The Election results are in. My commentary.

If you read this blog, then you are probably someone who cares about local political affairs and already know who won and who lost last night and have seen the unofficial returns. The returns remain unofficial until certified by the election commission. Here  are the returns with some comments. The highlighted names are those who either won outright or made the runoff.

Mayor's race:

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
M. BARRY	11255	259	12935	24449
C. ROBERT BONE	4944	186	5790	10920
D. A. FOX	11196	210	12305	23711
B. FREEMAN	11396	274	10509	22179
H. GENTRY	5222	144	6661	12027
J. KANE	2202	60	2487	4749
L. ESKIND REBROVICK	2609	119	3080	5808
WRITE-IN	34	0	28	62

I am extremely pleased that Fox made the runoff and I think he stands a better chance of winning in the runoff, running against Barry than if Freeman would have been the runoff opponent. While Freeman is probably every bit as liberal as Barry, Freeman's personality makes him seem more reasonable and more acceptable to moderate folks.  Fox is not as conservative on the social issues as I would like, but a pro-life, anti-gay marriage candidate probably would not stand a chance getting elected in Davidson County.  And anyway, those issues are national issues and it doesn't matter much what a mayor of Nashville thinks about them. Fox is not a crusader for liberal social causes the way Barry is however.

 Fox is a  conservative on economic issues, property rights and free enterprise. He is pragmatic, smart and thoughtful and likely to but Nashville's finances on a solid footing. Can Fox win against Barry? I think he has a good chance. I think there is a feeling among many Nashvillians that Nashville needs to call a halt to greater indebtedness and I think most Nashvillians do not want another property tax increase anytime soon and I think most people will view Fox as the candidate least likely to raise taxes again. Also, I think many feel that too much emphasis and tax giveaway had been focused on downtown and will see Barry as part of that excess. However, since Nashville is a predominately Democratic town, Barry has the advantage going into the runoff and Fox must make his case.

One thing heartening about this election is that while money goes a long way toward winning an election, it cannot buy an election. Freeman drastically outspend his opponents including $3.6 million of his own money. He put Black leaders on his payroll and then got their endorsement, he reportedly flew Black pastors to D.C for a meet and greet with Obama, he dominated TV advertising, yet still came up short.  

Vice Mayor race:

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
D. BRILEY	21010	530	25696	47236
T. GARRETT	19975	521	21398	41894

I am very disappointed. I know Tim Garrett and he has a lot of experience and institutional knowledge. He is also considered a more conservative Democrat while Briley is considered more progressive. However, the roll of the Vice Mayor is to pretty much limited to running efficient meetings and making committee assignment. I felt confident Garrett would have struck the right balance between running efficient meetings and allowing adequate debate. I also felt he would have been fair in making committee assignment. I am going to give David Briley the benefit of the doubt and hope he does the same.

Council at-large races:

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
B. BAKER	5715	161	6794	12670
J. BALL	2859	68	2763	5690
K. BENNETT	8122	212	8982	17316
A. CAROTA	1126	23	944	2093
E. COLEMAN	7648	174	8678	16500
J. COOPER	16317	408	18222	34947
E. DACHOWSKI	4236	101	4153	8490
A. DREAD	7538	202	8361	16101
R. DUVALL	9171	217	9436	18824
L. JOHNNY ELLIS	2077	51	1727	3855
E. GILMORE	16814	286	19369	36469
R. E. GREER, SR	5604	139	6653	12396
F. HARRISON	4024	95	5497	9616
J. HOLLEMAN	7241	186	9140	16567
M. HOLSINGER	1168	25	1046	2239
P. HOSTETTLER	3745	127	3844	7716
W. HUNT	7122	187	8680	15989
S. W. HURT	8799	206	10994	19999
K. JAKES	5830	127	5917	11874
J. KEETON	2123	53	1832	4008
J. LASITER	4221	86	4813	9120
D. MAJORS	6169	178	9794	16141
L. MATTHEWS, JR	7597	142	10243	17982
B. MENDES	10406	267	13844	24517
S. V. MOORE	7110	178	7624	14912
J. SHULMAN	8627	274	12918	21819
WRITE-IN	725	3	633	1361

No one got 20% of the vote so the top ten vote getters will be in the runoff. I only voted for one candidate, not wanted to dilute my vote, and that was Ken Jakes. I am very disappointed. I was almost certain he would make the run off. However, I think Ken Jakes can do as about as much good being the citizen activist he is as he could do in the Council. I also thought Adam Dread would make the runoff. He recently run for a county-wide office, running for Judge and he is a former Councilman at-large. He had name recognition.

