He said he would retire. Eight days later, Rep. Mark Green may change his mind
Top Stories
Monday, February 26, 2024
Sunday, February 25, 2024
There’s a Tucker Born Every Minute
“Tucker’s Slavic version of Supermarket Sweep is not good propaganda,” Nick wrote in Boiling Frogs. “And the news on Friday morning made it look worse.” Nick was referring to the death of dissident Alexei Navalny in a Siberian prison. Navalny was heroic in his opposition to the Putin regime, returning to Russia and certain imprisonment after surviving being poisoned in 2020 with a powerful nerve agent. Carlson did tell the Daily Mail after the Russian opposition leader’s death that “It’s horrifying what happened to Navalny.” But only days before, at an appearance in Dubai, he was asked why he didn’t press Putin on assassinations in general and Navalny specifically—and said that “leadership requires killing people.”
As Nick wrote, “Navalny’s death is the exclamation point on a week in which Carlson established himself as a chump for the ages, a man practicing propaganda at a T-ball level and somehow still whiffing on swing after swing.” Speaking of Tucker, Kevin also had some thoughts: “What Carlson was up to in Moscow wasn’t journalism—journalism is what Evan Gershkovich did, and what Tucker did was, at best, tourism. It is tempting to call him a useful idiot, but he isn’t an idiot. He knows what he is doing.”
Top Stories
Saturday, February 24, 2024
I am pro-life but get real; frozen embryos are not children.
The facts are bizarre. A patient wandered into a room at an Alabama fertility clinic where frozen embryos were being stored, grabbed a few, then dropped them onto the floor when the intense cold burned her hand, destroying them. The couples to whom those embryos belonged sued the clinic under the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. The question for the court: Were the embryos “minors” within the meaning of that statute?
The answer: Yes indeed. “Extrauterine children” are children. A provision in the Alabama Constitution makes clear that “it is the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life.” That was enough for the court to err on the side of assuming personhood in the embryos, with the chief justice going so far as to say in his concurrence that “life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God.”
Top Stories
Making America's Housing Great Again: The Trumpian Approach.
First and foremost, let's talk affordability. You see, when we increase density, we're essentially maximizing the use of available space. That means more housing options in prime locations, driving down costs and making homeownership achievable for hardworking Americans. We're talking about putting money back in your pockets, folks – now, who wouldn't want that?
But it's not just about affordability; it's also about variety. With increased density comes a diverse range of housing options – from cozy apartments to spacious townhouses. We're breaking free from the one-size-fits-all mentality and embracing the beauty of choice. After all, isn't choice what America is all about?
Now, I know some of the naysayers out there might be concerned about the impact on our communities. But fear not, because with the Trumpian touch, we'll ensure that any legislation to increase density is done responsibly and with the utmost consideration for local needs and concerns. We'll work hand in hand with communities to ensure that infrastructure keeps pace with growth and that green spaces are preserved for future generations to enjoy.
And let's not forget about the economic benefits. Increased density means more construction jobs, more businesses popping up to serve growing neighborhoods, and more revenue for local governments. It's a win-win-win situation, folks – and that's the kind of deal-making America deserves.
So, in conclusion, let's make America's housing great again by embracing legislation to increase density. It's time to unlock the potential of our communities, empower hardworking Americans, and pave the way for a brighter future. Together, we'll build a nation where every family has a place to call home – and that's a promise you can count on. Thank you, and God bless America!
#
Also see:
- The Disgruntled Republican in Nashville: Pending Countywide Zoning Legislation - NEST
- The Disgruntled Republican in Nashville: Why Conservatives Should Support Zoning Reform
Top Stories
Friday, February 23, 2024
Proposed Revision Would Strip Racing Protections from Metro Charter
By Stephen Elliott, Nashville Banner, February 23, 2024 - A group of advocates is moving closer to asking Nashville voters whether the Metro Charter should call for affordable housing, and not auto racing, at the Fairgrounds Nashville.
