NFIB Files Amicus Brief Defending Tennessee Home-Based Small Businesses

 The case concerns arbitrary zoning restrictions on home-based businesses

Press release, NASHVILLE, Tenn. (Dec. 9, 2021) – NFIB filed an amicus brief in the case Elijah “LIJ” Shaw et al., v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County at the Tennessee Supreme Court. The case concerns a lawsuit filed by two homeowners challenging a metropolitan code provision that prevented them from serving customers at their home-based businesses.

“Many small businesses begin in people’s homes and on their private property,” said Karen Harned, Executive Director of NFIB’s Small Business Legal Center. “Small business owners have a fundamental right to earn a living and the right to use their property. Unreasonable zoning restrictions, as highlighted in this case, interfere with those rights.”

“Small businesses are a crucial part of Tennessee’s economy and local communities,” said Jim Brown, NFIB Tennessee State Director. “The government is punishing small businesses who work out of their home-based business without evidence that their business caused harm or disruption to neighboring homes. We urge the court to stand up for Tennessee’s small businesses and reject this standard.”

NFIB argues Tennessee courts should adopt “real and substantial” basis review as the minimum standard for challenges brought under Tennessee’s due process and equal protection clauses and reverse the lower court’s decision.

The NFIB Small Business Legal Center protects the rights of small business owners in the nation’s courts. NFIB is currently active in more than 40 cases in federal and state courts across the country and in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Top Stories

Final Update: Report on the Council meeting of 1/3/19: recommends Clemency for Cyntoia Brown, NES bill round-up deferred, ban on street vendors fails, Kid Rock sign approved. affirmative action plan passed.

Above is the video of the Jan. 3rd Council meeting. I usually watch each meeting and provide timestamp notations of the good parts.  I have not watched this meeting. Other political events and life intervened. This was probably a good meeting to watch since several controversial topics were on the agenda. For those who follow the Council closely, you may want to watch this meeting. The below summary is gleamed from news reports and reading of the minutes of the meeting.  To access the agenda, staff analysis and my commentary on the agenda, follow this link.

Council members absent from this meeting were Bill Pridemore and Jeff Syracuse.

The Vice Mayor called a special Council meeting to be held on January 22, 2019 at 6:30 p.m. to elect the inaugural members of the Community Oversight Board.

Bills on Public Hearing

Bill BL2018-1357 and Bill BL2018-1358.  Bill BL2018-1357 cancels a Planned Unit Development Overlay District on property located at 3419 Murphy Road and Bill BL2018-1358 changes from ORI-A to SP the zoning on that property to permit a mixed-use development. I happened to be visiting a relative on Richland Avenue back in November and in about a three block section, about half the houses had signs opposing this development. These bills were scheduled for public hearing on Dec. 4, 2018 and Council Member Kindall moved to defer both bills to this the January 3, 2019 public hearing. Bill 1357 is approved and Bill 1358 is deferred again, deferred to the Feb. 5th meeting.. To read The Tennessean's coverage of this issue follow this link.

Bill BL2018-1417  would extend Historic Landmark protection to public interior

Should the interior of  historical places be protected

spaces.  This is one of those issues about which I am conflicted. I am a strong advocate of private property rights but am also an advocate of historical preservation. I think a sense of place matters and historical places should not be bulldozed for parking lots. If not for the work of preservationist, Nashville would no longer have Union Station or the Ryman Auditorium. Having a designation of a Historic Landmark does not prohibit a property owner from tearing down a historic property but makes it more difficult to do so. I know some people have such strong opinions that they seldom, if ever, have a conflict. I do sometimes have competing values that come into play when evaluating a public policy matter.  Sometimes, public policy is about striking a balance between competing valid concerns.  I do not yet have an opinion on the merits of this bill, but it is not because I don't care enough to have an opinion but because I am conflicted. This bill is deferred to the Feb. 5, 2019 public hearing. 

Bill BL2018-1418  also concerns historic preservation. It would require Preservation Permits before any person undertaking any action for or with respect to any structure located within any of the historic overlay districts. This would apply to interior renovations, alterations, repairs, or demolition. If someone purchases a home in a historic neighborhood, they should not have to get permission before they can remodel their kitchen, in my view. This bill is deferred to the February 5, 2019 public hearing.

Bill BL2018-1438 changes from AR2a to RS10 and RM4 zoning for properties located at Bluff Road approximately 930 feet southwest of Nolensville Pike (60.19 acres). I have no opinion on the merits of the bill but am simply calling attention to it because it is a bill disapproved by the Planning Commission. Bills disapproved by the Planning Commission require 27 votes to pass on Third Reading. At the public hearing, people did speak for and against this bill. This passes second reading on a voice vote.

