How members of the Council voted on the mayor's tax for tracks plan

On Tuesday night January 23rd the Council met and passed on Second Reading Bill BL2017-1031 adopting Mayor Barry's transit improvement program and requesting the Davidson County Election Commission to call a county-wide referendum election to be held on May 1, 2018 to approve the tax increases to support the program.  As expected the bill passed overwhelmingly.

The bill was amended to modify the wording of the referendum. The new language made the plan more attractive by distorting the facts. It required that the language of the referendum not say that the vote on the referendum is a vote increasing the sales tax to 10.25% but instead to say the vote is a vote to increase the local option sales tax to 3.25%.

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

His amendment would have also revealed the amount of the total sales tax if the referendum is approved instead of just the local share of the total which is 3.25%. His amendment would have had the referendum state the local option would increase to 3.2% for a total sales tax rate of 10.25%. Cooper's amendment was tabled by a vote of 21 in favor of tabling, 14 against, one abstention and three not voting.

A "yes" vote was a vote to kill Cooper's amendment.  A yes vote was a vote to not reveal the true cost or reveal the total new sales tax rate the public would be voting on. A vote for honesty and transparency was a "no" vote. Here is how the Council voted on the motion to table Cooper's amendment:

The vote on the amendment
Voting "Yes," to table Cooper's amendment.
Scott Davis, District 5                         Bret Withers, District  6           Anthony Davis, District 7
Nancy VanReece, District 8                Bill Pridemore, District 9        Doug Pardue, District 10    
Keven Rhoten, District 14                  Jeff Syracuse, District 15         Mike Freeman, District 16
Colby Sledge, District 17                   Burkeley Allen, District 18      Freddie O'Connell, District 19
Sheri Weiner, District  22                   Mina Johnson, District  23       Kathleen Murphy, District 24
Russ Pulley, District 25                     Jeremy Elrod, District 26          Davette Blalock, District 27   Jason Potts, District  30                     Fabian Bedne, District 31         Jacobia Dowell, District 32
                                                                                          
Voting "No," not to table Cooper's amendment
John Cooper, At-large                   Erica Gilmore, At-large                Bob Mendes, At-large
Sharon Hurt, A-large                    Jim Shulman, At-large                   DeCosta Hastings, District 2
Robert Swope, District 4              Larry Hagar, District 11                 Steve Glover, District  12
Ed Kindall, District 21                 Tanaka Vercher, District 28            Karen Johnson, District  29 Antionette Lee, District  22          Angie Henderson, District 34                  
                            
Voting to Abstain:  Dave Rosenberg, District 35

Not voting: 
Brenda Haywood, District 3      Holly Huezo, District 13               Mary Carolyn Roberts, District 20

The vote on the Bill
Following the vote on the above amendment, action was taken on the bill.  A "yes" vote was a vote to approve the bill which means approving the mayor's transit plan and putting the issues on a public referendum and a "no" vote was a no vote. Here is how they voted:

Voting Yes on the Bill
Bob Mendes, At-large               Jim Shulman, At-large                     DeCosta Hastings, District 2 Brenda Haywood, District 3      Scott Davis, District 5                     Bret Withers, District 6
Anthony Davis, District 7         Nancy VanReece, District 8             Bill Pridemore, District 9
Doug Pardue, District 10           Larry Hagar, District 11                  Kevin Rhoten, District 14 Jeff Syracuse, District 15                 Mike Freeman, District 16              Colby Sledge, District 17
Burkley Allen, District 18        Freddie O'Connell, District 19         Sheri Weiner, District 22
Mina Johnson, District 23        Kathleen Murphy, District 24          Russ Pulley, District 25
Jeremy Elrod, District 26         Davette Blalock, District 27            Tanaka Vercher, District 28
Karen Johnson, District 29      Jason Potts, District 30                     Fabian Bedne, District 31
Jacobia Dowell, District 32     Antionette Lee, District 33               Dave Rosenberg District 35

Voting NO on the Bill
John Cooper, at-large              Sharon Hurt, at-large                        Robert Swope, District 4
Steve Glover, District 12         Ed Kindall, District 21                     Angie Henderson, District 34

The minutes of the meeting do not list those who abstained or were not voting.  Why, I do not know. Those unaccounted for in the above tally are Holly Huezo, District 13 and Mary Carolyn Roberts, District 20 both of whom were absent.  District one is a vacant seat.