Cooper and Mendes spend a lot of money and had TV advertising. Obviously that helps. Also, being the brother of the Fifth District U. S. Congressman is a big plus. I got two or three mailing from Holleman, so sort of expected him to make the runoff. Being a district councilman helps as Matthews, Duvall, Bennett, Holleman are all termed-out district Council members. However it did not help Sandra Moore or Walter Hunt. I was kind of surprised by Hunt not making the runoff. He has been around a long time and a lot of people know him.

The result I am most pleased about is Robert Duvall. I will be voting for Duvall in the run-off.

District 1:

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
S. ARMOR	102	3	212	317
R. BAKER	155	12	372	539
R. DOCKERY	58	3	109	170
L. GREENE, JR	448	9	844	1301
N. LEONARDO	900	11	447	1358
J. H. MONTGOMERY	52	4	45	101
J. RICHARDSON	29	1	60	90
R. WILLIAMSON	80	8	175	263
WRITE-IN	0	0	5	5

I am very pleased to see Lioniel Green, Jr. make the run off and will be supporting him.

District 2:

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
L. FORTIER	67	0	75	142
D. HASTINGS	443	6	606	1055
D. W. HYLTON	23	1	25	49
C. SEARCY	197	4	315	516
R. "BOBBY" STOCKARD	334	6	608	948
WRITE-IN	2	0	2	4

 I was supporting Carrie Searcy. I have no run-off preference at this time.

District 3:

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
T. CLAYTON	387	5	448	840
T. COLEMAN	417	6	347	770
B. H. HAYWOOD	732	9	738	1479
WRITE-IN	4	0	3	7

I had no preference in this race and do not know the candidates.

District 4:

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
R. SWOPE	553	5	1102	1660
P. TUTTLE	607	7	820	1434
WRITE-IN	2	0	9	11

Congratulations Robert Swope! I expect Swope to be a conservative leader in the Council, who will not "go along to get along" or hide in the herd. I think we have a conservative leader in the Council in Robert Swope!

District 5:

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
S. DAVIS	515	2	316	833
S. MARTIN	466	1	261	728
P. MURRAY	327	3	179	509
WRITE-IN	1	0	1	2

I am for Scott Davis in the runoff.

District 6:

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes

P. WESTERHOLM	759	12	544	1315
B. WITHERS	1283	11	850	2144
WRITE-IN	10	0	4	14

I am pleased with this outcome.

District 7:

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
S. CLEMENTS	414	1	323	738
A. DAVIS	931	0	670	1601
R. REED	374	9	214	597
WRITE-IN	4	0	4	8

I am very disappointing. Stephen Clements if a friend of mine and I had contributed to his campaign and encouraged him.

District 8

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
R. L. GHOLSTON	153	2	152	307
N. GROUND	47	2	55	104
R. SAWYERS, SR	85	7	95	187
C. SWANN	250	7	301	558
N. VanREECE	362	9	500	871
D. (DANNY) WILLIAMS	86	3	110	199
WRITE-IN	6	0	4	10

This runoff will be a contest between a very progressive candidate in VanReece and a conservative in Chris Swann. Swann is deserving of our support.

District 9:

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
R. McDANIEL	311	5	311	627
B. PRIDEMORE	493	7	625	1125
WRITE-IN	2	0	2	4

 Good outcome. Pridemore deserved another term.

 District 10

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
D. PARDUE	768	12	823	1603
WRITE-IN	12	2	19	33

No opponent for Pardue and he is a good Councilman.

District 11:

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
L. HAGAR	1169	23	1163	2355
WRITE-IN	19	0	20	39

Hagar had no opponent and has proven to be one of the "good" councilmen.

District 12:

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
S. GLOVER	893	32	1234	2159
WRITE-IN	21	2	36	59

No opponent. Glover deserved another term.

District 13:

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
F. CARTER	127	0	129	256
M. COLE	303	4	257	564
H. HUEZO	372	3	310	685
WRITE-IN	2	0	7	9

 I did not know enough about any of the candidates to have an opinion in this race.

