Over 1,500 Economists Agree: Trump's Tariffs Are Terrible

Trade and Tariffs Declaration

A Statement on the Principles of American Prosperity

America’s prosperity is today, as it has always been, rooted in principles of entrepreneurship and voluntary economic exchange. For 250 years, the United States of America has demonstrated to the world that a people left free to innovate and produce for themselves, and for all who trade with them, will enjoy increasing abundance, higher standards of living, and greater security both economically and militarily.

Since taking office in 2025, the Trump Administration has adopted steep protective tariffs by unilateral executive decrees. These measures have injected uncertainty and chaos into the global economy through wildly fluctuating rates and ever-changing orders. Cumulatively, they impose the largest tax increase on trade in almost a century. The proponents of tariffs portray these measures as acts of ‘economic liberation.’ Instead, tariffs invert the principles of liberty that ushered in an American-led age of human freedom and prosperity.

America’s Founding Fathers rejected the bestowing of political favors and the imposition of Mercantilism. In his instructions to Virginia delegates to the Continental Congress in 1774, Thomas Jefferson urged them to stand for the American colonists’ right to “the exercise of a free trade with all parts of the world.” Two years later, the Declaration of Independence enumerated the causes that impelled those colonies to revolution, among them a protest against King George III “For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world.”

Today, we face a series of executive actions based upon assertions that:

• Misconstrue our nation’s history
• Misunderstand our nation’s current economic condition
• Misdiagnose the nature of our nation’s economic ills
• Repudiate long-standing and widely accepted economic first principles

We, the undersigned, find it necessary to offer the following corrective observations on the foundations of American prosperity, which is built upon principles of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations.”

Overwhelming economic evidence shows that freedom to trade is associated with higher per-capita incomes, faster rates of economic growth, and enhanced economic efficiency.

The American economy is a global economy that uses nearly two thirds of its imports as inputs for domestic production.

The current administration’s tariffs are motivated by a mistaken understanding of the economic conditions faced by ordinary Americans. We anticipate that American workers will incur the brunt of these misguided policies in the form of increased prices and the risk of a self-inflicted recession.

Contrary to widespread fears, U.S. trade deficits are not evidence of U.S. economic decline or of unfair trade practices abroad. Nor do these “deficits” inflict damage on the U.S. economy. Quite the opposite is true. U.S. trade deficits reflect global investors’ high confidence in the U.S. economy. And these investments, in turn, further strengthen the productive economy — and demand for the U.S. dollar.

The “reciprocal” tariff rates being threatened and imposed by the United States upon other countries are calculated using an erroneous and improvised formula with no basis in economic reality. The calculations deviate from established methods for calculating reciprocal tariffs, as specified in Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

The administration’s protectionist policies repeat the catastrophic errors of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, which was opposed by 1,028 economists. These scholars understood that protectionist tariffs would provoke a retaliatory trade war, thereby exacerbating the very same Great Depression that it was intended to solve. Rates resembling Smoot-Hawley are being imposed upon a significantly more integrated global economy, risking a similarly devastating outcome for ordinary Americans.

The “Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” was constitutionally reserved to Congress as the direct and explicit representatives of the people. The April 2 tariffs have been imposed without that body’s consent, and without any intelligible guiding principle. Instead the judgment and rightful power reserved to Congress, and so to the people, has been replaced by unilateral executive decrees, justified by improvised claims of emergency under a statute that does not even contemplate authorizing tariffs. This seizure of power is unconstitutional.

The window to reverse these incoherent and damaging policies is closing. We remain hopeful, however, that sound economic principles, empirical evidence, and the warnings of history will prevail over the protectionist mythologies of the moment.

As economists and scholars in related fields, we invite the American public, and indeed the world, to join us in rejecting this misguided path of tariff-induced harm. Instead, we reiterate a commitment to the foundational principles articulated by George Washington in his Farewell Address:

“Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing.”

On April 18, 2025, this statement was issued by:

Vernon Smith: Nobel laureate in Economic Sciences (2002), in recognition of his pioneering work in the field of experimental economics. George L. Argyros Endowed Chair in Finance and Economics at Chapman University. PhD in Economics from Harvard University

James Heckman: Nobel laureate in Economic Sciences (2000), in recognition of his research of econometric techniques, early human capital formation, and public policy impacts. Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. PhD in Economics from Princeton University.