Resolutions

Resolution RS2018-1508 which would encourages a change in the NES policy of collecting contribution to its weatherization program for low income property owners from an opt-in policy to an opt-out policy is deferred again. Currently if your electric bill is so many dollars and so many cents, you may elect to have your bill rounded up to the next dollar and that odd cents amount goes to a fund to pay the cost of low income property owners to have work done on their home such as insulation to improve energy efficiency. This resolution would recommend to NES that they change that policy so that your bill was automatically be rounded up unless you opted out of that process. I adamantly oppose this. Charity should be with informed consent. This policy change would have made it more like robbery. This was deferred to the Feb. 5th meeting.

Resolution RS2019-1541 was a resolution to approve a sign overhanging the sidewalk. Normally these are routine and the council approves several every meeting. To me this seems like something that should administratively be approved rather than every sign that overhangs a sidewalk going before the Council.  The city's concern is that the sign owner have liability insurance for the sign.  Last night the Council did approve  Kid Rock’s Big Ass Honky Tonk sign but there was some discussion. Some felt the language of the sign was inappropriate. If the language of a sign is not illegal, the council should not get into the business of legislating taste. The council voted 27-3 in favor of the sign. The three members who voted "no" were Cooper, Murphy, and Lee. Voting to Abstain was Mendes, Freeman, and Elrod.

Cyntoia Brown

 Resolution RS2019-1544 requesting that Governor Bill Haslam grant clemency to Cyntoia Brown was approved by a vote of 32 in favor and two abstentions.  The case of Cyntoria Brown has been widely covered by the Nashville and the national media. Brown, as a 16-year-old prostitute,  killed a john by shooting him in the back of the head as he slept. She has been portrayed as a victim of sex trafficking and celebrities such as Kim Kardashian West and Rihanna have advocated for clemency on her behalf. Brown has proved a model prisoner and has earned a college degree while in prison. Since this vote Gov. Haslam has granted Brown clemenacy. I opposed this resolution. I don't think the right thing to do is so clear cut in this case, that the Council should be sharing their opinion with the governor. No members voted "no" and Freeman, and Pulley abstained.

Bill defeated on First Reading

Bill BL2019-1474 by Steve Glover which would prohibit vendors from selling anything in the public right of way was defeated.  This bill, if passed, would effectively kill the program where homeless people sell the newspaper, The Contributor. This was on first reading and normally everything passes on first reading and all bills are lumped together and are passed by a single vote.  It is unusual a bill is killed on first reading. These members voted "Yes," supporting Glover on First Reading:  Hall, Swope, Glover, Huezo, and Dowell.  Voting "No," were Cooper, Gilmore, Mendes, Hurt, Hastings, Haywood, Scott Davis, Withers, Anthony Davis, VanReece, Hagar, Sledge, Allen, O'Connell, Roberts, Mina Johnson, Murphy, Pulley, Elrod, Blalock, Vercher, Potts, Bedne, and Rosenberg. Voting to Abstain was Rhoten, Freeman, Kindall, Lee, and Henderson.

Bills on Second Reading 

Bill BL2018-1439  authorize the Metropolitan Housing Trust Fund Commission to rescind grant contracts and collect funds previously allocated to organizations that fail to execute contractual obligations in a timely manner.  I find this interesting. Apparently some non-profit that was awarded a grant failed to perform or there would be no need for this.  Having worked in the field of non-profit housing, I am curious what the story is behind this. The bill was deferred to the  February 5, 2019 meeting.

Substitute Bill BL2018-1441  After Bird scooters came to town, the Council then came up with some regulation to govern them as well as rental bicycles and other similar devices. At the time, what was passed by the Council said the number of providers of these "shared urban mobility devices, " could not be limited by Metro government. Since then Lime has come to town and a couple other companies have plans to come to Nashville. This bill would limit the number of operators of these devices to four and would require new providers to get a "certificate of necessity."  This bill needs to be defeated. It probably violates the State constitution and it is bad policy. Metro should not be in the business and curtailing technological advancement or protecting existing providers of a service from competition. Bill BL2018-1441 was substituted and several members abstained on voting to substitute and one member voted against substituting. The substitute was then deferred.  I will report on what the substitute does before it is again on the agenda.

Bills on Third Reading. 

Bill BL2018-1419 (as amended)  passed on third and final reading. There were no "no" votes or abstentions.  It passed unanimously. This bill would, in effect, cause Metro Government to give preferential treatment to minorities and women in the awarding of city contracts.

Top Stories

What happened at the Nov. 20 Council meeting: Policing for profit passes, Monroe Harding rezoning passes, Police Community Oversight Board explained.