District 14:

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
K. RHOTEN	616	6	756	1378
WRITE-IN	8	0	8

 I do not know anything about this candidate who ran unopposed.

District 15:

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
J. GARRETT	527	13	389	929
J. SYRACUSE	1062	14	972	2048
WRITE-IN	2	0	2	4

 I suspect Syracuse will be one of the "good" council members.

District 16:

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
M. FREEMAN	524	10	530	1064
T. TENPENNY	496	13	312	821
WRITE-IN	3	0	4	7

I do not know Freeman, but am disappointed Tenpenny lost. He was an advocate for saving the Fair Gounds and was as consistently conservative as anyone on the Council.

 District 17

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
C. COTTON	291	2	226	519
P. D. FOSTER	434	9	257	700
C. SLEDGE	530	4	402	936
T. WATSON	199	4	122	325
WRITE-IN	4	0	3	7

This is the district I live in and I was supporting Tony Watson. Between these two candidates in the runoff I do not had this time have a preference at this time.

District 18

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
B. M. ALLEN	1053	30	1068	2151
WRITE-IN	19	0	19	38

CM Allen had no opponent, has been a good council member and I am pleased to see her reelected. 

District 19

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
K. CALDWELL	134	2	99	235
A. HARRISON	161	12	146	319
F. O'CONNELL	433	5	458	896
B. SHICK	101	2	87	190
WRITE-IN	4	0	4	8

Disappointed. I favored Amanda Harrison.

District 20

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
M. FRANK	397	6	253	656
M. CAROLYN ROBERTS	394	12	348	754
F. STABILE	233	4	115	352
WRITE-IN	4	0	2	6

I was supporting Frank Stabile, but do not know very much about Ms Roberts.

District 21

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
L. DUPREE	415	8	309	732
E. T. KINDALL	485	25	490	1000
WRITE-IN	2	0	1	3

Do not have an opinion of the victor.

District 22

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
S. WEINER	1031	51	1754	2836
WRITE-IN	23	1	19	43

I was glad to see Sheri win without an opponent. She is one of the "good" council members.

District 23:

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
M. JOHNSON	844	41	1275	2160
T. LEE	246	11	391	648
J. ROBERTS	617	20	912	1549
WRITE-IN	275	4	440	719

I was pleased to see Jim Roberts make the runoff. I will be supporting him.

District 24:

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
A. GRANT	851	56	1153	2060
K. MURPHY	1188	81	1406	2675
WRITE-IN	3	0	11	14

This is one of the worst losses of the night. Kathleen Murphy is a lobbist, daughter of Mike Murphy and had the state-wide Democrat machine behind her. She is a very partisan Democrat.

 District 25:

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
R. PULLEY	1299	56	2213	3568
WRITE-IN	20	0	39	59

 I have no opinion of this candidate.

District 26:

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
J. ELROD	798	16	781	1595
L. BANGALIE KROMAH	113	0	93	206
J. MITCHELL	364	6	297	667
WRITE-IN	4	1	1	6

I had no knowledge of the candidates and no preference in this race.

District 27:

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
D. BLALOCK	471	14	607	1092
C. LEDBETTER	317	12	342	671
WRITE-IN	5	0	3	8

Great outcome! Davette is one of the "good" council members.

District 28:

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
D. T. LEWIS	67	0	38	105
M. SMITHSON	328	5	264	597
T. VERCHER	421	0	425	846
WRITE-IN	1	0	1	2

 My candidate did not win. Disappointed.

District 29:

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
K. Y. JOHNSON	1030	9	943	1982
V. A. TATARYN	216	3	218	437
WRITE-IN	1	0	3	4

 I did not know Karen Johnson's opponent, but I like Karen Johnson and pleased to see she won.

District 30

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
J. POTTS	554	6	472	1032
WRITE-IN	14	0	10	24

I am disappointing Potts did not have an opponent. 

 District 31

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
F. BEDNE	925	3	894	1822
WRITE-IN	17	1	20	38

 Councilman Bedne is a good council member and he deserved a second term.

District 32

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
J. C. DOWELL	366	7	665	1038
R. A. HASKINS	57	0	70	127
W. KIZZIE	211	2	213	426
WRITE-IN	1	0	2	3

 I did not know the other candidates but think Jacobia Dowell has done a good job and am pleased to see her win another term in the Council.