If you are unsure who your council member is, you can go to this page and use the look-up tool to find out. 

One observation about the result of this vote is that just because one is a Republican, you cannot always assume they will cast a vote that you agree with. I am disappointed in the vote cast by Davette Blalock and Sheri Weiner, both of whom identify as Republicans. Davette Blalock ran for a state legislative seat as a Republican.

Another observation is that African-American members of the Council, probably reflecting the views of their constituents, are not  sold on this project. In the final vote on the bill, two of the six "no" votes were Black council members and on the Cooper amendment of the 14 "no" votes six of them were by Black members of the Council and two of those six were the two at-large Black council members.  Blacks may realize that light rail will come at the expense of improved bus service and Black Nashvillians ride the bus at a greater rate than the average Nashvillian.  If mass transit ridership continues to decline, to cut operating cost bus service will be cut, not the fixed light rail service. Also, light rail will probably result in the spread of gentrification along the light rail route.

In addition to the merits of the issue, Black members of the community may be feeling that the mayor has betrayed them. She proposed closing General Hospital and she failed to support the effort to establish a civilian police oversight board, both issues the Black community care about. Opponents of the mayor's light rail proposal should take the message to the Black community and should court Black leaders.

While the vote last Tuesday when this bill was on second reading was almost a foregone conclusion, passage on third reading is less assured. I think the odds favor it passing but it is by no means a certainty.  On third reading this bill will require a two-thirds vote of the members of the body.  District one is an empty seat and if we assume again two members will be absent, then only four votes have to switch. And, they do not have two switch from "yes" to "no." All they have to do is abstain or sit on their hands or go to the bathroom. On third reading, an abstention or simply not voting is as good as a "no" vote. There were several of the 14 who voted against tabling the Cooper amendment who ended up voting for the bill.  They at least have reservation or disapprove of the way the referendum is worded to deceive.  There may be four votes that will switch from "yes" to some other status.

Top Stories

Mayor Barry ask $13.2 M more for General Hospital. Other programs must be cut to pay for it.

After proposing in November to do the fiscally responsible thing and close General Hospital and convert the facility into a out-patient clinic, Mayor Barry buckled to political pressure and reversed herself. She said she would keep its status unchanged for the remainder of this year and come up with a recommendation for the future of the hospital at the end of the year. 

Now, Mayor Barry is proposing an additional emergency appropriation of $13.2 million dollars for the facility.  This is not unexpected.  General asked for $19.7 million. The facility constantly needs an infusion of cash to operate.  If General does not get the money it cannot meet payroll.

General Hospital has long been a money pit. In the last two years the Hospital has received $26 million in emergency funding in addition to a $35 million annual subsidy from the Metro Council.  As reported in The Tennessean recently, a recent audit found that the hospital, "failed at basic bookkeeping, unable to keep track of patient payments and major expenses."

While poor management is obviously a problem, the real problem with Nashville General is that  no one wants to go there.  Metro jail inmates without insurance needing hospitalization have no choice and are sent to General and there is a financial incentive for Metro employees to use General but it still cannot fill its beds. The facility is  licensed for 150 beds, staffed for 114 and has an average of 44 beds filled a day. Metro General should have been closed fifty years ago.  Ever since the advent of Medicaid there has been no need for a city charity hospital and the reason it has been kept open is purely political. There is no federal or state law or metro charter provision requiring the city to operate a charity hospital.

Unlike past emergency appropriations to prop up General, this time the additional funding will hurt. Not much, but anytime a politician takes money away from a program it hurts.  In speaking of cuts, we are not speaking of a cut the way Washington speaks of a cut.  We are not simply talking about a reduction in the rate of growth but real cuts.

The reason other programs must be cut to fund General is because the city's saving account is running low; we are running out of money.  The city needs to maintain an amount equal to 5% of the budget in a reserve fund. That is simply sound financial management in case the city should face an emergency or in case revenue comes in at a rate less than expected.  Not only is keeping 5% in reserve a wise policy but if we do not, it will effect our bond rating and every dollar the city borrows will cost more. In the past when General needed more money we simply dipped into the reserve fund. This time, the city can dip into reserves for most of the money but must find $2.4 million elsewhere.

