At Fairgrounds “Mistakes Were Made” and City Hall Made Them

by Peter White, Tennessee Tribune, Nov. 1, 2019- It’s only a matter of time before the MLS soccer stadium contracts will be voided and put out to bid again. Whether Metro or Nashville SC will suggest another site for soccer instead of the Fairgrounds is unclear.

In court documents, Metro lawyers admitted for the first time last week that the evaluation committees for the stadium contracts were stacked with people who had a vested interest in the outcome. That is a violation of state law and the city’s Procurement rules.

“Metro, to my surprise, actually responded and admitted the only person serving on each of the three evaluation committees who was a Metro employee was Laura Womack,” said Jim Roberts, attorney for Save Our Fairgrounds, a plaintiff in a second lawsuit filed against the city in September.
.....
....also violates a state law, TCA 5-14-108, which prohibits a purchasing agent from delegating duties to a “private actor”....Mayor Megan Barry and her Chief Operating Officer Rich Riebeling were pulling the strings....Mayor Megan Barry and her Chief Operating Officer Rich Riebeling were pulling the strings

Rod's Comment: This is a good summary of the Soccer deal and the effort to destroy the Fairground. Read the full article at this link.
 

Top Stories

Councilman Robert Swope explains his vote on the Fairground/MLS issue.

by Rod Williams - At the September 4th Council meeting, the council voted to approve several

Robert Swope

pieces of legislation necessary to finalized the MLS deal. This issue had been before the Council for months and pitted soccer fans, city insiders, and elites against advocates of saving the fairgrounds. The part of the deal of most concern to those who support saving the fairground was the giveaway of ten acres of fairground property to the wealthy developers bringing MLS soccer to Nashville. They contented that to make the deal work they had to have the ten acres for mixed-use development.

Of all of the pieces of legislation before the Council to finalized the deal, the one piece of legislation that had the least chance of passing and thereby the best chance of derailing the MLS deal and the ten acre giveaway was  Substitute Bill BL2018-1289. This legislation approved the demolition of certain buildings and structures necessary for the construction of a new Major League Soccer Stadium and the imposing of a privilege tax on the sale of tickets to events at the new Major League Soccer Stadium. The reason this was the best chance to derail the MLS deal was because this bill required 27 votes to pass instead of a simple majority. It passed by a vote of 31 to 8. 

Recently I posted How they voted on the Fairground giveaway and who switched sides.  Included among  those who voted in favor of the MLS deal who had previously been opponents was Councilman Robert Swope. This came as a shock to many.  Robert had been a critic of the deal. On this and other issues, such as the transit issue, Robert Swope had always taken the conservative position and had emerged of one a very few dependable conservative voices in the Council and a Republican leader in Nashville.

I asked Robert to explain his vote which he did graciously and in detail.  I am posting below his explanation in full.

Rod,

As you know, the Fairgrounds Nashville MLS Soccer deal is a highly emotional and complicated issue.  In light of this fact, I have, for months, attempted to not only accommodate soccer in Nashville, but protect the existing Fairgrounds and all the activities that currently reside there.    I do believe that both can exist together, if sane minds prevail.

For the past 20+ years, every mayoral administration has attempted to bulldoze the fairgrounds to make profits off of public land.  This has been an ongoing WAR.  The 1902 land grant, the 1962 Charter of Nashville, and the 2011 referendum have done their best to protect this 117 acres.... but for the last 2 decades, the war has intensified.  With each battle becoming harder to fight.

In my humble opinion, the war needs to end.

How does this happen?  Protect the elephant in the room.  In the 117 acres that is Fairgrounds Nashville, the elephant is the speedway.  One of the oldest tracks in America, producer of more NASCAR drivers than all other tracks in America combined, and a jewel that is currently in desperate need of love and attention.  If you want to "Save The Fairgrounds"... then you need to save the elephant.  Long Term.  Something that no other person or group has managed to do in the last two decades.