District 33

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
S. COLEMAN	782	13	933	1728
J. GAFFORD	374	5	318	697
WRITE-IN	2	0	4	6

 Sam Coleman is a previous Council member. A moderate. He had the support of Robert Duvall. Good outcome.

District 34

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
S. BUTLER	840	41	1556	2437
A. HENDERSON	1204	28	1736	2968
WRITE-IN	4	0	1	5

 I did not have a preference in this district and do not know Henderson.


District 35

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
V. LINEWEAVER	312	8	400	720
D. ROSENBERG	1043	13	1472	2528
L. SPIVAK	394	7	530	931
WRITE-IN	3	0	4	7

 I was supporting Lonnie Spivak and am very disappointed he did not win.

Amendment #1 which would increase Council terms from two to three:

Wow! The public has spoken divisively that they like term limits for about the third of fourth time. Term limits make for a weak Council and a strong mayor and strong bureaucracy, but I guess that is what the public wants.

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
For RATIFICATION	15953	374	18837	35164
Against RATIFICATION	30179	601	32299	63079

Amendment #2 which would also extend term limits and shrink the council.

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes

For RATIFICATION	16508	417	19913	36838
Against RATIFICATION	29382	533	31027	60942

Not even close. The public likes a  big, weak, council.

 Amendment #3, the "local hire" amendment, which will require 40% of the work force on any tax payer funded project valued at over $100,000 be make up of Davidson County residents.

Candidate Name	Election Day	Absentee	Early	Total Votes
For RATIFICATION	27155	524	28998	56677
Against RATIFICATION	19026	431	22029	41486

This will drastically increase the cost of metro projects but will probably be found to be in violation of both the U.S. and the Tennessee Constitution.

Congratulations to the winners!

Below is what others are saying about the election:
The Tennessean: Nashville mayoral election: Five takeaways
The Tennessean: Voters approve local-hire amendment, reject council changes
The Tennessean: Barry, Fox headed for runoff
4WSMV:  Barry, Fox campaigns gearing up again for runoff election

Top Stories

Southeast Nashville Conservatives' Breakfast Saturday, August 15, 2015

What: Southeast Nashville Conservatives' Breakfast Saturday,
When: August 15, 2015. Social/Dutch Treat Breakfast 8:30 - 9:00 am Program 9:00 - 10 am
Where:  Shoney's (Antioch) Bell Rd. @ Cane Ridge Road (I-24E, Bell Road Exit)
Who: Our goal is to have the runoff mayoral candidates speak, along with introducing some of the newly elected Council members.  Hosted by: Robert Duvall & Pat Carl

Top Stories

Who I am supporting in the race for Mayor, Vice Mayor and members of the Metro Council and how I am voting on the proposed charter amendments.

David  Fox for Mayor

Below is the list of who I am supporting in the race for Mayor, Vice Mayor and members of the Metro Council and my recommendation on the proposed charter amendments.

This is just a list. For commentary on why I am making the recommendations, I am making, you may want to put the candidates name in the search box and anything I have written about the candidate will pop up.

In some cases I feel strongly about the candidate and am enthusiastically supporting that person. In other cases, I have simply chosen the least bad of two bad candidates.

Tim Garrett for Vice Mayor

I have not endorsed in every district, simply because I did not know enough about the candidates to have a preference in some cases.

In the at-large race, one may vote for up to five candidates but I am voting for only one candidate and that is Ken Jakes.  To win a seat outright, without a runoff, a candidate would have to get 20% of the votes cast.  If no one gets 20% of the total votes cast for at-large seats then the ten people who got the most votes will be in a runoff.  With 26 candidates running, I do not want to dilute the strength of my vote so I am voting for only one candidate. There are other good candidates running however, who I would like to see elected, so if one wants to vote for more than one candidate I am listing some additional good candidates.

Ken Jakes for at-large

Here are my recommendations:

Mayor: David Fox

Vice Mayor:  Tim Garrett 
Council member at-large: Ken Jakes

Other good at-large candidates: Robert Duvall, Jody Ball,
Adam Dread, James Keeton, and Karen Bennett

District Council seats:

In some of the races I am enthusiastically supporting someone and in some of the races, I am selected the least bad choice. In some districts, I do not know enough about the candidates to have a preference.

Lioniel Green, Jr.