The city can find the $2.4 elsewhere without the public feeling the cut. No libraries or parks will close or police or fire protection will not be touched. Cuts will come from various incentive programs and other services and will hardly be noticed. Among the cuts will be $1.55 from the Housing Incentive Pilot Program and $350,000 from the storm water contingency fund and various other modest cuts.  So, we are cutting those programs no one cares about, such as affordable housing and flood control.

Top Stories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Top Stories

"Teacher vs. Unions: One Woman's Courageous Fight to Free Her Profession" with Rebecca Friedrichs

 

From Hannah Cox of the Bastiat Society:

 

Dear Rod,

We're kicking off the 2018 year with a Bastiat Society event featuring Rebecca Friedrichs. Friedrichs is a former teacher who took her battle against forced unionization all the way up to the supreme court. You won't want to miss our kick-off event!

Events are free and open to the public, but we do ask that you register so we can provide adequate food and beverages for all of our guests. 

6:00 pm Happy Hour

6:30 pm Speaker

7:00 pm Q&A

The Bastiat Society of Nashville is a project of the Beacon Center of Tennessee in association with the Bastiat Society and AIER.

Rebecca Friedrichs, a twenty-eight year veteran elementary school teacher, is the face of a national

Rebecca Friedrichs

movement by teachers and other public employees to end forced unionism.

The Friedrichs case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on January 11, 2016 and sought to bring "right to work" civil rights to all public employees in America.

The Court was poised to rule 5-4 for Rebecca and all public employees who want to be free from forced speech. But Justice Scalia died a month after oral arguments leaving our country stunned, and resulting in a 4-4 tied decision for the Friedrichs case.

Rebecca is currently building a national movement to restore proper authority to parents and teachers in our schools and to give voice to those abused by unions. Her network is supporting Mark Janus in his US Supreme Court case, Janus v AFSCME, which will be heard February 26, 2018, and also seeks to free workers from forced unionism.

Rebecca's editorials have been published around the country. She's the host of a successful Prager University video on the real reasons teachers unions attack school choice.

She's appeared on numerous radio, and television news outlets including CBS News, NBC, FOX News, FOX Business Network, and NPR.

Rebecca is happily married to Charles Friedrichs, Director of the School of Music and Dance at San Diego State University. She and Charles have two grown sons, Kyle and Ben.

When: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 from 6:00 PM to 7:30 PM CST

Where: ADS Security, 3001 Armory Dr #100, Nashville, TN 37204

Register Now!

Top Stories

Keep up with what is happening in the Tennessee General Assembly

Tennessee General Assembly information, click HERE. For information on State Senators, including phone numbers and email addresses, click HERE; for House members, click HERE. For information on legislation, click HERE.
Don't forget that you can now watch the Senate committee meetings and floor sessions online by going HERE; House committee meetings and floor sessions online HERE.
Phone calls can go to the legislative Switchboard at 615-741-3011 or to the Toll Free number 1-800-449-8366+1 last four digits of office phone number (available online).

The above handy list was compiled by Tennessee Eagle Forum. Rod Williams

Top Stories

Bill to create a citizen's Police Oversight Commission withdrawn

Bill BL2017-951  on Second Reading Tuesday night would establish a Community Oversight Board is withdrawn.

Top Stories

Bill trampling property rights and stopping affordable housing deferred to July

by Rod Williams - Bill BL2016-219  the bill that tramples a person's property rights, partially taking property without compensation, and kills an affordable housing development is deferred until July 2018. The bill was on third and final reading Tuesday night and is a bill disapproved by the Planning Commission which means when it is finally acted upon it will take 28 votes of the Council to pass.  This bill has been in the works for a very long time, being introduced in April 2016.   
Unlike most zone changes which allow someone to do something with their property they were previously not allowed to do; this bill is a "down zoning," taking away a right someone now enjoys.  The owner is already vested in the project having designed the development and arranged financing.  I am pleased this was deferred but it is unfair to keep this hanging over the head of the owner.  Doing so should be illegal in my view.  While I do not know anything about the project other than what has been reported by other media and what is public record, I would assume that the fact that the down zoning is pending affects financing.  A delay is a also a major cost in a project like this.  