When the MLS deal was proposed last October, I fought it tooth and nail.  What was proposed would be the start of the end of the speedway.... and as a consequence, the State Fair and the Flea Market... and ultimately the Fairgrounds itself.  I consider these three things the 3 legged stool that IS the Fairgrounds.  And I have spent months working to save them all.  Months spent on my own dime, my own time, and my own energy.

To make a very long story short (considering I have personally spent over 600 hours working this), Speedway Motor Sports (SMI), the folks who own Bristol and a half dozen other tracks, approached me two months ago.  After numerous meetings and calls, at my request, they wrote a letter to the Mayor and all Councilmembers expressing their interest in a long term contract to manage the Speedway.  This letter fell on totally deaf ears.  This was totally amazing to me.  No-one even had the time to respond.  Except myself.

So.... I began calling, meeting, and emailing the mayor, council members, Tony Formosa, Melissa Smithson, Shane Smiley, John Rose and numerous others attempting to bring everyone to the table to once and for all Save The Fairgrounds.  This was an intensive all out drive to convince the Mayor, and everyone else, that in order to save the three legged stool, we need to save the elephant.  If the speedway were to be contracted on a 30 year deal, then everything else would be saved as well.

There are a hundred other things involved here... .including the needs of the State Fair, the monthly Flea Market vendors, Christmas Village, Hunters Auto show, the Botanical shows, Boat Show, and hundreds more.  All of these were at risk IF the speedway were to fail.  I took my time and energy to speak with most, if not all of them.  Including chairing two Codes Fairgrounds and Farmers Market Committee special meetings in council.

This is a very complex issue....with hundreds of variables, and I wanted to see this from all sides before I acted upon anything.

Please make note:  I was out of the country on business when the council vote occurred last November.  IF I had been in chambers that night, I would have voted no.  Since that time, and until the third reading, and final vote, I have abstained (essentially voting no) from every vote.  I did this because during this entire process I was working my *** off to "Save The Fairgrounds" by bringing SMI to the table, coordinating with the State Fair, the Flea Market vendors, the Save The Fairgrounds coalition, the mayors office, the Fair Board, and others.  Basically bringing a company, and its owners, who are worth far more than the entire Nashville Soccer group combined, to protect the elephant.

Each of these groups agreed with me on several key issues that become the mantra of my personal mission.  They are:

1) The Formosa family shall remain promoting and operating local racing.  (This was agree to by SMI from our first conversation)
2) SMI would receive a 30 year contract to promote NASCAR racing at the speedway.
3) SMI would agree (and they have) to SHARE the expense of rebuilding the speedway with the city.  50-50.  This includes safety upgrades, new seating, new PA, new lighting, a full television/media center, sound barriers, and numerous other upgrades.  No other private entity has EVER offered the city such a deal.
4) The State Fair and the Flea Market vendors would have voting seats on the design board for the new exhibit space (this is being done now)
5) The State Fair would be offered a 30 year deal from the city IF the speedway were secured for the same time period.

All of these things are currently being done.  It will take weeks for these deals to be consummated... but I have personally shaken hands with the mayor and the SMI folks and feel comfortable that these men will honor their promises.

This all comes down to trust.  I am a man that lives up to his word. And I expect, and demand, that others do as well.  My yes vote on the stadium and additional 10 acres of development came at a VERY high price.

My price was the protection of the remaining 100 acres of Fairgrounds Nashville for generations.
My price was the end of a 20+ year war.
My price was saving a 100 year old treasure from any and all further development.
My price was creating a crown jewel where there is now a run down facility for all to enjoy.
My price was never having to spend hundreds of hours of my life again in protecting this treasure we all love in different ways.

My concession was having to agree to the additional 10 acres of land.  This was a pill I HATED to swallow.... but agreed to based on solemn promises made to me by the mayor, SMI and others.  It was the hardest vote I have had to make on this council.

I expect all of these agreed to promises to be consummated within the coming weeks.  SMI has been in town three times and has taken meetings with all the parties relating to the "three legged stool".  So far, everyone seems to be in agreement.  They will be back in town within a week and written agreements are forthcoming as I write this to you.  I TRUST that men who have agreed in principle will honor their words moving forward.

