Nashville is to grow and avoid massive urban sprawl and if Nashville is going to ever have adequate mass transit, and if we are to afford the services we want and need, without massive tax increases, we need greater population density. Some, however, raise the issue of parking, road capacity, sewer capacity and maintaining the character of existing neighborhoods as reasons to oppose greater density.
• BILL NO. BL2015-1121 would permit "Artisan manufacturing" in a whole bunch of zoning districts that now permit manufacturing. It would allow people to live and work in this districts and sets standards such as parking requirements and screening requirement for loading docks when such would adjoin residential areas. Without knowing more about it than I know now, this seems like a positive development. 
• BILL NO. BL2015-1139 is another bill that advances housing price control known as "inclusionary zoning." This directs the Planning Department to create rules and regulation that implement "inclusionary zoning" and directs that such rules establish that 14% of the units in any new development or renovation of existing developments pr conversion of existing rental developments to for-purchase units, be set aside as "affordable."  It define "affordable" as affordable to someone making between 80% and 100% of the median area income. The effect of this is that the cost all new developments would increase and development of new residential property would be slowed and prices of all new development would increase. The final rules established by the Planning Commission would have to go back to the Council for approval. It is my understanding that State law would have to be changed before Metro could do this, however that is not certain. This bill needs to be defeated!
•  BILL NO. BL2015-1152 eliminates a section of the DTC (Downtown Code). I do not know the impact of this change, but it is something that needs further investigation. If the staff analysis explains this, I will try to update prior to the meeting. 
• BILL NO. BL2015-1155 would establish a DADA (Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit) overlay district  for a lot of parcels in Councilman Westerholm's district. 
• BILL NO. BL2015-1169  would apply a "contextual overlay" to about 78 acres in Councilman Westerholm and Anthony Davis's district. I do not know the impact of this contextual overlay and do not have an opinion of the merits of it, I am simply calling attention to it since it impacts so many properties.
  

 There are 24 resolution on the agenda. Most resolutions are lumped together and put on the "consent agenda" and all pass with a single voted. If a resolution does not pass the committee to which it was assigned unanimously then it is not on consent and is considered separately. Any council member may, from the floor, ask for a resolution to be pulled off of consent and then the resolution will be considered separately. Almost all of the resolutions are simply accepting grant money from the state. I do not see any resolutions of interest.


There are 80 bills on first reading, but I don't look at them until second reading and I doubt many of the members of the Council do either. First reading is a formality to get the bill on the agenda and all bills on first reading are passed at one time in one motion. Many of the bills on first reading are zoning bills. The reason there are so many bills on First Reading this time is that all pending bills not passed when this term of the council ends are removed from the agenda and would have to start all over when the new council takes office so those who want zoning changes are trying to get them approved before that occurs. This means the next council meeting will be a very long council meeting with a lot of bills on pubic hearing. The Council will probably have to have a special meeting to accommodate all of these bills. I also suspect that at Tuesday night's meeting there will be several members asking for a suspension of the rules to allow new bills to be added to the agenda for First Reading.

There are 12 bills on Second Reading. These are the ones I find interesting:

• BILL NO. BL2015-1129  would establish a Codes Offender School, much like we have a traffic violations school or a "John's School" for those arrested for solicitation of a prostitute. I don't yet have an opinion on this bill and do not know the pros and cons. My first thought is, that codes violations is different than these other type offenses. I own a rental unit and had a tenant who created a situation that violated codes.  I was given adequate time to correct the violation and the codes inspector worked with me to bring my property back into compliance.  Some people who routinely run afoul of codes do so as a calculated business decision. I am not sure they would benefit by a codes school. I would be open to persuasion but I do not really see this as beneficial.  Will it cost the taxpayer's? 
• BILL NO. BL2015-1211 is a renewed attempt by Councilman Claiborne to end the practice of allowing former Metro Council members to get the lifetime benefit of city provided health insurance. Currently former Council members who have served two terms get this benefit. They pay 25% of the premium and the city picks up the rest. This bill would change that policy so that the former Council member pays 75% and the city only pay 25%. I support this proposal. Prior to term limits there was not that many former council members eligible for this benefit but with a massive turn over of the Council every eight years, there are now a lot of former council members eligible for this. Councilman Claibrone is timing his renewed effort to get this passed due to the upcoming election, thinking that incumbents facing reelection may be less inclined to vote against it. To read The Tennessean's coverage of this issue follow this link.
• BILL NO. BL2015-1212  would prohibit the sale of single cans or bottles of beer by off-sale permit holders located within 100 feet of a facility that provides food to homeless persons. I oppose this type of bureaucratic micro-management. This should be defeated.