Phil Gramm: Former U.S. Senator from Texas, economist, and author. Played a pivotal role in shaping U.S. economic policy, including the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. An advocate of fiscal responsibility and deregulation. PhD in Economics from University of Georgia.

Richard Vedder: Distinguished Professor of Economics Emeritus at Ohio University. Served as a Senior Economist on the Joint Economic Committee of Congress. Researches higher education and unemployment. PhD in Economics from the University of Illinois.

Robert Higgs: Former Professor of Economics at University of Washington, and retired Senior Fellow in Political Economy at the Independent Institute. Founding editor of the Independent Review. Researches government growth and GDP accounting. PhD in Economics from Johns Hopkins University.

Benjamin Powell: Professor of Economics in the Rawls College of Business, Executive Director of the Free Market Institute at Texas Tech University, and Senior Fellow with the Independent Institute. Researches immigration and poverty. PhD in Economics from George Mason University.

William F. Shughart II: Professor of Economics at Utah State University, former editor-in-chief of Public Choice, and former president of the Public Choice Society and Southern Economics Association. Researches antitrust and the economics of government. PhD in Economics from Texas A&M University.

David R. Henderson: Professor of Economics Emeritus at Naval Postgraduate School, recipient of the Rear Admiral John Jay Schieffelin Award, and Senior Economist for the Council of Economic Advisors during the Reagan administration. PhD in Economics from UCLA.

Randall G. Holcombe: Professor of Economics at Florida State University, Senior Fellow at the James Madison Institute, and former member of the Council of Economic Advisors for Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Researches the Economics of government. PhD in Economics from Virginia Polytechnic.

Phillip W. Magness: Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and the David J. Theroux Chair in Political Economy. Researches the economic history of the United States, focusing on taxation, trade, and economic inequality. PhD in Public Policy from George Mason University.

Donald J. Boudreaux: Professor of Economics at George Mason University. Former President of the Foundation for Economic Education. Researches of international trade, antitrust, law and economics, public choice. PhD in Economics from Auburn University and JD from the University of Virginia.

Mario J. Rizzo: Professor of Economics at New York University. Director of the Foundations of the Market Economy Program. Researches law and economics, ethics and economics, and Austrian Economics. PhD in Economics from the University of Chicago.

Peter J. Boettke: Distinguished University Professor of Economics and Philosophy at George Mason University, Director of the F. A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. Researches Austrian economics, institutional economics, and Soviet economic history. PhD in Economics from George Mason University.

Deirdre N. McCloskey: Distinguished Professor Emerita of Economics and History at University of Illinois-Chicago. Senior Fellow and Isaiah Berlin Chair in Liberal Thought at the Cato Institute. Researches economic history, economic theory, and statistics. PhD in Economics from Harvard University.

Lawrence White: Professor of Economics at George Mason University. Co-editor of Econ Journal Watch and a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Hayek Program. Researches theory and history of banking and money. PhD in Economics from UCLA.

N. Gregory Mankiw: Robert M. Beren Professor of Economics at Harvard University. Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2003-2005 and former adviser to the Congressional Budget Office and the Federal Reserve. Researches monetary and fiscal policy and economic growth. PhD in Economics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Kenneth Elzinga: Robert C. Taylor Professor of Economics at the University of Virginia. Researches antitrust and has provided expert testimony for several antitrust cases. PhD in Economics from Michigan State University.

Robert Whaples: Professor of Economics at Wake Forest University. Recipient of the Allan Nevins Prize. Editor of the Independent Review. Researches American Economic History. PhD in Economics from University of Pennsylvania.

Michael Munger: Professor of Political Science, Public Policy, and Economics at Duke University. Former staff economist at the Federal Trade Commission for the Reagan Administration. Researches markets, regulation, and government institutions. PhD in Economics from Washington University in St. Louis.

Claudia Williamson Kramer: Professor of Economics at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Director of the Center for Economic Education. Researches the intersection of applied economic development and political economy. PhD in Economics from West Virginia University.