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

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

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

Top Stories

Council passes Mayor Barry's Tax for Tracks plan, keeps lower cost figure in referendum

Nashville council votes to keep lower cost-figure in transit referendum

The Tennessean - The Nashville Metro Council voted 30-6 Tuesday to advance Mayor Megan Barry's proposed transit referendum, bringing the measure just one more council reading away from getting cleared for the May 1 ballot.  In doing so, the council elected to keep the mayor's proposed $5.4 billion cost-figure in the referendum language, shooting down an amendment to rewrite it as $8.95 billion.

Top Stories

The Council approves phase-out of non-owner occupied short term rental in residential neighborhoods

Nashville council approves Airbnb phase-out bill for residential neighborhoods

The Tennessean -... the council voted 25-5, with seven abstentions, to phase out short-term rentals that aren't occupied by their owners from residential-zoned neighborhoods.

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

(update) First televised statewide gubernatorial forum of the 2018 election is tonight 1/23/18 at Belmont U. Free tickets still available.

Tickets are still available for the first televised, statewide gubernatorial forum of the 2018 election, which will be held on Belmont University’s campus in the Curb Event Center on Jan. 23. Belmont , the State Collaborative on Reforming Education (SCORE), the USA TODAY NETWORK – Tennessee and NewsChannel 5 are partnering to host the forum.

General admission tickets for the public to attend the forum are available here, and tickets for Belmont students, faculty and staff are available here.

The forum, which will air from 7-8 p.m. CT, will focus exclusively on education. All seven top-tier Republican and Democratic candidates are expected to attend.

#

For a better understanding of the education issues facing the next governor, you may want to read this article from The Tennessean: Money, testing and attracting teachers: 3 big questions for Tennessee's next governor. 

Top Stories

Ten's of thousands march in Washington, Trump addresses the rally and declares Monday “National Sanctity of Life Day.”

Tens of thousands of people marched in Washington D.C. on Friday in favor of the right to life. If you only get your news from a mainstream news source you might have missed it.  One way the liberal media distorts the news is by deciding what is newsworthy.  Causes they support get headlines and front page treatment and causes they do not support go unreported or are reported but hidden.

Friday marked the 45th annual March For Life, which occurs each year on or near the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that nationalized legal abortion making it legal in all fifty states.  This year President Donald Trump gave a history-making address by speaking to the crowd gathered on the National Mall by live video from the Rose Garden. In previous past years President Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush addressed the rally by phone call.

At the rally, Trump praised those attending and listed his accomplishments focusing on those that advance the cause of life, pledged to continue to advance the pro-life cause and declared Monday January 23rd as “National Sanctity of Life Day.” He pointed out that the United States was only one of seven countries in a group that includes China and North Korea that allows selective late term abortions. He endorsed the pending "pain-capable bill" which has passed the House but his held up in the Senate.  It would ban abortion for fetuses capable of feeling pain which is at about the twenty-first week of pregnancy. “Today, we focus our attention on the love and protection each person, born and unborn, deserves regardless of disability, gender, appearance, or ethnicity,” he said. 

Donald Trump has done more than any other president to advance the pro-life cause.  He put Neil Gorsuch who is a staunch conservative on the bench, he reinstated a policy called the Mexico City policy that prohibits foreign organizations that receive U.S. funds from providing or recommending abortions, he signed legislation allowing states to deny federal funds to organizations such as Planned Parenthood that provide abortions, and he has created a new office in the Department of Health and Human Services devoted to protecting health-care workers who object to participating in abortion procedures.

I have been very pleased with Trump's pro-life policies. I admit I was skeptical of  candidate Trump's pro-life stance. I thought Trump was an opportunist without values and whose pro-life conversion was politically motivated.  In 1999, he told Meet the Press he was “very pro-choice” and even supported partial-birth abortion. I am pleased to say I was wrong about Trump. His conversion appears genuine and is commitment is solid.

To see Vice President Spence's introduction of the president and President Trump's remarks watch the video; the mainstream press does not consider this newsworthy.

Top Stories