Kenny Byrd, a Nashville attorney and former commissioner on the fair board, and Heidi Basgall last month filed a proposed revision to the Metro Charter that would strip the document’s protections for auto racing and add language guaranteeing affordable housing on the city-owned site where the Fairgrounds Speedway has operated for decades. (read more)
Top Stories
Beacon Center files lawsuit challenging new federal gig worker rule
The new rule will begin using a six-factor test to determine independent workers' legal protections and compensation starting March 11 for gig workers.
"Tennesseans should be able to choose how they earn a living without unnecessary and unproductive government interference,” said Beacon Center Director of Legal Affairs Wen Fa. “The federal government is wrong to assume that everyone wants to be an employee. Poll after poll shows that most freelancers prefer to earn a living through freelance work. That's why we're helping Nashville-based freelancers fight back against the federal government's attempt to destroy their right to freelance."
The Center Square previously reported the six factors are any opportunity for profit or loss a worker might have; the financial stake and nature of any resources a worker has invested in the work; the degree of permanence of the work relationship; the degree of control an employer has over the person's work; whether the work the person does is essential to the employer's business; and a factor regarding the worker's skill and initiative.
Beacon argues the new rule is vague and the department did not stipulate how to weigh the new factors.
Freelance journalists Margaret Littman and Jennifer Chesak are the plaintiffs in the case. Littman has been a freelance reporter for 30 years while Chesak began her work in 2010.
“Ms. Chesak wants to remain an independent contractor because freelance work provides her with opportunity, flexibility, and control over her career,” the lawsuit states.
Rod's Comment: I hope Beacon prevails and commend the organization for taking this action.
I am close friends with a wonderful person who has a disability and could not work at all if she had to work regular hours. She works for Grubhub. Some days her condition keeps her from getting out of bed. She may only be able to work a couple hours a night, some days. Sometimes she has good days and can work longer. Sometimes she will work some every day for several days in a row and then sometimes she will go days and not work at all. She draws disability but it is insufficient to make ends meet and she wants to work when she is able. Gig work is perfect for her. I hope she is not reclassified as an employee and loses her job.
For more on this topic, see the following:
The Wall Street Journal: What Type of Worker Are You? Government Has New Test for Who Should Be on Payroll.
Reason Foundation: Federal independent contractor regulation threatens the gig economy.
Top Stories
Thursday, February 22, 2024
Pending Countywide Zoning Legislation - NEST
 |
| CM Courtney Johnson |
Hello everyone!
There has been a lot of talk, turmoil, and angst around several pieces of legislation filed by newly elected Councilmembers Quin Evans-Segall and Rollin Horton. They’re calling it “NEST”. Many of these bills seek to amend Title 16 which relates to building codes etc. Two, however, seek to amend Title 17 which is our zoning code which regulates land use in our county. These are the two that have caused the most uproar and rightly so. The full text of these two bills can be found here - BL2024-185 and BL2024-186 – and I will break them down for you. This email is long, but this subject is very important and it's critical that people understand what is happening.
First let me start with explaining the purported goal of this legislation which is to increase density for the purpose of increasing affordability and adding a variety of housing stock. I will not disagree that Nashville has an increasing affordability problem. We need to be doing more and I think there is an opportunity and need for local, state and federal agencies to work together to create programs and incentives to increase the affordable housing stock as well as make home ownership more easily attainable.
Zoning can be very complicated so I’m going to do my best to explain. It’s important to know that CURRENTLY RS zoning of any kind means single-family (one dwelling unit) and R zoning of any kind means one and two family (one or two dwelling units). To put this into perspective, there are 104,767 parcels that have RS zoning and these bills affect more than just RS. This is, in effect, an attempt at a massive rezoning throughout the county by redefining the zoning codes themselves.
BL2024-185 – Residential Scale Multi-Family Bill:
This bill adds “Residential Scale Multi-Family” which means “a single structure with two, three or four dwelling units that is situated on a single lot and designed in such a manner and scale to be compatible in neighborhoods that are predominately made up of single family and two family uses.” In regular words, this means duplexes, triplexes and/or quadplexes. This use would be added to the following zoning codes: RS and RS-A districts: RS80, RS40, RS30, RS20, RS15, RS10, RS7.5, RS7.5A, RS5, RS5A, RS3.75 and RS3.75A as well as R and R-A districts: R-80, R-40, R-30, R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8, R-8A, R-6 and R-6A.