This is the video of the Council meeting of Tuesday, November 20, 2018. The meeting is just a little less than three hours long. If you are going to watch it, it will make a lot more sense if you can follow along with an agenda. To access a copy of the agenda, the staff agenda analysis and my commentary on the agenda, follow this link.

The minutes of the meeting are not yet posted so I do not know which  members were absent for this meeting. I will update this post and supply that information when the minutes are available.

I have already reported on what I consider the two most important items on the agenda. They are these:

Civil asset forfeiture aka "policing for profit." The Council approved Metro's participation in the civil asset forfeiture program, Resolution RS2018-1486 .  I am disappointing and think it is immoral for Nashville to participate in this program.  The argument in favor is that metro not participating will not make the program go away and besides we need the money. I am not going to rehash my explanation and arguments against it. For more on this issue see  Policing for profit and guilty until proven innocent to continue in Nashville, and Please tell your councilman to oppose "policing for profit" and to support innocent until proven guilty and due process.  To view the council discussion see timestamp 1:20:50 - 1:43:50.

Bill BL2018-1370 is the bill that allowed Monroe Harding to move forward with the sale of their Glendale Lane campus. Under threat of even having more of their property rights stripped away, Monroe Harding was bullied into accepting the plan which reduced their property rights. For more on this issue see Monroe Harding forced "compromise" passes the Council, clearing the way to sale the property.

After the prayer and the pledge of allegiance, there are a couple ceremonial presentations of memorializing resolutions and at 15 minutes into the meeting the council gets down to business.

The vice mayor lays out the process for selecting members to the police oversight board, which was approved in public referendum in the recent election. See timestamp 21:00 - 1:09 for the vice mayors explanation of the process and council discussion. For anyone wanting a better understanding of this issue, the Council discussion is informative. To serve on this board or to sign a petition nominating someone to serve on the board, one does not have to be a registered voter and can be of any age. The only requirement is that they be a resident of Davidson County. A certain number of the board members must be nominated by a "community organization," but the term is not defined. I assume anyone or any group of people could call themselves a "community organization." Four members of the board must be from an economically distressed area but that term is not defined. This is an ill-conceived charter amendment and I would not be surprised if a court or the State legislature does not nullify or mortify it in some way. The deadline for submitting nominating petitions for board members is December 18. See Community Oversight Board Information for more information.

Only two people speak during the open comment period. Neither had anything inflammatory to say. One called for transparency in the Amazon and similar deals. There were no surprises in confirmation of mayoral appointees to boards and commissions. They were all affirmed. The other items of interest are the following bills on Second Reading.

Bill BL2018-1283  essentially says that Metro cannot use the proceeds from sale of surplus property to balance the budget.  While it seems to make sense that one should not use one-time money to fund on-going cost, as we did this year, I am not sure that this flexibility should be taken away. There may be times when the city needs to do this. The bill passes without discussion on a voice vote.

Bill BL2018-1334  tweaks the ticket tax for the Major League Soccer Stadium.This would raise the overall price of attending a game and may suppress attendance. It is deferred indefinitely.

Top Stories

Monroe Harding forced "compromise" passes the Council, clearing the way to sale the property.

The bill (Bill BL2018-1370) to down-zone the Monroe Harding property from its current zoning which would allow up to 53 units to be build on the property to a zoning that allows 31 units and the saving of big tree on the property passed. This bill had the support of Monroe Harding who negotiated this compromise with a gun to their head.  The offer made to Monroe Harding was to accept this or get a much worse "compromise."

Preservationist, planners and many neighbors did not want to let Monroe Harding do anything with their property that did not preserve the 20-acre campus and the 1935-era home on the property. This "compromise" forced upon Monroe-Harding was as about as good as Monroe Harding could get. Monroe Harding plans to relocate and needs the proceeds from the sale to support their mission. The current site no longer suites their needs. Monroe Harding's initial desire was to sale the property as currently zoned which they had the right to do. The right one has to build on ones own property can be stripped away at the wimp of the city Council without compensation to the owner.  In Metro our property rights are very tenuous. 

If Monroe would have not accepted this "compromise" then likely a much worse bill would have passed.  Monroe could have fought it in the courts and likely prevailed.  However, legal fees would have been enormous and it may have taken a long time to reach conclusion. Rather than fight this illegal down-zoning, Monroe-Harding gave into bullying. I don't blame them for doing so.The city forcing this "compromise" on Monroe Harding is a shameful abuse of power. However, Monroe may not be much worse off financially. I don't know the numbers but I would assume Monroe will generate almost as much income from the sale as rezoned as they could have without the rezoning. The developer will simply build larger and more expensive homes.

The bill passed by a vote 27 to 0, which was the bare minimum it needed to pass since it was a disproved bill. The bill was disapproved by the Planning Commission because it did not preserve the mansion on the property.

