Planning Commission hearing on Inclusionary Zoning.

This is an eight-hour meeting. I don't think anyone wants to watch the full meeting. The discussion of the inclusionary zoning starts at time-stamp 36:40 and ends at 3:45:20. To summarize the comments, developers don't like it because it goes too far and advocates of affordable housing don't like because it does not go far enough. No one speaks in favor of the proposal. For access to the Planning Commission agenda and staff reports, follow this link. To see the Planning Commission staff report on the proposed inculusionary zoning text see page 5 through page 41.

At time stamp 42:50 the staff begins the explanation of the incusionary zoning  proposal and completes this explanation at 1:02:30. One thing interesting in this proposal is that the set aside affordable units must be similar in size and number of bedrooms to the non set-aside units. So if the units in a condo sale for $500,000 dollars and the bedrooms are very spacious, the units set aside as "affordable" must also be at least 80% as spacious. I have a question: If the non-set-aside units include concierge service, a gym, a spa, a pool, dog-walking service and fresh cut flowers every day, do the set-aside units also get these services and amenities?  If there is a hefty condo fee for the non-set aside units, do the set-aside units have to pay the same fee? Is that monthly condo fee included in calculating affordability?  I don't know.

Following the staff explanation, the chairman ask for those who wish to speak in favor of the proposal to come forward. No one does. No one supports the proposal. Opponents are then permitted to speak. Proponents of affordable housing express displeasure saying they want a mandatory program. I am surprised that more people did not speak. NOAH and VOICE representatives spoke but no mainstream housing advocates spoke. No one speaks in opposition from a pro-free-market position. The only developer who speaks is former Metro Councilman Roy Dale.

Following the pubic hearing, the members of the Commission discuss the proposal. There is some interesting discussion. One thing is very clear; without a large Metro subsidy this proposal will simply not work. Those unit build to be affordable for someone at 100% of area median income (AMI) would require more subsidy than those built to be affordable for someone at 80% AMI and so on. Also, this proposal would not address the very low income or the needs of the homeless. This proposal does not and cannot impose rent control, due to state legislation that prevents a city from imposing rent control. This proposal would not incentivize affordable housing in areas that already have adequate affordable housing. To get developers to seek the density or height bonuses proposed in this plan, it takes away established bonuses. This proposal is a "voluntary" inclusionary program but designed to force a developer to seek the bonuses (see time stamp 3:02:00). This is a very complex proposal and while I have a general understanding of what is proposed, I do not fully understand all of the details of the setback, parking, and height bonuses of the proposal. It would take some study to digest all of what is proposed. The proposal does nothing to preserve existing affordable housing stock nor to encourage greater housing density throughout the county. The commission votes unanimously to recommend that the Metro Council disapprove the proposed voluntary inclusionary zoning policy.

Top Stories

Planning Commission rejects "Inclusionary zoning" affordable housing plan. No one likes it.

Affordable housing plan dealt blow by planning commission

by Joey Garrison, The Tennessean, Jan. 15, 2016 - A proposed system of financial incentives designed to spur affordable housing in Nashville was dealt a blow Thursday by the Metro Planning Commission, which voted to reject the plan as they called for more community input on the issue.
After nearly four hours of debate — one that saw both affordable housing advocates and developers vent concerns with the plan — the commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Metro Council disapprove the proposed voluntary inclusionary zoning policy.

Their hope is that the council, which is set to consider the legislation next month and has ultimate say, will send the bill back to the commission, which would then initiate a public engagement process on how to solve affordable housing......

"Half of the folks are thinking we should have gone a lot further, and others think we're crazy for going down this path at all," planning commissioner Stewart Clifton said. "So, there's a certain amount of inevitability that the general public is not going to be for this." (read more)

Nashville Affordable Housing Policy Criticized, Disapproved, Likely Delayed 

By Tony Gonzalez, Nashville Public Radio,  Jan 15, 2016- Nashville’s new affordable housing proposal was dealt a blow Thursday night after three hours of criticisms from poverty advocates, developers and planning commissioners. 

In the end, the commission refused to endorse the affordability blueprint offered by planning staff. During a public hearing, no one spoke in favor of the plan.(read more)

I am among those who think we are crazy for going down this path at all. I am pleased to see the Planning commission reject this proposal.While Nashville's proposed version of inclusionary zoning is a voluntary incentive-based plan and is not a bad as mandatory plans it is still a bad plan which would most likely slow the development of new housing. 