Robert Lawson: Fullinwider: Chair in Economic Freedom at Southern Methodist University. Director of the Bridwell Institute for Economic Freedom and Senior Fellow at the Fraser Institute. Founding co-author of the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World annual report. PhD in Economics from Florida State University.

Sam Peltzman: Professor of Economics Emeritus at the University of Chicago. Director emeritus of the George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State at the University of Chicago. PhD in Economics from University of Chicago.

Lee James Alston: Professor Emeritus of Economics and Law at Indiana University Bloomington. Research associate at the National Bureau for Economic Research and former president of the International Society for the New Institutional Economics. Researches institutions, beliefs and contracts. PhD in Economics from University of Washington.

Steve H. Hanke: Professor of Applied Economics at Johns Hopkins University, Senior Economist on President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers and Senior Adviser to the Joint Economic Committee (1984-1988). PhD in Economics from University of Colorado Boulder.

Robert F. Engle: Nobel laureate in Economic Sciences (2003),  in recognition of his research on autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Professor Emeritus of Finance at NYU Stern School of Business and Co-Founding President of the Society for Financial Econometrics. PhD in Economics from Cornell University.

Rod's Comment: 

For a list of the co-signers consisting of respected economists, renowned policy experts, and influential business leaders, follow this link. The public is invited to sign the declaration and may do so at this link. 

The list of economists signing this declaration is impressive, including many Noble prize-winning economists and advisors to presidents, members of prestigious foundations and professors at elite universities. 

The virtue of free trade has been an accepted fact among enlightened people since first enunciated by Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations in 1776. While there have been advocates of mercantilism and protectionism since that time, for the most part enlighten opinion understood the value of free trade. While the Democrat Party, beholden to labor unions, always had a faction advocating protectionism, for the most part, at least since World War II, there has been a bipartisan acceptance of the wisdom of free trade, and both American political parties have moved to advance it.  I would like to hope that in just 90 days that decades old acceptance of the wisdom of free trade did not just evaporate. 

I still think there are some open-minded people, some who even voted for Trump, who will see such a list as the above and think these distinguished economists may know more about economics than Donald Trump, Fox News TV host, and their Facebook friends. 

Many MAGA folks however are a lost cause. An element of populism is distrust of experts and a belief that an uninformed opinion is as valuable as an informed opinion. Among some, there is almost a pride in ignorance and a view that whatever policy advocated by Donald Trump must be the correct view. It is a faith. As we see the results of Trump Tariffs, I hope that some will begin to lose their faith. 

Top Stories

CM Jenny Welsch's Radical Rezoning of Woodbine Faces a Tougher Path After Planning Commission Disapproval

CM Jenny Welsch

by Austin Hornbostel Austin, The Tennessean, April 27, 2025- A significant rezoning proposal for southeast Nashville’s Glencliff, Woodbine and Radnor neighborhoods now faces a tougher path to approval.

Metro Council Member Ginny Welsch, who represents the neighborhoods in District 16, recently proposed a blanket rezoning that would have seen hundreds of acres worth of properties reclassified from single-family zoning to higher-density categories allowing for up to 20 or 40 units per acre.

The proposal was on the Metro Planning Commission’s agenda on April 24, when Planning Department staff recommended against approving the plan as submitted and instead suggested a scaled-back plan affecting fewer properties. But instead of either of those two options, the Planning Commission chose a third route: rejecting both Welsch’s plan and the substitute from planning staff.

With a recommendation for disapproval, the proposal now needs a higher number of votes to move forward in the Metro Nashville Council. Instead of a simple majority, it will need 27 votes in favor.

... Welsch, for her part, appears poised to continue to push for her version of the proposal.  

... 263 people submitted public comments ahead of the meeting in opposition to the rezoning plan, (read more)

Top Stories

 

Top Stories

Prices of Domestic Goods Increase When Tariffs are Imposed on Imported Goods.

 by Rod Williams, April 25, 2025- The meme to the right has appeared numerous times on my Facebook page. Unfortunately, it is not true.

When President Trump first announced massive tariffs, many of his followers believed that tariffs were paid for by the exporting country or the exporting company. Of course, that is not true. I think many people must have become informed and realized that a tariff is a tax paid by the importer of goods and usually passed on to the consumer. A tariff becomes a cost of doing business for the importer just like rent, wages, or utilities. 