To read The Tennessean's account of this story, see Nashville council clears way for sale of 20-acre Monroe Harding campus in Green Hills.

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

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

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

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


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

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

Trampling property rights and stopping affordable housing

The Ridge Apartments

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

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

    


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

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

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

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

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

Top Stories

What to do about Mass Transit and traffic congestion

by Rod Williams  - All of the candidates for mayor have issued statements or published position papers addressing the issue of mass transit and traffic congestion.  Polls of what Nashvillians care about list mass transit and traffic among the top issues. The long hard-fought battle to stop the AMP caused people to focus on the issue of mass transit.  And, people’s own personal experience of dealing with Nashville traffic has elevated the issue. I have lived in Nashville most of my adult life and I remember when we could brag that Nashville was a “15-minute city," meaning you could get anywhere you wanted to go in fifteen minute. That changed a long time ago.  Traffic is a serious issue and good big cities have mass transit. It is fitting that traffic and transit are important  issues.  Below are my thoughts on the issue.

I want to see Nashville develop a system of mass transit that uses the private sector to the largest extend possible.  I would like to see us transition from a public mass transit system to a private mass transit system.  I would like to see us do things never done before.  We should break new ground. We should be known as the city with a great transportation system primarily dependent on the private sector to provide the service.  We should privatize mass transit.

By “privatized” I mean both fully privatized non-governmental transit, and public-private-partnership and out-sourcing, private companies hired by government to provide transit services.  As an example, Uber is a fully private operation with no government subsidy and minimal regulation.  Airport-hotel express bus service is private form of mass transit. A private-public partnership may be that a company builds a light rail line and operates it, for instance from the airport to downtown, and we lease the rail line for 75 years.  Some turnpikes are built like this.  Hiring a private firm to provide a service is the way the state often houses prisoners and the way we pick up most of the city’s garbage.  

We need to seek a unique solution:  If I were mayor I would seek out consultants who have experience in successful cost effective mass transit relying on private providers.  If we cannot find a consultant with a track record of doing this, we could do it ourselves.   I would call Uber, Lyft, Sidecar, Grayline, Megabus, and others to the table and ask for RFP’s for moving masses of people efficiently.  These app-dispatched type companies like Uber and Lyft are relatively new.  They have made lots of money and have lots of money to invest and they may be looking for opportunities to grow.  Brainstorm with them. Invite them to help us solve our transit problem.
 

Look at Megabus: For $10 one can go from Nashville to Atlanta on a Megabus.  Would Megabus want to take over a Nashville Express bus services?  Or, maybe Grayline?Remove prohibition against private companies competing with the MTA.  At this time probably no company would want to provide a purely private bus service but we should remove the impediment if one did want to.  We should change the environment to one that welcomes private solutions, competition and innovation instead of a climate that penalizes private solutions. 

Remove the requirement for a 'certificate of necessity' before one can operate more cabs or start new cab companies.  The only logic for restricting supply of taxis is to protect those already in business from competition. Taxis are not mass transit, but they complement mass transit.  For one thing, they get people out of their private car and once one has become accustomed to not driving their private car, then other forms of transportation may also become more attractive.  Also, if one takes a bus from Murfreesboro to downtown, often one must still get somewhere else.  Taxis can take you the few blocks or miles from the end of the bus line to where you need to be.  Also, taxis do not need to park downtown for 8 hours at a stretch and if we had more taxis in use there would be less demand for more parking.

Look at how we pick up garbage:  I was in the Metro Council when we changed the way we pick up garbage. The city picked all up of it, it was a more labor intensive process and garbage cans were manually lifted instead of mechanically lifted and service was twice a week instead of once a week. We transitioned to a once-a-week, mechanical-lift, uniform-garbage-can system.  Metro still designs the routes and supervises quality but most garbage is now picked up by private companies.  This has saved metro a lot of money.  Garbage workers were some of the lowest paid employees in the city but disability claims and retirement was very expensive. Metro employees and the public resisted the transition to private companies collecting the garbage but the transition to the current system happened and it has worked well.  During the transition, Metro public works “competed” with private companies. The cost of metro picking up garbage was established counting all cost in order to measure and compare the deal we were getting from private firms.  If Metro could “bid” lower on a route than a private company, Metro continued the route.  Eventfully, private companies took over most to the routes. The city simply could not pick up garbage as cheap as a private company. 

My Thai observation #1: It doesn’t matter the color of the bus.  I did not know what I was observing at the time but as a young man I spent 15 months in Thailand. I was in the Air Force and I lived off base and enjoyed my experience.  I learned how to take the local buses and get around.  I noticed that on a bus route that I used, I sometimes caught a brown bus and sometimes a green bus, but the bus followed the same route and regular schedule regardless of the color of the bus.  It was only years later when doing some research on transportation that I realized that the local government set the routes and allowed private companies to bid on the routes.  On the same route,  one time the bus may be one owned by one company but the next bus may be a bus owned by another company.