Top Stories

Nashville planners seek delay on affordable housing proposal

by Joey Garrison, The Tennessean, Jan.12, 2016 - Metro Nashville planners have finalized a proposal for a new system of financial incentives that would seek to encourage developers to build more affordable housing in Davidson County. But they don’t want the Metro Council to vote on the measures just yet.  ....the planning department has asked the planning commission to approve... officials have recommended that the council delay consideration until Nashvillians have more time to weigh in. .... proposal hinges on perhaps as much as $10 million in recurring funds that would need to be carved out in Metro’s upcoming budget. .....Planners want more discussion on one of the key elements of the proposal: the elimination of bonuses that are offered to developers who provide public parking, pursue eco-friendly building standards and promote mixed-use development. This bonus system would be replaced by one focused on incentives for affordable housing. (read more)

For more on this topic also see,  Metro planners recommend affordable housing incentives.

Top Stories

Bill filed to nullify the Metro Nashville local hire amendment

From Senator Jack Johnson: Preview of the 2016 Legislative Session 

Local Hiring– A bill has been filed to stop local governments from enacting any charter provision, ordinance, resolution, referendum or regulation which requires a company bidding on a public construction project to employ individuals that reside within their jurisdiction. The legislation comes after the adoption of a charter amendment pushed by labor unions in Nashville that requires at least 40 percent of work hours of local companies bidding on contracts come from Davidson County workers on Metro construction projects that cost $100,000 or more. The amendment does not affect companies outside of Tennessee, which can hire as many out-of-county or out-of-state workers as they choose. The practical effect of the bill would be to nullify the Metro Nashville amendment and prevent other local governments from taking similar action in the future.

My comment: Thank God for a common sense State legislature that is stopping Nashville form becoming the San Francisco of the South. I expect this bill to pass and hopefully if Nashville should pass a proposed inclusionary zoning ordinance that the State legislature will also nullify it. 

Top Stories

Commission to review proposed inclusionary zoning policy

By Linda Bryant, Nashville Post, January 13, 2016 - Nashville’s legislation on affordable and workforce housing faces a key hurdle Thursday when the Metropolitan Planning Commission meets to consider approval of long-awaited inclusionary zoning legislation.

But even as the Metro Planning Department’s IZ proposal moves forward via a commission review, it is paradoxically in the process of slowing down.

Crosscurrents are being created by a few factors including the absence of a funding structure for as much as $10 million in recurring funds needed from Metro’s budget and misgivings about skittish developers seeking eleventh hour changes to the proposal.

Meanwhile, affordable housing advocates are signaling displeasure with the proposal and say they will let their concerns be known at tomorrow's 4 p.m. Metro Planning Commission meeting.....Bill Hostettler, principal broker with Nashville-based HND Realty LLC,  said that the UZO covers building uses beyond residential, such as retail and office. As such, he is concerned that even an incentives-based IZ policy could dissuade mixed-use development that includes residential (if the incentives for the preferred options are not as strong as those for a less-preferred option).....(read more)

This should be deferred by the Planning Commission. No one is happy with it and the Supreme Court may very well rule that this type of "taking" is unconstitutional and there is no source of funding to fund the "incentives." Also, it is doubtful it will result in very many units of affordable housing being built and it will most likely lead to an increase in the price of housing and a decrease in the availability of affordable housing; not an increase.

Advocates of a free market and private property rights should attend the Thursday 4PM  meeting of the Planning Commission and object to this proposal. The meeting will be held in the auditorium of the Howard Office Building, 700 Second Avenue South.

Top Stories

1ST TUESDAY is FRIDAY Jan 15th: ''GUNS & POLITICS" features NRA National Board Member Tim Knight and St. Sen Mark Green & Kerry Robert

From Tim Skow:

1ST TUESDAY Members &Friends ...

 IF .... you also forced yourself to watch OBAMA last night... it looked like he was dodging the ''GUNS & POLITICS'' storm he started last week. HOWEVER... Hillary is running TV ads telling everyone she is coming for gun manufactures and gun owners !! Make NO mistake, a MAJOR political fight is coming in 2016 at every level on the ballot !!

THIS FRIDAY [the 15th ] ... our ''GUNS & POLITICS" lunch event features a powerful line up that YOU WILL NOT WANT TO MISS !!