Again... this is about trust.  Something this city desperately needs to regain.  I hope I have played a part in rebuilding that trust, for the betterment of all, the protection of the Fairgrounds property, and in building a facility that we are all proud of....... and not simply been played.  Time will tell.  It always does.

All the Best,

Robert

Robert Swope
Metro Councilman - District 4
Nashville, Tennessee

Top Stories

What happened at the 8/4/18 Council meeting: In addition to MLS stadium-fairground giveaway passing, Edgehill conservation overlay approved, Bordeaux waste facility approved and bills to address TIF financing study and more.

This meeting s four and half hours long. The most important issue of the meeting is the future of the MLS stadium and the giveaway of ten acres of fairground property. By now anyone who care about this issue knows that the MLS stadium and fairground property giveaway passed. For more on this see Council approves fairground giveaway. 

Below is a summary of other meeting highlights. Parts of the meeting I watched in real time and parts of it watched at double speed and I skipped parts of the meeting looking for the good parts.  To follow the meeting you may want to access the meeting agenda, staff analysis and my commentary on the agenda which you can find at this link. If you do not want to watch the meeting but find out what happened to a specific piece of legislation, you may want to refer to the meeting minutes. They are not yet posted by should be posted by tomorrow or the day after. You can find the minutes at this link.

The invocation is offered by Councilman Robert Swope. A message from the mayor urges the council to approve the MLS stadium. It is rare the mayor offers such a message. No surprise, all mayoral appointments to boards and commission are confirmed unanimously. Bills on Public Hearing are zoning matters which I did not find any of much importance and none proved very controversial. As is the norm all bills on first reading pass by a single vote.

Resolutions: Most are mundane things and are approved on the consent agenda. These are the ones of interest:

Resolution RS2018-1328 is one of the fairground MLS stadium resolutions. It is moved out of order to follows the bills related to this issue.

Resolution RS2018-1373 calls for a county-wide referendum election to ascertain the will of the people regarding the issuance of general obligation bonds by Metro for the construction of a new Major League Soccer Stadium at the Fairgrounds. Senator Cooper makes a good speech advocating passage to no avail. Councilman Glover makes a good speech. It failed by a vote of 12 in favor and 25 opposed. To see the discussion got to timestamp 28:47 in the video. Action on the bill is concluded on this at timestamp at 1:05:05.

Resolution RS2018-1385 by Councilman Blalock  is a resolution calling on grocery store operators within Davidson County to take effective measures to reduce the use and/or impact of single-use plastic carryout bags and report the measures being undertaken in this effort, and encouraging the use of reusable bags by residents and businesses within Davidson County. In a previous council meeting Blalock had sponsored legislation that failed to ban plastic bags. That effort failed. This resolution is deferred.

Resolution RS2018-1386 says that if we do build a MLS stadium that the practice field be located in District 1. It passes.

Bills on Second Reading: 

Bill BL2018-1293 approves a privilege tax on the sale of tickets to events at the new Major League Soccer stadium.  Bill 1289 also imposes the privilege tax. This one is one withdrawn.

Bill BL2018-1314 establishes a Blue Ribbon Commission to identify government inefficiencies. This is a positive development. It passes.

Bill BL2018-1315   creates a Tax Increment Financing Study and Formulating Committee. This is another positive development. Despite Nashville's massive growth, Metro is short of money. A lot of that is because the development was financed by Tax Increment Financing and the tax revenue does not flow into city coffers but goes to MDHA to repay TIF. This passes.

Bills on Third Reading:

 Second Substitute Bill BL2016-414   is a rezoning bill disapproved by the Planning Commission.  It changes from R6 to SP zoning for various properties along Elvira Avenue, Maynor Avenue, and Keeling Avenue, approximately 600 feet west of Anderson Place (4.86 acres), to permit a maximum of 180 residential units. I have no opinion on the merits of this bill and am simply calling attention to it because it is a disapproved bill and  required 27 positive votes to pass.There was quite a bid of discussion on this. It  passed. If you care about this, go to timestamp 1:22:36 to watch the deliberation.