My Thai observation #2:  It is not a taxi and it is not a bus. Often instead of catching a bus, I would catch another type service.  In Thailand, they were often mini- pickup trucks that had a top but open sides with benches facing each other on each side of the truck bed.  Later I realized this type service is called a “jitney” and operates in many countries, but we do not have it in America.  It is a service that operates on a relatively fixed route but can deviate a block or two off the route to drop someone off at their home or place of work.  With modern phone apps and almost everyone having a smart phone, I think an Americanized version of jitney service could work in Nashville.  Obviously, Instead of pick-up trucks however I would envision vans or very small busses. 
 

The Nashville Star has been a failure and not a model to follow. This 30-mile line starting in Lebanon was projected to move 750 per day but on average it only moves 550 people a day.  The fare box only covers only 15% of the cost of a trip on the train.  With an operating budget of $5.1 million, that is not a sustainable model.  Also it gets very few cars off the road.  If 550 people a day are taking the train, some of those would be riding with a spouse, or car pooling or riding a bus or not working downtown. So if we consider 75% of those riding the train would be driving a car that is only 413 cars taken off the road in that 30 mile stretch of I-40 or Lebanon Pike.  That is an insignificant number.

We do not need to widen roads. There may be bottle necks that could be improved, but widening roads is like solving a weight problem by buying a bigger belt.  Sitting in traffic is one of the “cost” that will result in people being willing to use mass transit and also influence people’s decision about where they live and work.

Not everyone minds their long commute. People like to talk about their horrible commute, but some people are accustomed to it and value the independence of their car and do not want to ride mass transit.  I think I would hate it myself, but some people have told me the ride home gives them time to unwind. They do not find it nerve wracking. They want to listen to their music or choice of talk show or sports and do not want to share that choice and they want to stop off at the grocery store on the way home.  Don’t assume people want to give up their car.  We are not now maximizing the use of vanpools and car pools and the express bus services. If we are not now maximizing alternative options, they why should we assume other options would get people to give up their car? There may not be as much demand for mass transit as some assume. Equal to the challenge of how we move people is selling people on the idea of using mass transit.  Don’t assume that if we build it, they will use it. 

Not every bus has to be the same.  Some millennial and young professionals may want luxury seats and Wi-Fi and a smooth ride. Recent immigrants living out Nolensville Rd may be happy with a school-type bus and lower priced service and greater frequency of service may be more important than a luxury ride. Let entrepreneurs have a chance to provide different models and see what works. What works on one route may not be the same as what works on another route.

Mass transit and planning for development should coincide.  I have traveled quite a bit in Europe and in some other countries. A visitor to Europe may think the walled cities with big cathedrals and cobble stone streets are quaint and that everyone lives like that. If you take a train from one city to another in many of these countries, however, you will find that much of the population live clustered around railway stops at different points along the route.  One may pass through miles of sparse development or pasture and farmland and then come to a railway stop and there will be a population center with multi story apartment buildings around the train stop.  Should we build a light rail line or develop a Bus Rapid Transit route down Nolensville Road or some other major corridor, then land use planning should allow high rise, high density development of apartments clustered around the transit stop. 

We need greater density to make mass transit successful.  We should discourage rezoning of neighborhoods to single-family-only, should encourage zoning that allows auxiliary living units on residential properties (mother-in-law apartments) and increase density along major corridors, at mass transit hubs, or major transit stops.  This would also increase the supply of affordable housing. 

Express bus service is a “public good."  It is a given that getting more people to take buses from Murfreesboro to Nashville, or Gallatin or Clarksville to Nashville is a public good.  When someone takes the bus it makes the road less congested for the rest of us.  It reduces the demand for widening roads, reduces commute times for other drivers and cuts pollution by reducing idling cars.  It reduces poverty by making it possible for low-skilled workers to get to jobs, it increases disposable income and spurs economic growth by allowing people to spend more of their money on other goods rather than transportation.  Yet ridership is low. (I do not know the number, but know it is low. We need the numbers in order to say:  “X number of people commute from Murfressboro to Nashville everyday, yet only X percent takes the express bus service.”)  

Regional transportation is also a State public good. Metro should not pay the lion’s share for regional transportation. The more people who take the Murfreesboro to Nashville bus, the more it helps the State, since it reduces traffic on the interstate highway. We need regional support and state financial support for efforts to increase mass transit.  Our Nashville legislative delegation should advocate for regional transit to get TDOT support for every vehicle that is taken off a state road due to someone using mass transit. 