There are some design restrictions built into the bills which amount to the following:
- They are generally restricted to 2 stories in height unless there is an adjoining parcel with a 3-story residential structure, in which case the residential scale multi-family use can also be 3 stories.
- All units must be under a single roof structure with a minimum pitch of 30 degrees unless there are non-pitched (flat) roofs on three or more residential structures on the same block face.
- There must be one or two main entrances on the front façade
- The dwelling units must share common walls – meaning all units must be within a single structure.
So what this means is basically all residential zoning districts would have the ability to have duplexes, triplexes or quadplexes depending on of the size of the parcel.
BL2024-186 – Redefining Single Family Zoning
As I stated before, RS zoning, regardless of the number beside it, means one dwelling unit. This bill would add “two-family” to the RS and RS-A zoning districts. So “one” would now mean “up to two”. This new definition in this bill would only apply to those RS and RS-A zoning districts that lie within the USD. The county is divided into USD and GSD. The GSD is generally on the outskirts of the county. All of District 26 lies within the USD and would be affected. The shaded area on the below map identifies the USD for your review. The only design restriction here is the minimum 30 degree roof pitch – unless there are three or more residential structures on the same block face with non-pitched roofs.
With both of these bills, you may be asking yourself, what’s the deal with the roof pitch restriction? In my opinion, this is a feeble and ineffective attempt to prevent, or at least have the appearance of preventing, HPR’s – better known as “tall and skinnies”. Do not be fooled. First, a flat roof is not indicative of an HPR in and of itself. We see flat roofs a lot on HPRs or “tall and skinnies”, but that’s just a common design feature. Nothing in this bill will or can prevent an HPR or “tall and skinny”. HPRs are a property scheme to allow for multiple ownership of a property (like a condo) regulated by state law – not zoning or local regulation. There is absolutely nothing we (metro) can do to prevent someone from placing an HPR on a property EXCEPT limiting the number of dwelling units allowed. So, the fact is, that the only way to prevent tall and skinnies is with SINGLE family zoning which BL2024-186 effectively eliminates.
So, now that I’ve explained what the bills would do, I hope you can see how drastic of a change this would be in our zoning code and the effects they would have on our neighborhoods and city as a whole.
Again, I don’t disagree that Nashville, along with many other large cities, is experiencing an affordability problem. No question about it. But, simply increasing supply without being able to control demand will not manipulate the market price. That’s simple economics.
We know demand is high for housing here in Nashville and we anticipate that demand to continue to grow. We have an incredibly strong economy fueled by several strong industries which is great for many reasons. But it’s also the reason that despite all the cranes we see building apartments and condo high rises (which has increased the supply), we haven’t seen a meaningful decrease in rents or home sale prices. Why? Because the demand keeps up with, and still far exceeds, supply. In the housing market, this is why we see developers purchase parcels for $300,000-500,000 (for example), knock down the one house and build two, three, sometimes four homes on the same lot with list prices for each much higher than the original purchase price. There is nothing in this legislation that limits the size or price of this new housing stock or incentivizes it. So, in reality, it won’t help make housing more affordable….just the opposite in my opinion. I especially worry about our low income and diverse neighborhoods. Those are typically already at a lower price point making those areas the most attractive for developers. Could or would those areas be targeted first leaving existing renters in those homes with even less options? With all of the gentrification and displacement we’ve seen in Nashville over the past decade especially, this is a very real concern for me.
Neither of these bills take in to account current infrastructure or its capacity.
1. First, let’s talk about water and sewer capacity. Every single time a new home or dwelling unit is built, it taps into a water supply and a sewer pipe. Those pipes have a capacity limit that decreases with every tap. At some point, it’s “tapped out” so to speak.