Now the argument is being made that if one does not buy imported goods, one is not impacted by tariffs. That also is not true. For those not schooled in economics, it would seem reasonable to believe that if you only bought goods made in America, then tariffs would not impact you. A moments reflection should cause one to reconsider that, however. Simply consider wages. A Vietnamese worker in a Niki shoe factory makes between $150 and $250 a month. If those Niki shoes were made in America, the lowest paid workers would earn about $2600 a month. So, if shoe manufacturing did return to America, you would pay more for those shoes.

Of course, one could simply not buy any more athletic shoes. Still, if you bought things only currently made in America, the price of those items would also increase. If you stop drinking French wine and instead drink only California wine, you can still expect to pay more for wine. 

The following from the Foundation for Economic Education explains in more detail why domestic prices rise with tariffs. 

Why Do Domestic Prices Rise with Tariffs?

by Alex Tabarrok, Foundation for Economic Education, April 16, 2025 -Many people think they understand why domestic prices rise with tariffs—domestic producers take advantage of reduced competition to jack up prices and increase their profits. The explanation seems cynical and sophisticated, and it’s not entirely wrong, but it misses deeper truths. Moreover, this “explanation” makes people think that an appropriate response to domestic firms raising prices is price controls and threats, which would make things worse. In fact, tariffs will increase domestic prices even in perfectly competitive industries. Let’s see why.

Suppose we tax imports of French and Italian wine. As a result, demand for California wine rises, and producers in Napa and Sonoma expand production to meet it. Here’s the key point: expanding production without increasing costs is difficult, especially so for any big expansion in normal times.

To produce more, wine producers in Napa and Sonoma need more land. But the most productive, cost-effective land is already in use. Expansion forces producers onto less suitable land—land that’s either less productive for wine or more valuable for other purposes. Wine production competes with the production of olive oil, dairy and artisanal cheeses, heirloom vegetables, livestock, housing, tourism, and even geothermal energy (in Sonoma). Thus, as wine production expands, costs increase because opportunity costs increase. As wine production expands, the price we pay is less production of other goods and services.

Thus, the fundamental reason domestic prices rise with tariffs is that expanding production must displace other high-value uses. The higher money cost reflects the opportunity cost—the value of the goods society forgoes, like olive oil and cheese, to produce more wine.

And the fundamental reason why trade is beneficial is that foreign producers are willing to send us wine in exchange for fewer resources than we would need to produce the wine ourselves. Put differently, we have two options: produce more wine domestically by diverting resources from olive oil and cheese, or produce more olive oil and cheese and trade some of it for foreign wine. The latter makes us wealthier when foreign producers have lower costs.

Tariffs reverse this logic. By pushing wine production back home, they force us to use more costly resources—to sacrifice more olive oil and cheese than necessary—to get the same wine. The result is a net loss of wealth.

Note that tariffs do not increase domestic production; they shift domestic production from one industry to another.

Here’s the diagram, taken from Modern Principles, using sugar as the example. Without the tariff, we could buy sugar at the world price of 9 cents per pound. The tariff pushes domestic production up to 20 billion pounds.

As the domestic sugar industry expands, it pulls in resources from other industries. The value of those resources exceeds what we would have paid foreign producers. That excess cost is represented by the yellow area labeled wasted resources—the value of goods and services we gave up by redirecting resources to domestic sugar production instead of using them to produce other goods and services where we have a comparative advantage.

All of this, of course, is explained in Modern Principles (which I co-wrote with Tyler Cowen), the best textbook for principles of economics. Needed now more than ever.

Top Stories

Planning Commission Disapproves CM Jenny Welsch's Radical Rezoning of 600 Acres in Woodbine

by Rod Williams, April 25- I attended the Planning Commission meeting last night where Council Member Jenny Welsch's proposal to rezone over 600 acres in her district was acted upon. The proposal would have allowed up to 40 units of housing per acre on much of the property and up to 20 units for the rest. The meeting lasted over four hours and most of the meeting was devoted to the Welsch proposal. 