Bill BL2018-1245 is the controversial proposal to apply a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District to the Edgehill community. This is approved by the Planning Commission so it can pass with a simple majority and I expect it to pass. It only passed on one vote when before the Planning Commission and when on Council public hearing, a lot of people spoke on this bill both pro and con. The bill is substituted to take out a couple properties.  To see the discussion on the bill see timestamp 1:47:10.- 2:00:36. It passes on a voice vote.
  
Bill BL2018-1280  approves the plans for a non-hazardous liquid waste processing facility to be located at 2832 Whites Creek Pike. This was controversial on public hearing and passed on Second reading by a vote of 21 to 12 to 3. I have no opinion on the merits of the issue. However, to be honest, if I were Black and lived in Bordeaux I would probably feel I was being dumped on also. Bordeaux has been the home to a landfill, the mulch recycling facility and the State prison. I can understand the resident's resentment to another waste facility even if it is state of the art and sanitary. To see the discussion see timestamp 2:021:09- 2:24:27.  It passes by a vote of 31-7-1.

At this point I am discontinuing an item by item report. Most of the rest of this meeting is taken up by the MLS-fairground giveaway issue. If you are concerned at all you already know the outcome. To see the remainder of the meeting and the debates on the bills related to this topic start at timestamp 2:24:23.

Bill BL2018-1289 approves the demolition of certain buildings and structures necessary for the construction of a new Major League Soccer Stadium at the Fairgrounds Nashville, and amending Title 5 of the Metropolitan Code to impose a privilege tax on the sale of tickets to events at the new Major League Soccer stadium. Approved. 

 Bill BL2018-1291 on Third Reading declares the ten acres to be given away as surplus property and approves a ground lease for the property. Approved.

Bill BL2018-1293 approves a privilege tax on the sale of tickets to events at the new Major League Soccer stadium. Withdrawn. Same issue addressed in Bill BL2018-1289.

Top Stories

Council approves fairground giveaway.

The best chance the Council had to stop the fairground giveaway failed. That best chance was to not pass Bill BL2018-1289 which approves the demolition of certain buildings and structures necessary for the construction of a new Major League Soccer Stadium at the fairgrounds, and 
to impose a privilege tax on the sale of tickets to events at the new Major League Soccer stadium. 

The reason this was the best chance to stop the fairground give away was because this bill required 27 votes to pass Third Reading. It passed on Second Reading by a vote of 24 to 7 with 8 abstentions and one not voting. All of the other pieces of legislation regarding the MLS stadium only needed a  simple majority. Since bill 2018-1289 did not get 27 votes on Second, I thought it might not get them on Third. It did. The vote was 31 to 8. The proponents picked up seven votes!  Look for a later post and I will list how individual Council members voted.  The soccer deal gives ten acres of fairground property to the MLS developers for a mixed use development. The land is valued at $20.7 million.

Another bill that I thought might derail the fairground giveaway was  Resolution RS2018-1373
which would have put the question of funding the stadium to a vote of the people. I thought sufficient number of council members may want to pass this hot potato to the voters. That failed by a vote of only 12 in favor and 25 opposed. I will list how individuals voted on this resolution in a later post.

The only chance left to stop the fairground giveaway is if a recently filed lawsuit succeeds which challenges the legality of the Council giveaway which the litigants claim violates the Metro Charter.

To read The Tennessean's coverage of the story follow this link. 

Top Stories

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

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

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

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

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

A House on a cliff on the Tennessee River

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Stories

What happened at the Council meeting of 11/7/2017: Soccer deal approved, Civil forfeiture approved, and a citizens Police review board advances.

The big news of the night is the approval of RESOLUTION RS2017-910, the $225 million bond issue for the $275 million soccer deal. To see the discussion go to timestamp 1:30:37 in the video. The vote in the Budget and Finance Committee was 10 for and 3 against and two not voting. 