Express Bus service is a bargain.  One can take a bus from Murfreesboro t o Nashville for $4 for one trip or 20 trips for $70. That is only $7.50 a day!  To park at the 701 Church Street garage is $5 for one hour, $8 two hours, and a $13 daily maximum if one can find a place to park.  So to take the bus for a month is $7.50 x 20 days= $150 a month; to take a car is $150 parking (assume one leases a space by the month), gas $200 (assume a tank a week at $50 x4= 200) maintenance and oil changes assume $50 a month, and assume the wearing out of a car used mostly for work $400 a month. (Assume a $20,000 car for 5 years plus interest). So the cost of taking the bus is $150 a month and the cost of driving is $800.

So, how do we get more people to take the bus? Assuming it is a pubic good and we want more people to take the bus, and it is a bargain, why won’t people take the bus? It could be that it is inconvenient to be at the bus stop on time, one may want to stay in town to have dinner, one may have to pick up the kids or stop at the grocery store and the bus does not take you to the door of your business.  Other people may not take the bus because they just love their car, and you would have to pay them to take the bus.  However, many people do not know of the option of express bus service or have never even considered it.  One thing government does not do well is advertise its services and most of the time with good reason.  Most government services do not have to be advertised because people have to have them, want them or not.  Other services are government monopoly and people have no choice of provider. For other services, if more people use the service such as libraries or parks we will have to build more libraries or parks. However, getting people out of their cars can save money and solve a problem. We need to “sell” people on using the bus.  We need billboards and ads touting the benefit of taking an express bus service. Any RFP for a private company to take over an express line should include a proposal for advertising and increasing ridership and perhaps provide an incentive for increasing ridership.  Even if we do not privatize the line, we still need to advertise.

Use Technology, synchronize lights, and build roundabouts and pedestrian passageways: My favorite bad example of uselessly sitting at a traffic light is Craighead and Bransford.  The light takes forever to change with traffic going neither direction.  Often I have been tempted to run the red light. This would be a great place to build a roundabout or turn the light to flashing red and flashing yellow after 8PM unless there is a function at the Fairgrounds.  I am sure this is only one of a thousand examples in town. I have traveled in Europe and I know roundabouts take some getting used to but they are safe and keep traffic moving. Also, by reducing idle time, they improve air quality and reduce air pollution.  All lights should be automated to be timed to move traffic most efficiently.  On super busy roadways with pedestrian traffic, we should construct pedestrian bridges or tunnels.  This will increase safety of pedestrians and reduce the light timing necessary for pedestrians to cross the road.  This would not be something for downtown where we want to encourage pedestrian traffic and slow traffic, but I am sure there are some areas where this would be beneficial, such in Greenhills. I have seen these used European cities. It works.

Make the city more walkable by stopping building sidewalks stupidly and require new developments to have a “pedestrian plan,” just as they must now have a traffic plan, a lighting plan and a storm water plan. I have examples of poor planning and building sidewalks stupidly that I could show you.  It seems as if some streets were designed to ensure people never walk. 

Most people do not work downtown.  A lot of people do, but I have never worked downtown.  If we moved masses of people from Murfreesboro to downtown, then how we would they get them to their jobs which are scattered throughout the city and the region?  Before we focus on a massive investment of a Murfreesboro to Nashville route or similar routes we need to figure out how to get people where they want to go once they get downtown.  Private paratransit could help accomplish this. 

We must realize that it is difficult to retrofit a city build mostly after the advent of the car to accommodate mass transit.  Cities with really good mass transit are cities like New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia and Boston.  These are all cities that had large populations and were built prior to the advent of the automobile.  We should not over promise on mass transit. Atlanta has a large rail system but its job centers are not clustered, making that rail system less useful.  

Realize the future may be here before you know it and needs may change. It was not that many years ago that everyone did not have a smart cell phone. That technology has changed much of how we live from how we find places, connect with people, and decide the routes we take.  The demand on our roads and use of one’s own car may decrease. More people may work from home. UPS, Federal Express, pizza delivery and running to another office to deliver a set of document may be done mostly by drones in five to ten years.  To go somewhere, you may click an app on your phone (or key bob type device or whatever) and a driverless pod rushes to your house and takes you where you want to go. We will still need roadways but some problems may take care of themselves and it is difficult to plan for a future 75 years down the road when technology we have not even dreamed of yet, may appear at any time. 

This originally appeared in this blog on  July 15, 2015. In the mid 1980's I Iead an effort with my friend Roger Bissell to stop a proposed special tax to support mass transit. During that process I studied the issue of transit in some depth. Also from my service on the Planning Committee of the Council and work with an engineering firm I had more exposure to traffic planning issues. I believe the time is now to develop a primarily private forward- looking transportation system. With new technologies emerging we do not need to build the system of the past. Nashville could break the mold and do something cutting edge if we had the right leadership. Rod Williams

Top Stories

What's on the Council Agenda for 9-5-17: More corporate welfare, Advocating for DACA, Condemning racism, new requirements for a building permit ...