2. Let’s talk about electricity. We just went through a winter storm where TVA asked us all to reduce our power consumption for the purpose of avoiding rolling blackouts to allow the power grid to keep up. That’s with the existing housing stock. Think about that….
3. Let’s talk about stormwater. The sponsor herself, CM Evans-Segall, mentioned recently the concern around flooding and stormwater throughout the county. This is very real and our district and the surrounding area is painfully aware of it (think 2021 Flood). So how does building more houses on single family parcels which reduces the amount of pervious surface area (allowing water to soak in) going to help flooding and stormwater? It won’t. The more impervious surface area, like housing footprints, concrete driveways, etc. – anything that prevents water from soaking in to the ground – will create more stress on our stormwater infrastructure. At the very least, the impact of this should be analyzed.
4. Let’s talk about the tree canopy. More houses equal less trees. Period.
I could go on, especially about the increased stress on city services we must provide that are already pushed to the max, but I think you get the point. The simple truth is that our infrastructure simply cannot handle the countywide massive increase in density that these bills would allow.
What about property taxes?
While these bills to not change the tax rate, they could affect your value. Your property tax liability is calculated by the rate (which is set every year in our operating budget) multiplied by a percentage of the value the assessor’s office determines. If your value goes up, your bill goes up. While assumptions can’t be made when determining value, no one can tell you that this won’t increase your property tax bill in the future. But when you think about real life situations, it’s hard to think that a parcel that used to be limited to single family that would then be able to accommodate two family would not have more value to a developer which would increase the value.
So – What ARE we doing to address this affordability problem?
Roughly 10 years ago, after years of community input, studies, analysis, etc., we adopted what we call “NashvilleNext”. I encourage you to read about it HERE. To boil it down, it’s a guiding document created by and for Nashville that outlines policies and decisions needed to grow responsibly. A unique feature of this document is that it is “living”, meaning we can amend it (and we have and will continue to) to adjust to the dynamic nature of our growth and needs.
In addition to this guiding document, we have various technical studies currently underway, including the Multi-modal Mobility Plan, Transit Oriented Development Study, Stormwater and Land Use Study, and Unified Housing Strategy, which will provide us with critical data regarding infrastructure readiness and housing needs. Growth is inevitable, and increased density IS appropriate in many areas, but we must do it responsibly. Our planning department is top notch and is actively working with local outside agencies to figure out the best way to move forward with the management of growth in a responsible way. These efforts, again, are already underway and we expect to have those results sometime this fall. Any effort to overhaul our zoning code or make widespread change should always come from, or at least be supported and guided by our planning department who’s sole job it is to shape public policy related to growth, preservation and development with a commitment to pro-active, community-based planning founded on public participation and to the building of livable, sustainable communities. Thankfully, you are reading this and engaged. But for every one of you reading this there are hundreds or thousands that aren’t, yet they will be affected with our without their knowledge much less their consent which goes against everything they and I stand for.
This proposed legislation is not responsible, thoughtful, or departmentally collaborative and, more importantly, it won’t be effective at addressing the problem that it seeks to correct - affordability. In reality, this is nothing but a developer’s dream. In my opinion, it’s not even something that can be amended to make effective or palatable.
What if my area is ok with this increase in density?
As I said before, there are areas in the county where increased density is appropriate. There is absolutely nothing preventing a district councilmember from working with his or her neighbors within their district to determine what is appropriate, needed and supported and then changing the zoning to reflect those supported needs. Zoning matters are the right and responsibility of the district councilmember. Why? Because the folks in district elected that councilmember to represent them and they know their district better than anyone else on the council. I would never go into anyone else’s district and try to rezone a parcel much less thousands.
What’s next and what can we do?
Let’s talk about process. These bills were introduced on first reading on February 6, 2024. These are three reading ordinances. Usually, a zoning bill will pass on first reading, move to the Planning Commission where it will be either approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved. From there it comes back to the council for second and third (final) reading. If a zoning bill is disapproved by the Planning Commission, it increases the threshold of votes needed to pass from 21 to 27. The sponsor moved to defer first reading to the April 2nd council meeting. My desire was to defeat the deferral motion, force a vote, and kill both bills. The vote for the deferral motion on BL2024-185 was 20 to 18 with 1 abstention in favor of the deferral. Disappointing but close.