There are 10 bills on Third Reading. Below are the ones of interest

• BILL NO. BL2015-1127 is a tax give-away deal to benefit American General.
• BILL NO. BL2015-1143 is a bill which authorizes The Industrial Development Board  to negotiate and accept payments in lieu of ad valorem taxes with respect to CHS Realty Holdings III, LLC. What this means is that the city, though this board, funds the construction of the building and actually owns it for a certain number of years and as a tax exempt entity they do not pay taxes. However, the company for which they build the building pays something in lieu of taxes but not anywhere near what they would pay if they were paying taxes. This is one of the means by which the city entices companies to locate in Nashville. It provides that the company for whom this building is being build pays nothing during the period of construction and continues to pay nothing until 2019 and then pays only 40% of what they would otherwise pay until 2028, then they pays 75% through 2027, at which time they would began paying 100% of their tax bill. There is more to it than that. The company must hire a certain number of people to keep this deal. There are benchmarks of employment for different periods. This bills passed second reading on June 16th by a vote of 27 to 6 with no "abstentions" and  seven members not voting. The "not voting" may have been absent or they may have been out of the room or just sat on their hands. The six "no's" were Paudue, Stites, Stanley, Tennpenny, and Duval. I hope the "no's" stick to their guns and the abstentions join them and a few others switch to "no." This could be defeated! It is time to end the TIF and PILOT tax give-aways.
• BILL NO. BL2015-1146   is a bill which would allow "free-floating car-sharing vehicles to be exempt from the limitations imposed on vehicles lacking a residential parking permit when parking in a residential parking permit area."  There is a new service that allows members of a car sharing enterprise to get a car and drive it where they need to go, which may be on the street near there home where cars that park there are supposed to have a sticker saying they are allowed to park on that street. A member of this car sharing program may, for instance, take the bus to work but need to run an errand on their way home and they find an available car on their smart phone app and drive it home. This is a good innovation which helps make it possible for more people to survive without owning a car. I am pleased to see the city accommodate this innovation. I favor passage.
• BILL NO. BL2015-1147 is another one of the bills to advance rent control and home price fixing called "inclusionary zoning." The planning commission would have six months to come up with a specific proposal to implement this form of housing price control. That proposal would then have to come back to the council for approval.   Last Council meeting the sponsor said the bill would be on Third Reading. "Inclusionary zoning" will increase the cost of building housing and where it has been adopted it has produced very few units of affordable housing. It is essentially a tax on new construction. For more on this topic, follow this link. This bill like BILL NO. BL2015-1139 above needs to be defeated.   

There are four memorializing resolutions and if they meet the same criteria for inclusion, they will be included in the consent agenda. Memorializing resolutions do not have the force of law and simply express the will of the council and are often used to honor a sports team on a victory or honor a long-time employee on his retirement. The Council staff does not analyze memorizing resolutions. There are two significant memorializing resolutions on this agenda:

• RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-1515 by Charlie Tygard requests the Davidson County Delegation to the Tennessee General Assembly to introduce and support the necessary legislation to require full-time Davidson County elected officials to submit an annual report to the Comptroller detailing the dates they worked. A recent report in The Tennessean revealed that many elected officials often do not work. This was discovered by an examination of when they used there swipe card to gain access to their office. 
• RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-1568 request the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the Davidson County Delegation to the Tennessee General Assembly to take the necessary action to plant vegetation or erect a barrier to block the view of the Nathan Bedford Forrest statue from Interstate 65. I think this is a waste of effort. I don't like the statue myself, but do not think we should waste effort trying to hide it.

Top Stories

What did the Council do on June 16th? Passed the budget (& funded early voting), advanced rent control, gave pay raises, created a new bureaucracy. (update)

The big news of the night is the Council unanimously passed the 2015-16 budget of $1.968 billion, which was a substitute for the mayor's budget. About the only difference between the original and the substitute was that the substitute gave the Election Commission the money they need (or want, depending on who is explaining what is going on at the elections commission) in order to fund early voting. The budget is 4% greater than last years budget and did not require an increase in the tax rate. Included in the budget was a 2.5% pay raise for most employees and more for some. The mayor's pay was increased from $136,500 to $180,000 a year, the schools got $36 million more than last year, libraries that were closed on Friday will now be open, the MTA got more subsidy, the Barnes Fund to support affordable housing got $1million, and a whole new Department of government was crated called Office of Family Safety to deal with domestic violence.

Occasionally someone will tell me they are disappointed that no one voted against the budget.  The way the charter is written, one cannot vote against the budget. If one votes "no" on the substitute, the effect of that vote is to vote for the mayor's budget.  If there was no substitute and a majority  voted "no" on the budget, then the mayor's budget would become the city's budget without being approved by the Council.  I think that needs to be changed so a council member can actually vote against the budget, but until it is the effect of a "no" vote on the budget is a to vote for the mayor's budget.  

To follow the council with your own copy of an agenda, staff analysis and to see my commentary, follow this link. 

Other than the budget and related budget items, these are some interesting agenda items:

Mayor's salary increase: Some council members did not want to increase the mayor's salary to $180K.  This is another case in which the charter makes it difficult to vote the way one might want to vote. To vote against the pay increase for the mayor, the council would have had to reject the entire pay plan proposal and send it back to the civil service commission. That means the other pay raises in the budget would have been delayed also. The council's legal adviser explains this and you can see it at time stamp 19:16. 

RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-1498 by Charlie Tygard request the  Metropolitan Civil Service Commission to consider and recommend an amendment to the General Pay Plan to partially base the compensation of Members of the Metropolitan Council upon Council and committee meeting attendance.  This was deferred again, which because it had been deferred more than two times, made it an indefinite deferral. That does not kill it necessarily; the sponsor could have it  put back on the agenda, but it will not automatically appear on the agenda next meeting.

RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-1515 by Charlie Tygard requests the Davidson County Delegation to the Tennessee General Assembly to introduce and support the necessary legislation to require full-time Davidson County elected officials to submit an annual report to the Comptroller detailing the dates they worked. It was deferred one meeting.  

Bills on Second Reading:
  
BILL NO. BL2015-1129  which would establish a Codes Offender School, much like we have a traffic violations school or a "John's School" for those arrested for solicitation of a prostitute. It is deferred one meeting.

BILL NO. BL2015-1143 is a bill which authorizes The Industrial Development Board  to negotiate and accept payments in lieu of ad valorem taxes with respect to CHS Realty Holdings III, LLC. What this means is that the city, though this board, funds the construction of the building and actually owns it for a certain number of years and as a tax exempt entity they do not have to pay taxes. However the company for which they build the building pays something in lieu of taxes but not anywhere near what they would pay if they were paying taxes. This is one of the means by which the city entices companies to locate in Nashville. It provides that the company for whom this building is being build pays nothing during the period of construction and continues to pay nothing until 2019 and then pays only 40% of what they would otherwise pay until 2028, then they pays 75% through 2027, at which time they would began paying 100% of their tax bill. There is more to it than that. The company must hire a certain number of people to keep this deal. There are benchmarks of employment for different periods.

I did not see this council revolt of the tax giveaway coming but am pleased but disappointed the revolt did not succeed. See time stamp 33:53  for the action on this bill. It passed by a vote of 27 to 6 with no abstentions and 7 members not voting. The "not voting" may have been absent or they may have been out of the room or just sit on their hands. The six "no's" were Paudue, Stites, Stanley, Tennpenny, and Duval.

BILL NO. BL2015-1146  is a bill which would allow "free-floating car-sharing vehicles to be exempt from the limitations imposed on vehicles lacking a residential parking permit when parking in a residential parking permit area."  There is a new service that allows members of a car sharing enterprise to get a car and drive it where they need to go, which may be on the street near there home where cars that park there are supposed to have a sticker saying they are allowed to park on that street. A member of this car sharing program may, for instance, take the bus to work but find an available car on their smart phone app and drive it home. This is a good innovation which helps make it possible for more people to survive without owning a car. I am pleased to see the city accommodate this innovation. This passes.

BILL NO. BL2015-1147 is one of the bills to advance rent control and home price fixing called "inclusionary zoning." The planning commission would have six months to come up with a specific proposal to implement this form of housing price control. That proposal would then have to come back to the council for approval.  See time stamp 40:53 for some discussion. The sponsor says the bill will be deferred on Third Reading. There is another bill, BL 1139, which is working it's way through the process which would even be more onerous than this bill. In the discussion the difference between the two bills are explained. In my view this and the other bill also should have been defeated. "Inclusionary zoning" will increase the cost of building housing and where it has been adopted it has produced very few units of affordable housing. For more on this topic, follow this link. The bill passes on a voice vote with no audible "no" votes. I am disgusted that the few "good" councilmen did not take a principled stand against this bill. They could have asked to be recorded as voting "no" and if there were as many as five opposed to it they could have required a roll call vote. Some members I spoke to reasoned that this did not actually do anything except tell the planning commission to study the issue and that by the time the planning commission reports back, a new council will have taken office. Still, this advances the notion of housing price control, which I do not think should even be entertained.

Bills on Third Reading:

BILL NO. BL2015-1124 is the Tax Relief Program for low-income elderly. As always, this passes. This is a good program which I support.

BILL NO. BL2015-1126 is a new tax, initially to be at $2, imposed on all parties in a civil litigation case to help fund the salary of General Sessions Judges. I assume this is legal, but just as once upon a time one had to pay a poll tax to exercise the right to vote and now we think that was not proper, we are now going to make one pay a tax to have the right to have access the courts. This is shameful. It passes with a machine vote with only Megan Barry voted against it, for what reason I do not know. Duane Dominy abstained and  nine members were not voting.

BILL NO. BL2015-1127  is another tax give away similar to 1143 above. It is deferred one meeting.

BILL NO. BL2015-1128  is the Asurion tax give-away similar to 1143. On a machine vote the vote is 25 for, 4 against, 2 abstentions and 9 not voting. The "no" votes were Pardue, Stites, Hagar, and Standley.



To read The Tennessean's report on the Council meeting, follow this link.

Top Stories