The Metro Council will meet Tuesday, September 5th, 2017 at 6:30 PM in the Council chamber at the Metro Courthouse. 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.

If you are going to watch the Council meeting, you need a copy of the Council agenda and the Council staff analysis or you really will not know what is going on. You can get the agenda and analysis at the highlighted links.

There are 14 appointment to Boards and Commission on the agenda. To my knowledge, this Council has never turned down a Mayor's appointee.  They will all be approved without discussion.

Public Hearing
There are two resolutions and 25 bills on Public Hearing. A resolution is passed by a single vote and a bill requires three separate votes of the Council. The bills on Public Hearing are also on the second vote consideration of the Council or "second reading." The two resolutions are exempting establishments from the minimum distance requirements for obtaining a beer permit.

The bills on public hearings are all rezoning bills or related to planning and zoning policy.  While some cities, mostly smaller cities, have a kind of an open mic public hearing policy, where anyone may address their council on any topic, Nashville does not have such a policy.  Only zoning and zoning related bills or on public hearing and the operating budget and the capital improvements budgets.

Rezoning hearings bore me and I don't even try to form an opinion on the merits every rezoning bill before the Council.  Rezoning bills usually are of interest only to people who live near the proposed rezoning. People who don't care one way or the other do not show up and with rare exceptions the only people who speak in favor of rezoning bills are those who will benefit from the rezoning such as the property owner or the developer.  Opponents always make the same argument which boils down to one of these: 1) the change will result in stressing the infrastructure such as too much traffic on the roadway or overcrowd the schools, 2) will cause flooding, and 3) will change for the worse the character of the community. If you are interested in knowing what is permitted in different zoning districts, follow this link.

Public Hearing:  Below are the bills that I find of interest that are on public hearing. I find them of interest because they effect a lot of people and I expect them to be controversial or because they are disapproved by the Planning Commission and may be difficult to pass or for some other reason which I explain. Some zoning bills get a recommendation of disapproved as submitted but approved if the sponsor will make changes recommended by the Planning Commission. I am not listing as bills of interest those that fall in that category.  Usually the sponsor makes the recommended changes.

BILL BL2017-784   by Robert Swope would establish a maximum permitted height of ten feet for electric fences within any zoning district where electric fences are permitted. The Planning Commission recommended withdrawal. Usually there is a recommendation of "approved" or "disapproved," but I do not recall a recommendation of withdrawal.  A disapproved bill requires 27 votes to pass on third reading. I assume if the sponsor moves forward with a bill that the Planning Commission has recommended he withdraw, the bill could be passed by a simple majority, but I am unsure.  Maybe it has to go back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. The staff analysis says it is anticipated that the sponsor will withdraw the ordinance in favor of alternative legislation so the recommendation for withdrawal will apparently not be a problem.

BILL BL2017-824 is another bill where the Planning Commission recommendation is for the bill to be withdrawn.  This is applying a Contextual Overlay District to certain properties in Councilman Murphy's district. A Contextual Overlay applies design standards to new development in a neighborhood to keep it in character with what is already there. The staff analysis does not address this bill so I do not know the consequences of a recommendation to withdraw the bill, if the sponsor does not withdraw it. 

BILL BL2017-852 in Councilman Mary Carolyn Roberts district would expand an Urban Zoning Overlay District by 1591 acres.  This is a huge expansion. An Urban Design Overlay, or UDO, is a zoning tool that requires specific design standards for development in a designated area. A UDO is used to either protect the pre-existing character of the area or to create a character that would not otherwise be ensured by the development standards in the base zoning district. This bill has not yet been considered by the Planning Commission.

Resolutions
There are 26 resolutions all of which are on the consent agenda. A resolution stays on the consent agenda if it passed the committees to which it was assigned unanimously. Since the committees have not met yet, some resolutions which are listed as on the consent agenda may not be on the consent agenda when the council meets. Bills on the consent agenda are usually not controversial and tend to be routine matters, such as accepting grants from the Federal or State Government or appropriating money from the 4% fund. Resolutions on the consent agenda are passed by a single vote of the Council rather than being considered individually. Any member of the body may have a bill pulled off of the consent agenda or have there "no" vote or abstention recorded. Below are the resolutions of interest.