The Planning Commitee staff made a presentation explaining the proposal as originally proposed by Welsch and a substitute developed by the Planning Committee staff. The staff recommendation was to disapprove as originally proposed but to approve the substitute, which was still extreme but not as extreme. After a staff presentation and the public hearing, the Commission voted against both the original proposal and the substitute. Only one member of the Commission voted in favor.

With a Commission recommendation, the bill to rezone the property could have passed the Metro Council with a simple majority of the Council, 21 votes. With a negative recommendation, it takes a two-thirds vote to pass the Council, 27 votes. Members of the public opposed to this radical rezoning need to continue to oppose it and attend the Metro Council public hearing and not just assume victory has been achieved, but last night makes ultimate victory more likely. 

Below is a more detailed report from Waylon McInturff originally posted on the 16th District Nashville Facebook Page.

I want to personally thank everyone who came out and spoke for our neighborhood at the Planning Commissioners meeting last night.  I was sincerely moved by the amount of neighborhood pride exhibited and the commissioners' reactions to our concerns.  When we show up and get involved, we can make a difference.  

There were two plans put forward - the original plan proposed by our councilwoman and a substitute plan suggested by the planning commission staff.  The commissioners voted to DISAPPROVE both the original plan AND the substitute plan, almost unanimously.  The main reason being that our community was not involved in the process of creating these plans that will drastically alter the character of our neighborhood.  

The commissioners discussed how the process for a blanket rezoning of a neighborhood is normally initiated and led by Planning, not the city council, and should involve a large amount of community engagement and a thoughtful and intentional community plan that is developed over a longer period of time.  The commissioners also acknowledged that any large-scale effort to redevelop neighborhoods should include plans for redeveloping the main corridors (Nolensville Rd & Thompson Ln).  The Vice Chair Jessica Farr stated that she would not be comfortable approving any plan to redevelop our neighborhood that did not include plans to redevelop and improve Nolensville Rd.  Chairman Greg Adkins also stated that redevelopment should begin in and along the main corridors before extending into the neighborhoods.  THANK YOU!

This is just the beginning though… The Planning Commission’s decision to disapprove the rezoning bill does not kill the bill.  It will still go before the Metro Council for a vote on May 6.  Because the Planning Commission voted to disapprove the bill, the Council needs more votes to pass it than they would if the commission had approved the bill.  Specifically, they need 27 votes to pass it.  The council has 40 members, so they need 27/40 votes to pass the bill and rezone our neighborhood.  I do believe this needs media coverage to put pressure on the council members to not pass this bill.  

If we succeed in preventing this bill from passing now, it does not mean that changes are not coming to our neighborhood over the next 1-2 years.  It will just allow us as a community to have a say in how our community evolves.  No one knows these neighborhoods better than we do.  We know what makes our community special, why we love it, the aspects that make it great as well as those that need to be improved upon.  We ARE the 16th District, and our voices should not only be included, but they should speak the loudest and weigh the heaviest when it comes to how our neighborhood evolves to accommodate current and future generations.  

As I write this, I can see my neighbor, Mrs. Murphy, who is 89 years old working out in her yard.  She has lived in her house here since the 50’s.  She has maintained it, loved it, and preserved not only her house, but also her yard for a future generation.  Seeing her work out in her yard reminds me of something my grandmother used to tell me: “Be a good steward”  We are not just here to use, extract, and take what we can from life for our benefit.  We are also here to maintain, love, and preserve what has been given to us for future generations.  It is in this spirit that I intend to contribute my voice and energy into the efforts to evolve our neighborhood.  

I am excited about the possibilities of what our community can become if we work together.  We need thoughtful planning, engaged discussions, the exchange of ideas, and a COHESIVE community-driven vision, so that when future generations walk down these streets, they’ll think “Wow, these people really care.”  We should strive to leave our community in a better condition than we found it.  I believe we can, and I invite everyone to share in my vision of a positive, beautiful, functional, and thoughtfully designed 16th District that is better for all.  Thank you and God bless you!

Top Stories

 

Top Stories

CM Thom Druffel Weighs in on CM Jenny Welsch's Proposal for Massive Woodbine Rezoning

 

Top Stories

Congressman Andy Ogles faces FEC complaint over numerous discrepancies in campaign reports

 By: Phil Williams, WTVF, April 23, -  U.S. Rep. Andy Ogles faces yet another official complaint that accuses him of engaging in an "overarching effort" to hide how he raised and spent money for his two campaigns for Congress.