While the deal was tweaked to placate some opponents, the major issues remaining creating opposition was the weak guarantee that left Metro holding the bag if the team lost money or if the team owners should lose their franchise, and the give away of ten acres of fairground property to the team owners. John Cooper makes a good argument against the giveaway of the ten acres of fairground property to the developer and criticizes previous decision that allowed the fairgrounds to fall into a state of disrepair. He calls the ten acre giveaway a "gentrification scheme" that benefits the team owners. I encourage viewers to watch his remarks.

After more than an hour of discussion the resolution is approved by a vote of 31 to 6.  Those voting against the resolution were john Cooper, Steve Groper, Holly Houzo, Larry Hagar, Mina Johnson, and Dave Rosenberg.

For those really interested in the deal details you may want to read the actual resolution and see the staff analysis. Also, the discussion that took place in the Budget and Finance committee is insightful and you can view that meeting at this link.  For more on the deal and the opposition see this link. For media reporting on the Council's vote on this issue see the following:
      Channel 4, WSM:  Metro Council approves financing plan for soccer stadium
      The Tennessean: Soccer Stadium a go.

This is  long meeting at over three and half hours long.  In addition to the contentious soccer issue this is public hearing night.  The chamber is packed with spectators. To access the agenda, the agenda staff analysis and my commentary on the agenda follow this link. You will get more out of the meeting if you know what's going on. Following the prayer, pledge, an insignificant message from the mayor, two presentations, and noncontroversial confirmation of mayoral appointments to boards and commission, the consideration of legislation business starts at timestamp 20:19.

Pubic Hearing. There are two resolution and 27 bills on Public hearing. These are zoning bills or bills related to zoning policy. These really bore me and I watch these segment at double speed. Unless one lives in the vicinity of the proposed rezoning one will probably find this boring. I don't even try to form an opinion on each and every zoning issue.  None of the bills on this public hearing are particularly contentious and most had no one speak either in favor or opposition. None are bills are disapproved by the Planning Commission so we do not have to see slide shows and Planning Commission presentation. Below are the bills of interest.

BILL BL2017-903 would ban decorative "rope lighting" on any building, sign, or property with non-residential zoning located adjacent to an arterial or collector street except those in the downtown area. The sponsor tried to pass something similar back in August (BILL NO. BL2017-704) but that bill would have applied to residential property also. This bill is not as bad as that bill, but I still do not see the necessity of this and remain opposed. Rope lighting is that lighting that you have probably seen that outlines a tree or structure. It is often used as Christmas decorations but sometimes is used year-round. Why one would want to ban this I have no ideal. I like it. I oppose this bill. It is approved by the Planning Commission. No one speaks on it and it is approved.

BILL BL2017-929  is a bill to rezone property in Bordeaux area. I find this of interest not due to the merits of the bill but find it instructive of the way people think about "affordable housing."    This bill rezones some agricultural zoned property to a zoning that would allow the construction of up to 40 multi-family residential units. One person speaking on the bill, while saying she does not want to discriminate, makes it clear she does not want section 8 housing in the community.  This is not that uncommon. Many people in what is now affordable communities want their community to be upgraded with more expensive homes. They want their affordable community to not remain affordable.  Many Council members and other public advocates of affordable housing have this same attitude.  They oppose "concentration of poverty." We saw this same sentiment at play in a long drawn out fight to stop an affordable housing development in Antioch.

While I don't doubt that advocates of affordable housing actual want to see the development of affordable housing, they do not want it build were economics would have it be build. Councilman Bedne says this, saying "we need city-wide affordable housing ... all over the city, and not just take advantage of economical affordable land." 

Advocates of  "affordable housing" want it mixed in with more expensive housing and want to see the building of upscale housing in neighborhoods that now have affordable housing.  Of course this will result in those areas being "gentrified," and the destruction of much of the remaining affordable housing stock. When that happens advocates of affordable housing will bemoan "gentrification."  I think we would do more to advance the cause of affordable housing if we worked within the framework of market forces. Affordable housing advocates often support policies that are detrimental to affordable housing. To have a significant amounts of affordable housing in Nashville we need neighborhoods with affordable housing. To see the discussion of the bill see timestamp 57:20.