The vote for the deferral motion on BL2024-186 was 19-19. The tie went to Vice Mayor Angie Henderson who voted in favor of the deferral. Again, disappointing. I wasn’t interested in a deferral and I’m still not. The only reasons for deferral would be to give time to get questions answered, or to craft amendments to make it better. I don’t have any questions, and, in my opinion, these bills are not able to be amended to “make them better”. They create a multitude of serious problems and solve nothing. I’ve heard that the sponsor, CM Evans-Segall, may try to defer these bills to January 2025. Again, no. This needs to end now.
Most certainly, should these bills make it to the Planning Commission, they will be “disapproved” and I can guarantee they don’t have 27 votes to pass in the Council. So that being the case, how long must we play along, waste resources, and continue the angst that this whole county is experiencing over this? These bills need to be either voted down by the Council or withdrawn by the sponsor. Many of you have reached out to ask what you can do to stop this. You can email councilmembers@nashville.gov and ask them to vote against both of these bills, and vote against any deferral motion. And you can email the bills’ lead sponsor CM Evans-Segall at Quin.EvansSegall@nashville.gov and ask her to WITHDRAW BL2024-185 and BL2024-186. Additionally, the current co-sponsors of these bills are CMs Rollin Horton, Ginny Welsch, Jacob Kupin, Sandra Sepulveda, Emily Benedict, Terry Vo and Jeff Preptit. If you’d like to email them directly, the formula for our email addresses is firstname.lastname@nashville.gov
All my best,
Courtney
Rod's Comment: I appreciate Council Member Johnson's thoughtful analysis of these bills. I, however, am not persuaded by her arguments. I am not yet committed to being in favor of these proposed changes but am convinced that increased supply of housing will result in downward pressure on housing prices. Our current low-density development leads to urban sprawl. We can grow up and denser or we can grow out and gobble up the countryside converting rural lands and small towns into Nashville suburbs. Also, however, I understand the desire to maintain the character of one's neighborhood.
For more on this topic, please read Why Conservatives Should Support Zoning Reform.
A book that addresses in more detail the issue of zoning and how it leads to a shortage of affordable housing and urban sprawl, I suggest Arbitrary Lines.
Top Stories
Meet Demytris Savage-Short, candidate for Nashville School Board, District 1
 |
| Demytris Savage-Short |
Editor's note: The Tennessean Editorial Board invited candidates for the March 5, 2024 Metro Nashville-Davidson County primary election to fill out our questionnaire. They include biographical information and answers to seven questions on variety of topics from key policy issues to their recommendation for visitors on what to see or do in the city. Early voting goes from Feb. 14-27. Learn more at the Davidson County Election Commission.
Name: Demytris Savage-Short (continue reading)
Top Stories
NASHVILLE SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS
Board is up for election, but there’s really only one competitive race: District 1. This district makes up the northwest section of Davidson County, including Whites Creek and Joelton. Four candidates are on the ballot: three Democrats and one Republican. Since November 2021, school board elections have been partisan in Tennessee, which means the three Democrats will be battling it out in the March 5th primary.
During Tuesday’s Metro Council meeting, members discussed current District 5 school board member, Christiane Buggs, who “resigned from her position in January to take over the education nonprofit PENCIL.” Since the vacant seat won’t be filled until August’s general election, the council is responsible for finding an interim replacement as the current primary continues apace.
Let’s take a look at who’s on Super Tuesday’s ballot.
DISTRICT ONE
Dominique McCord-Cotton (D): A fourth-generation Nashvillian and seventh-grade social studies teacher at East End Prep, McCord-Cotton sees education as the great equalizer. According to her interview with the Tennessean, she is “committed to improving the current state of education by creating more community partnerships in schools, working to retain and recruit high-quality teachers, and working to advocate for additional funds for school services and programs.”