That latest complaint — filed with the Federal Election Commission by the non-partisan Campaign Legal Center in Washington, D.C. — focuses on the Maury County Republican’s false claims to have personally loaned $320,000 to his campaign in 2022, as well as numerous other discrepancies recently uncovered by NewsChannel 5 Investigates. 

.... The CLC complaint argues that, "particularly in light of the apparent, imminent ending of a criminal investigation of Ogles and his campaign — which appears to reflect a new policy of dropping corruption-related cases — it is essential that the Commission enforce the law and vindicate these core transparency principles."

... The final report from the Office of Congressional Ethics, released by the House Ethics Committee in January, concludes that Ogles "may have intentionally misrepresented the amount of money he loaned to his campaign" in order to create "the appearance that his campaign had more money than it did."

... In addition, the FEC complaint just filed by the Campaign Legal Center notes NewsChannel 5's recent reporting about thousands of dollars in questionable spending by Ogles' campaign with vendors who are not in the business of providing the services that Ogles claimed his campaign received. As NewsChannel 5 Investigates revealed, in some cases, there is no evidence that the companies actually exist. (read it all)

Top Stories

District 16 Residents Blindsided by Massive Rezoning Plan

Dear Nashvillians,

My father, our dear Disgruntled Republican, has offered up his platform to help spread the word about some news affecting the Nashville neighborhood I call home. My district Council Member, Ginny Welsch, has filed a massive district-wide rezoning plan and design overlay affecting over 600 acres, which invites and encourages developers to reshape the historic residential sectors of the neighborhood. This plan was developed with no community input, leaving residents to scramble to make sense of it all, with only a matter of weeks before the city council votes on May 6.  

If you call District 16 home, please help by spreading the word to your neighbors. And help by sharing your voice by showing up at the Planning Commission’s meeting on Thursday, April 24 and then again at the City Council meeting on May 6. 

If you don’t call District 16 home but are alarmed by this closed-door, high-density blanket zoning approach, please reach out to your district council member, express your concern, and ask them to vote NO on May 6. What’s happening in the 16th may be a trial for many other districts throughout the city. 

While increasing urban density is of paramount importance for our city, this is not the way to go about it. 

Please see my letter below, submitted to the Planning Commission, which summarizes just a few of my concerns about the scope and approach of Welsch’s proposals. 

With thanks,

Rachel Williams

Dear Planning Commission,

I'm writing to share my thoughts and concerns and submit some questions about a proposal that is currently taking place for my neighborhood in the 16th District: Rezoning: #2025Z-036PR-001/Overlay:#2025UD-001-00.

I was first made aware of these potential changes a little over a week ago when I saw the red signs placed along the roadways throughout the neighborhood. I did an online search to learn more. To be honest, I was shocked that what I was reading was about to be on the Council Members' voting table. I wasn't even sure if I was understanding the information correctly, as I was confused at how such a massive change could go without any community outreach or input. A few days after the signs appeared, on Sunday, April 13, our Glencliff Neighborhood Group called a meeting, which I was able to attend, that shared more facts and offered more clarity.

I would like to voice my strong opposition at what is being proposed. I cannot support this massive rezoning effort and design overlay. Please let me be clear that I understand the need for increased density within the city of Nashville, but I do not think that the approach proposed here is the right answer. This measure is TOO MUCH, TOO FAST for District 16.

I consider myself a somewhat educated and engaged citizen. I vote in local elections. I read the local news. I'm on the email list for my district council person's newsletter. And so on. But this proposal was a complete shock to me. After talking to many of my neighbors, I know that many (actually everyone I've spoken to) are completely shocked by this news and unaware that any such plans had been in place too. Many weren't even clear that the zoning notice signs were for the entire neighborhood, initially thinking that they were only for the properties where the signs appear (some of which, by the way have been removed by property owners). Any attempt that Council Member Welsch has made to education or solicit feedback from community members of her district has been paltry, at best. 