BILL BL2017-937 is another bills that would address home-sharing or short term rental. It would establish a STRP Advisory Committee and it would allow existing permit holders to renew definitely, apply percentage caps to Not Owner-Occupied units within certain census tracts, and apply distance restrictions of 1,320 feet between Not Owner-Occupied units, among other changes. The Council has been working on the issue of short term rental property for a long time, at least a year. A comprehensive short term rental ordinance is in the works and is to be presented to the Council in January. This bill is deferred to December 5th.

BILL BL2017-938  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. Currently if a developer does an infill development even on a street without sidewalks they must build sidewalk even if there are no other sidewalks on the street. This can greatly increase the cost of development and can result in less affordable housing. In my view the whole requirement that developers build sidewalks should be scraped except in rare circumstance. This bill is deferred to the first meeting in January.

There are 27 resolutions all of which are initially on the consent agenda. 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. there are several resolution on this agenda which would complete the purchase and removal of certain previously identified flood-damaged properties.Below are the resolutions of interest.

RESOLUTION RS2017-910  is the soccer stadium resolution addressed at the top of this page. It is not on "consent."

RESOLUTION RS2017-920  concerns civil forfeiture. That is a program that is sometimes called "policing for profit." It allows law enforcement to take someones property upon arrest without due process and then the person who had their property taken must fight to prove they were not guilty of a crime in order to have their property returned. Most often the person who had their property taken are low income and cannot afford the legal fees necessary to fight for the return of their property.

This resolution would approve two agreements between the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Metro Nashville Police Department. These agreements would govern the participation of DEA Nashville District Office Task force participants in the United States Department of Justice Equitable Sharing Program. In my view civil forfeiture is an evil practice in which metro should not participate. Both liberal and conservative civil liberty advocates included the ACLU and organization such as The Institute for Justice oppose civil forfeiture. This resolution was not on "consent."  Dave Rosenberg speaks against it. Unfortunately it is approved by a vote of 16 to 15 with four abstentions. To view the discussion see timestamp 2:35:10.

RESOLUTION RS2017-951 would accept a grant of $50K from the State to be matched by $50K from Metro to print new, larger recycling cart stickers and tags to increase curbside recycling and participation in Nashville. Unless I am missing something, this seems like a waste of money. It passes on the consent agenda.

RESOLUTION RS2017-962  recognizing November 20, 2017 as Transgender Day of Remembrance. This is a memorializing resolution which means it simply expresses the will of the Council and has no force in law. It passes on a machine vote of 31 in favor, one opposed, two abstentions and six not voting. 

Bills on First reading: There are 35 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. 

Councilman Scott Davis has BILL BL2017-951 acted upon separately.  This is a bill that would create a Community Oversight Board responsible for providing citizen oversight of the Police Department. He moves to pass the bill and defer to the first meeting in January for consideration on Second reading and he ask for a public hearing on the bill. At the Vice Mayor's suggestion the request for a public hearing is taken out of the motion with an understanding that that will be decided at a later date. Normally the Council does not have hearing on any bills but zoning resolutions and budget resolutions. Davis says that his motion would allow the task force working on the bill time to produce a really good bill.Councilman Russ Pulley moves that the bill instead be deferred on First Reading two meetings. Davis passionately argues his position. See timestamp 3:19:05 for Davis' emotional speech. Davis prevails.
  
Bills on Second Reading. There are 9 bills on Second Reading. These are the ones of interest.

BILL BL2017-939 would add additional obstacles to adopting the mayor's proposed transit plan. The state enabling legislation allowing for transit improvement known as the IMPROVE Act, provides that a  transit improvement program be adopted by ordinance or resolution by majority vote of the local government’s legislative body. This bills specifies that such a plan must must be approved by ordinance rather than a resolution. A resolution only requires one vote of the Council; a ordinance requires three votes. This is a good bill. It passes on a voice vote.

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. At the request of the sponsor it is deferred to the second reading in December.

Bills on Third Reading. There are 9 bills on third reading. Most of them are zoning bills that have been approved by the Planning Commission. None of them are very interesting.

Top Stories