RESOLUTION RS2017-836  is a PILOT (payments in lieu of taxes) deal for an affordable housing project. This is the sixth time PILOT has been used to build affordable housing. Usually it is used as an incentive to lure a business to locate or expand in Nashville. This deal would be for a private developer to develop a 209 unit project restricted to seniors aged 62 or older whose income is below below 60% of the average median income which for a single person is $28,140.  What this does is basically give the developer a break on property taxes for a ten year period which will amount to about $2.9 million.

RESOLUTION RS2017-839  is the settlement of a lawsuit for $17K.  My view on settling lawsuit is that if the legal department says settle, I am not going to second guess them.  This council has not been so bad about it, but there was a time when some members of the Council would grandstand and get an explanation at the Council meeting of what happened and ask what punishment was handed out to the employee that caused the incident. They would make a big deal out of appropriating the money. Now, thankfully this is handled in committee and no one votes against these settlements and it has almost become routine.

RESOLUTION RS2017-860  supports the continuation of DACA, (the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals  program) and encourages Congress to create a permanent path to legal residency for DACA recipients. I support this. I know that some conservatives denounce DACA as amnesty.  My view is that those children who were brought here by their parents illegally and had no say in the matter, who are Americanized,  who may not even speak their native language, who have stayed out of trouble, and are either serving or served in the military or are in school or working, should not be deported to a country they may have never even known.

I generally think the Metro Council should avoid opining on national issues, but I would make an exception for this.  There are thousand of these young people in our community and are our co-workers and classmates and neighbors.  I remain critical of President Obama for implementing this policy.  My problem is not with the policy itself however but that President Obama did it by executive action rather than submitting the policy to Congress to ask it be enacted legislatively.  I am please that this resolution asks Congress to pass legislation rather than simply asking President Trump to extend the policy.  President Trump is being forced to take a stand on this due to a pending lawsuit brought by several states challenging the legality of the policy.  On Tuesday, President Trump is to announce his intentions regarding DACA.

It should be pointed out that a resolution of this kind only expresses the will of the Council.  It has no impact.  It is not even even really "adopted."  It is passed by the Council, but is not an official position of the Metro Government.  The mayor returns memorializing resolutions unsigned which is essentially a veto. To pass a resolution unsigned by the Council, the Council would then have to pass it a second time.  That never happens. If I were in the Council, I would not vote for a bad memorializing resolution, but in reality they are pretty meaningless. I expect there will be some wasted time pontificating on the issue.

RESOLUTION RS2017-861  says "that Nashville is opposed to and stands against racism and bigotry in all its forms and urging all to seek unified solutions to encourage the inclusive society our founders envisioned."  Last Council meeting, the sponsor attempted to get this considered as a late resolution, but two objecting members kept it from being considered. I am pleased that this was stopped last Council meeting.  There was no emergency that required suspension of Council rules. While this is motivated due to President Tump's comments following the violence in Charlottsville, there is nothing in the text of the resolution that calls out the President.  There is nothing objectionable in the wording of the resolution unless you actually happen to be a racist. If the sponsor will pass this without making a useless speech denouncing Trump, then if I were in the Council I would keep quite and vote for it. If, however, the sponsor grandstands, I would offer an amendment condemning all political violence and hatred including that of  Antifa. If no one votes against it in committee then this will be passed on consent and no one will speak on it. I think that is the best outcome.

Bills on First reading: There are 36 bills on first reading. First reading is a formality that gets bills on the agenda and they are not considered by committee until after they pass first reading. I do not read them until they get to second reading. Bills on First Reading are all lumped together and pass by a single vote.

Bills on Second Reading. These are the ones of interest:

BILL NO. BL2017-800 would make a modest change to the juvenile curfew laws. It would make the curfew slightly more restrictive. I do not see the need for this but could be persuaded in committee. This was on Second Reading on July 21st and deferred to this meeting.

BILL BL2017-835   would increase the size of, number of, and required information on a building permit for any building permit for a project of over $2500. The sign would have to be two feet by three feet.  That seem ridiculous.  A very small remodeling project can exceed $2500 dollars and may be done in as little as a day. The sponsor is going to offer an amendment increasing the dollar limit to $5000. I would oppose this even at the higher limit.  I just do not see the need for this. 

Bills on Third Reading:

BILL BL2017-834 would amend the time restriction of when beer could be sold or served for on-premises consumption passes.  Under this bill a small number of restaurants could sell beer anytime except from 3AM to 4AM. For a more detailed explanation given when the bills was on Second Reading  follow this link and go to timestamp 23:54 in the video.

BILL BL2017-836 is a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) deal for the Keystone Automotive Industries to build an administrative office.  This is the kind of corporate welfare that almost all cities engage in.  We will in effect be subsidizing this company about $1.23 million and they promise to create 120 new jobs. That is a little over $10K per job. I would hope the Council would reject this.  For more on this, read the bill and see the staff analysis.

Top Stories