Robert Taylor (D) A current MNPS parent, this isn’t Taylor’s first rodeo. Not only has he run for this seat before, he’s previously served as a “family involvement specialist for the Whites Creek Cluster of MNPS schools,” according to the Banner. A medical field professional who previously served as the Metro Public Health Program Manager, he’s currently on the board of Smithson Craighead Academy, a charter in Madison.
LaTonya Winfrey (D) With over 20 years of teaching in MNPS schools under her belt, Winfrey hopes to prioritize both students and parents. As the mother of a son with autism, she plans to refocus attention on the needs of families who have students with special needs. Winfrey’s platform also emphasizes the importance of the proper allocation of school funding.
Demytris Savage-Short (R) A nurse at Vanderbilt Children's Hospital, Savage-Short is on a quest “to protect parental rights” and “bring back education withstanding indoctrination.” The only Republican in the race, she will face off against the Democratic primary winner in August. According to the Banner, Savage-Short “wants to make sure that Lee’s voucher program does not affect private schools or homeschooling in any way, because “any time federal funding is accepted, that entity has to abide by federal guidelines.”
DISTRICT THREE
Zach Young (D) You may remember Young from his time serving as a council member for District 5. (Continue reading)
Top Stories
Trump says he would encourage a Russian attack on a NATO Country and the people cheer.
.jpg)
“‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?’” Trump recounted saying. “‘No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.’”
The crowd cheered. I cannot help but wonder how extreme Trump could go and people still cheer. Are there not limits to positions he can take, and the cheering not stop? If he says we need to drop bombs on illegal immigrants crossing the border, would people cheer? If he says we need to round up the homeless and put them in labor camps, would the people cheer? I think they would. People will surrender to their worst instincts if they have a leader telling them that it is Ok to think like they do.
I have a low opinion of Donald Trump but I do not think he is a Hitler. He is however a demigod. I think he wants to be a dictator. Trump is in love with the cheer of the crowd and he has the crowd in the palm of his hand and they will follow him anywhere. Very few tyrants came to power without the cheer of the crowd. Looking in the rearview mirror we see how tyrants came to power and put all the blame on the tyrant. Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Castro, Peron and any number of other tyrants were popular. They came to power on the cheer of the crowd. Some were elected to office. Other were swept to power in an ecstatic wave of enthusiasm. There are tyrants who came to power by a military coup or other means, but most came to power with popular support. The cheering crowds bear much of the blame for evil things that happen in the world.
Anyone who needs to have explained why allowing Russia to invade and occupy a NATO ally country is a bad idea, would not comprehend why or be persuaded by the explanation. If Trump says it, that is all the explanation that need. Many a Trumpinista have closed their mind to being persuaded by logic. Learning facts is too complicated. People want simple answers. They want to feel. Thinking is too hard. They want to be grabbed emotionally. Nuance is just confusing.
Trump has already said he would end the war in Ukraine on day one. I can only conclude that he would immediately halt all aid to Ukraine and give Russia the green light to finish the job of destroying that country. When Trump says he would end the Ukraine war on day one or says he would encourage a Russian invasion of a NATO country, many dismiss it as Trump simply being bombastic and they say he really wouldn't do that. I believe him. Many others simply do believe him and agree with him.
Trump is not very smart. Many people who served under Trump have written books and said, Trump has only a rudimentary understanding of how government and the world works. His knowledge of history and geography and diplomacy is said to be very shallow. Trump has such an ego, that he thinks his instinct is all the information he needs to govern.
In Trump's first term he had establishment Republican as advisors who moderated his worst instincts. He would also listen to his advisors and be talked out of his most reckless instincts. He won't have those in his second term. We will have fewer people like Attorney General William Barr and Vice President Mike Pence around him and more people like Michael Flynn and Steve Bannon. We may have Marjorie Taylor Greens and Tucker Carlsons. There will be no one around Trump who knows more than he does. He will be surrounded by loyalist cheerleaders.
If Trump is elected to a second term, God help us.
Top Stories
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