From the National Rifle Association : NRA National Board Member Tim Knight ! [ Tim started the successful fight in Colorado that recalled multiple State Senators, beat Obama & NYC Mayor Bloomberg's $$$ and helped flip the political balance in Colorado ]

From the TN State Senate :

• Kerry Roberts with a Legislative Update 
• Green about his open carry legislation 

From the Federal front : Grant Starrett, Republican primary candidate for TN-4

When it comes to talk and action about ''GUNS & POLITICS ''... we got it covered!

A SPECIAL INVITE...
We will host a complimentary "Meet & Greet" with Tim Knight starting at 10:45. Plan to come early and speak with Tim. You will love hearing about beating Obama, CO Gov Hickenlooper, Michael Bloomberg and more in Colorado. And the fight just won to control the VA State Senate.

As usual, we will meet at WALLER Law - 511 Union Street 27th floor. Lunch is $20 for those who have taken care of their 2016 annual dues and $25 for those who have yet to do so. Secure your seats [and dues if need be ] at our website www.1sttuesdaynashville.com and click on JOIN US. Time is short, so please make your plans today...and PASS this invite to those you know!

Tim Skow
Host of 1ST TUESDAY

Reminder.. Col. Allen West coming to 1ST TUESDAY on Monday, March 7th. Those who've taken care of 2016 annual dues ... secure your seating while seats remain. This event will SELL OUT !!

Top Stories

Tennessee's Beacon Center part of of the Supreme Court challenge of Inclusionary zoning

Amicus Brief: California Building Industry Ass’n vs. City of San Jose BY BRADEN H. BOUCEK, Beacon Center, October 19, 2015 - We joined this brief in support of the California Building Industry Association’s request for the Supreme Court to accept review of the California Supreme Court’s decision. There, the California Supreme Court upheld the City of San Jose’s Inclusionary Zoning ordinance that required home builders to sell a certain percentage of their newly-built homes at below market value. Our shared position is that this is an unconstitutional exaction, prohibited under the Constitution’s Takings Clause.

We believe that this issue has great relevance in Nashville and throughout the state with the growing emphasis on “affordable housing,” a major issue in the Nashville mayoral race. Nashville is expected to add 1 million people over the next twenty years. The cost of housing has skyrocketed in many neighborhoods. The City Council voted to draft mandatory inclusion zoning proposal, currently in the works, that, like the San Jose law, would require a certain percentage of newly built homes be priced as affordable. Unconstitutional inclusionary zoning laws are sure to be an issue in the very near future for all Tennesseans, and the Beacon Center intends on insisting that any municipalities stay within constitutional parameters and respect the property rights of Tennesseans.

Top Stories

Republican caucus keeps Jeremy Durham as leader

Top Stories

Bernie Sanders tour coming to TSU

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders plans to bring his "Feel the Bern" tour of historically black colleges to Tennessee State University in Nashville. No date yet. READ MORE

Top Stories

How Inclusionary Zoning Makes Housing More Expensive

by Gary M. Galles, The Los Angeles Times, Jan. 4, 2016 - This month the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to hear a legal challenge to San Jose's controversial inclusionary housing ordinance. Enacted in 2010 and upheld by California's top court in June, this zoning law requires housing developers of 20 or more units to sell 15% of them at prices far below their market value or pay a six-figure fee instead.

More than 170 California communities impose similar mandates and set-asides, but the net effect isn't more affordable housing for all. Rather it is a reduction in the construction of new homes, which pushes prices upward. ....This is hardly a solution to a housing affordability crisis. It's also an unconstitutional government taking of private property without just compensation, and a violation of several precedents specifically, which is why the San Jose case deserves consideration by the Supreme Court.. ...

An analogy reveals the foolishness of inclusionary zoning.

Suppose there was a law that if you opened a new supermarket you had to sell 15% of your groceries to low-income people at far-below market prices to improve their access to good nutrition. This would clearly be an unfair burden. Those wanting to open new supermarkets did nothing to cause the problem; on the contrary, they intended to increase food accessibility. Read more

Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University, a research fellow with the Independent Institute in Oakland and author of "Faulty Premises, Faulty Policies." Before the Council passes our own version of inclusionary zoning, I hope they will think long and hard about the effect of such a policy. If it is passed, I hope the State will ban it or the Supreme Court will strike it down.

Top Stories

Stupid poor people line up to play the powerball lottery.