From what I understand, Council Member Welsch's first community meeting about this was held last week, on Thursday April 17 at the Coleman Rec Center at 6pm, which I attended. (She admitted then that she'd hoped to hold a meeting at an earlier date but that she "got sick.") At last week's meeting, it was a packed house with people spilling out the doors, with over 200 community members in attendance. I cannot help but wonder if even more would have hoped to be there but were turned away due to lack of parking; I arrived to the parking lot at 5 minutes before 6:00, and the Rec lot was completely full. I had to park elsewhere and walk in. I think this is worth noting. As clearly there is great interest and concern about what is happening. 

That meeting demonstrated there has been no due process. In hearing Welsch's presentation she often cited the idea of your Planning Commission's NashvilleNext plan. I have looked through that plan and fear she has grossly misrepresented the plan that NashvilleNext lays out. I also understand there are to be some updated recommendations released in the summer. I do not understand why Welsch is trying to, as she stated, "get ahead" of those recommendations. To be honest, I'm impressed with the hard work of the Commission with this plan, especially knowing it was produced in-house rather than hiring some consulting firm. I appreciate the amount of community input garnered in its production; the fact alone, that Welsch has NOT DONE THAT AT ALL, should be a red flag her proposal is in a great misstep from the NashvilleNext approach. This proposal should not be the "vision of one" (i.e. Welsch's) but should reflect both the broader vision of the city and the voices of community members.

Additionally, Welsch's plan does not target the major commercial corridors, the "transects," at all. There were no zoning changes made to Nolensville Road or Thompson Lane. These transects are the areas where the NashvilleNext plans say should be a primary focus as neighborhoods seek to transition to higher density, so how could they possibly be omitted? I think there is great community interest in seeing these areas rezoned to accommodate multi-use zoning. I know I would love to see more high-density apartment buildings with ground level businesses serving the community needs below. This sort of development has been successfully appearing all over the city. Why is this not also the vision, the primary approach, for the 16th district?

Despite the perplexing omission of the main corridors, I'm concerned by exactly how much of the 16th district IS included in these proposed changes. (Though interestingly Welsch's own neighborhood is omitted, despite slated civic resources being devoted to the East Thompson Lane Multimodal Project, with massive improvements slated for traffic flow, bike lanes and public transportation amenities along East Thompson, connecting to Murfreesboro Pike, another area that shows great potential for increasing the city's residential density.) These huge swaths of the district on the map slated for change are more than highlighted areas on a map! They are our neighborhoods! NashvilleNext gives great priority to these suburban neighborhoods within the city, with a thoughtful outline for policies that both "maintain" and "enhance" the growth within the neighborhood element. Welsch's proposal seems illogical to skip so many steps in the zoning options and go straight to RM-40 and RM-20. Again, it's TOO MUCH, TOO FAST. There are other ways and ways that the community is interested in seeing, such as for permitting DADUs in back yards.

Lastly, I find many issues with the urban design overlay as well. It's limited, feels rushed, uses vague terminology, and just not adequately thought through. Welsch explained it as being a safety guard against "large" apartments (though she never defined that subjective term "large"); her overlay explanation felt like a way to placate people and honestly a deceptive explanation. But to me, the UDO just brings up more questions. No parking requirements? No plan for water runoff (we already have issues with flooding here!)? No plan for civic greenspaces? Limited requirements for landscaping and no protection for existing trees? So on and so forth.

My list of questions and concerns could continue but I hope this will suffice for now and show there is broad support to pump the brakes on the project and to involve, educate the community that feels so blind-sighted at how Council Member Welsch is essentially asking our district to be the sacrificial lamb for the city's high density housing needs. This is my community and my home. I am eager for changes in this district as I see the growing needs of the city. I've been here to witness a lot of those changes. I am a born and raised Nashvillian, with very deep ties to the 16th district. My family moved into the Radnor neighnorhood in 1989 when I was six, and still owns property there. As an adult moving back to Nashville to raise my own family, I knew that this neighborhood was where I wanted to raise them. We bought our Glencliff home in 2021. I don't expect time to stand still for this neighborhood, but I know the changes being proposed not only are not fair in their lack of transparency and approach, but are not the solution. 

With thanks,

Rachel Williams

Top Stories

Wildly Inaccurate List of Canadian tariffs Circulates on Facebook and Other Social Media

by Rod Williams, April 7, 2024- As anyone who uses social media knows or should know, there is a lot of misleading and simply false information appearing on Facebook and other social media. Many people will repost things without looking into the source. One should not accept as true something one reads on Facebook or other social media without knowing the source of the information. Anyone can make up anything and post it. 

The meme to the right, I must have seen thirty or more times on my Facebook page in recent days. I asked posters of this meme to give me the source of this information and no one could provide a source. 

A Google search found a site called AFP Fact Check. This site says the information is false. Some of the items on the list are actually duty-free. It had this to say about other items on the list:

The highest supposed tariffs discussed in the posts were dairy and poultry products, which some users claimed were charged at over 200 percent. Clark explained that Canada has supply management regulations for these types of products, meaning that after an import quota has been reached for a specific exporter, they are charged a much steeper fee (archived here). These measures are allowed under USMCA.

Bruce Muirhead, a history professor at the University of Waterloo (archived here), said Canada instigates supply management quotas on particular items intending to prevent agricultural surpluses within the country's market.

"As its name suggests, they manage supply," he said.

For example, CBSA's list shows milk has an initial tariff of 7.5 percent (with exemptions again for USMCA signatories) but above a certain quantity that could rise to 241 percent for any exporter. This is still less than the 270 percent claimed in the post.

Trump has referenced the 270 percent tariff on milk for years without context, including in claims he made during his first term at the 2018 G7 summit. 

Muirhead said other products mentioned in the social media posts, such as butter, cheese, eggs and poultry, are also regulated by supply management policies. As with milk, the CBSA list shows these items are subject to higher tariffs over initial quotas.

Other research finds that another name for "supply management regulations" is "tariff-rate quota." I will assume that whoever created this meme was using the tariff rate quota. To learn more about tariff rate quota, see the Wikipedia page addressing this and one can also find it explained at other sites. 

In summary, these tariffs rates are only imposed after a certain amount of the product has been imported.  The US has never exceeded those quotas for products exported to Canada and has not even come close. Also, these import caps were agreed to by Donald Trump during the USMCA negotiation.

Top Stories

CM Ginny Welsch Proposes Radical Massive Rezoning for Woodbine Allowing 20 to 40 apartments per acre

 by Austin Hornbostel, The Tennessean, April 22, 2025- 

Key Points

• District 16 Metro Council Member Ginny Welsch is proposing an Urban Design Overlay for southeast Nashville's Glencliff, Woodbine and Radnor neighborhoods.
• The rezoning would affect hundreds of acres of properties to the north and south of Thompson Lane near Nolensville Pike, shifting zoning standards to allow for up to 40 housing units on some parcels.
• Neighbors have plenty of questions and concerns. Some are worried about adding density around an already high-traffic area, while others have felt blindsided by a rapid proposal process.

There’s a significant rezoning proposal on the table for southeast Nashville’s Glencliff, Woodbine and Radnor neighborhoods, and it’s leading to plenty of questions from residents.

Well over 100 neighbors packed the meeting room at Coleman Park Community Center just off Nolensville Pike on April 17. They were there to learn more about an Urban Design Overlay proposed by Metro Council Member Ginny Welsch, who represents the neighborhoods in District 16. (read more)

#

Rod's Comment: I generally favor a reform of Davidson County's zoning ordinance to allow greater density. However, a single district should not be massively rezoned in this manner. This is too radical of a proposal.

From WKRN, Channel 2;

‘The fabric of a neighborhood’ is up for debate in Glencliff, Woodbine as new zoning proposed

Top Stories

Former Tennessee House Speaker Glen Casada and One-time aide Cade Cothren to go on Trial this Week in Federal court.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WTVF) — More than four years after first coming under scrutiny in an FBI public corruption investigation, former Tennessee House Speaker Glen Casada and one-time aide Cade Cothren are scheduled to go on trial this week in federal court. Casada, 65, and Cothren, 38, are charged in a 20-count indictment that accuses them of engaging in a bribery and kickback scheme in conjunction with a deal to provide state-funded constituent mailing (link)

Top Stories