People who think they can get rich without working, other stupid people, and people who like a

long-shot and just enjoy participating in a game of chance with an incredibly large jackpot lined up last night to buy lottery tickets in Nashville and at convenience stores across America. If no one matches all the numbers on  tonight drawing, the next drawing is expected to soar to $1.3 billion.

The chance of winning in tonight's drawing were 1 in 292.2 million. You chance of being struck by lighting in any given year is 1 in 1,107,143. So your chance of being struck by lighting is 290 times greater than your chance of winning the lottery. The annual risk of being killed in a plane crash for the average American is about 1 in 11 million.

I have no moral opposition to gambling although I have never gambled much myself. I don't even know how to play poker.  While a young man in the service I played slot machines in the airman's club from time to time.  I went to Vegas once to a League of Cities convention and gambled a little but just did not enjoy it that much. I just don't see the attraction.  I have bet on horses or dogs maybe a total of 20 times and did enjoy that. I  have bought only two lottery tickets in my life. If I enjoyed gambling, I would do it and not feel guilty. As a leisure activity I do not see it any worse than any other leisure activity such as going out drinking and listening to music or going  to a sports event or to a movie or a concert.

What bothers me about the lottery is that most people who play the lottery are poor people who should be paying their utility bills on time rather than buying lottery tickets or should be buying food for their family. I am not for being overly protective of stupid people. People should be free to be stupid. I don't want to ban payday lenders, as an example. I think payday lenders are kind of slimy, but for people who have a crisis or never learned money management, the exorbitant interest rate charged by payday lenders is cheaper than having your electricity cut off. It is cheaper than bouncing a check. I still think that for the most part however, payday lenders are preying on weak and stupid people. I could not be in the payday loan business and feel like an honorable person.

When payday lenders prey on stupid people, it is not me doing it.  They are not doing it in my name. However, the lottery is the government preying on stupid people. While I am not for using the power of government to protect stupid people from being preyed upon necessarily, I don't want the government to be the one preying on stupid people. The State lottery is done in the name of "we the people." I think it is shameful and we should repeal the State lottery. I also think it should be illegal for anyone on food stamps or any other public assistance to purchase a lottery ticket. If you are so poor you need a handout, you should not be permitted to gamble with that money.

Top Stories

How our members of Congress voted on the bill passed by Congress that would repeal Obamacare

For the first time, Congress sent a bill repealing key provisions of  Obamacare to the President for his signature earlier this week, which he will veto. Republicans have voted to repeal Obamacare on numerous occasions before, but this is the first time a bill passed both houses and reached the President. The reason it passed this time, is that it passed through the budget reconciliation process so Senate Democrats could not filibuster the bill. The House passed it, sent it to the Senate, the Senate amended it and sent it back to the House, the House passed the Senate version.  This process meant the bill did not require 60 votes to clear the Senate but only a simple majority. The President, however, will veto the bill and there are not enough votes to override a veto.

The Bill did not actually repeal Obamacare but repealed major provisions. Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015 would make these key changes to Obamacare:

• Restrict the federal government from operating health care exchanges
• Phase out funding for subsidies to help lower and middle-income individuals pay for insurance through the health care exchanges
• Eliminate tax penalties for individuals who do not purchase health insurance and employers with 50 or more employees who do not provide insurance plans
• Eliminate taxes on medical devices
• Eliminate the “Cadillac tax” on the most expensive health care plans provided by employers to their employees.
• Phase out an expansion of Medicaid over a two-year period

The House passed the bill by a vote of 240 to to 181 and the Senate had passed it last month.  In the House, 239 Republicans voted in favor of the bill and one Democrat,  and 178 Democrats and one three Republicans voted in opposition. There were no surprises in how our U.S congressional delegation voted:

Tennessee
Yea	R	Roe, Phil	TN 1st
Yea	R	Duncan, John	TN 2nd
Yea	R	Fleischmann, Chuck	TN 3rd
Yea	R	DesJarlais, Scott	TN 4th
Nay	D	Cooper, Jim	TN 5th
Yea	R	Black, Diane	TN 6th
Yea	R	Blackburn, Marsha	TN 7th
Yea	R	Fincher, Stephen	TN 8th
Nay	D	Cohen, Steve	TN 9th

In the Senate, Senator Alexander and Senator Corker voted for the bill.

For more information on the House vote, follow this link and for more info on the Senate vote  see this link.

Top Stories