District 1

District 1: Lioniel Green, Jr. 
District 2: Carrie Searcy 
District 3: No recommendation 
District 4: Robert Swope
District 5: Scott Davis
District 6: Brett A. Withers
District 7: Stephen Clements
District 8: Chris Swann
District 9: Bill Pridemore

Carrie Searcy
District 2

District 10: Doug Pardue
District 11: Larry Hagar 
District 12: Steve Glover
District 13: No Recommendation
District 14: No Recommendation
District 15: Jeff Syracuse
District 16: Tony Tenpenny
District 17: Tony Watson 
District 18: Burkley Allen 
District 19: Amanda Harrison  
District 20: Frank Stabile
District 21: No Recommendation 
District 22: Sheri Weiner
District 23: Jim Roberts 

Robert Swope
District 4

Steve Clements
District 7

Cris Swann
District 8

Tony Tenpenny
District 16

Jim Roberts
District  23

Tony Watson
District 17

Amanda Harrison
District 19

Lonnie Spivak
District 35

Davette Blalock
District 27

Melissa Smithson
District 28

District 24: Allen Grant
District 25: Russ Pulley
District 26: No Recommendation
District 27: Davette Blalock 
District 28: Melissa Smithson
District 29: Karen Johnson
District 30: Write in a name 
District 31: Fabian Bedne 
District 32: No recommendation 
District 33: Sam Coleman
District 34: No recommendation
District 35: Lonnie Spivak

Charter Amendment 1: Effective August 2023, Council terms would be increased from two consecutive four-year terms to three consecutive four-year terms: Voting "yes."

Charter Amendment 2: Beginning September 1, 2019, this would increase the number of consecutive terms a council member could serve from two terms to three terms. Also, it would reduce the council from a 40 to 27 members and would reduce the number of districts from 35 to 24 and reduce the number of at-large council members from 5 to 3: Voting "yes."

Charter Amendment 3: The would require that on any Metro tax-payer funded project with a value of over $100,0000 that the workforce employed by the project consist of a least 40% residents of Davidson County; Voting "No."  

Top Stories

Ken Jakes Election Night Party

Top Stories

What happened at the August 4th Council Meeting: Tax give away to Neighborhood Resource Center, Natural Gas station bill passes,and lots more. (update)

This is a long council meeting at 3 hours and 10 minutes.

If you don't know what the council is voting on, council meetings are as about as exciting as watching paint dry; if you do know, they are about as exciting as watching water boil. To read my commentary on the agenda and to get your own link to the agenda and the Council staff analysis, follow this link: What is on the Council Agenda for Aug. 4th: A tax giveaway to Neighborhood Resource Center and a very long agenda. (update).

After the prayer and the pledge the next order of business is that candidates for office in the August 6the election get to introduce themselves and state the office for which they are running. I am surprised that more candidates did not  avail themselves of this  opportunity. However their campaing time was probably better spend attending Night out Against Crime functions or doing last minuet door knocking.

Following that there is a recognition and presentation of an award to Mr. Cleavland  who is an official of Hobby Lobby whose efforts led to Balsa airplanes being sold at Hobby Lobby being manufactured in Tennessee. Councilman Tennpenny and Daune Dominy make the presentation. Following that is the confirmation of the Mayor's appointees to Board and Commission, all of which are approved without dissension.

Next are bills on  Public hearings. I am only commenting on those that are of general interest or are very controversial. I do not even attempt to understand every zoning bill before the council. These are the ones I find of interest:

• BILL NO. BL2015-1064 amends the zoning text to allow DADU's (detached Accessory Dwelling Units) on property zoned Commercial Limited. In June 2014 the zone text was amended to allow them in residential zoned districts. This seemed like a good bill to me, but it is withdrawn by the sponsor.
• BILL NO. BL2015-1167  by Councilman Scott Davis changes from SP to RS5 zoning on about 238 acres. “Specific Plan District,” generally known as “SP,” zoning refers to a type of base zoning district which is not subject to traditional zoning districts’ development standards. Under an SP zoning, design standards are established for that specific development and are written into the zone change ordinance. RS5 is a medium density residential zone requiring a minimum 5,000 square foot lot and intended for single-family dwellings, prohibiting duplexes. I do not fully understand the issues involved in this rezoning, but no one was in opposition and the planning commission had approved it and it passees. 
• BILL NO. BL2015-1168 also by Councilman Scott Davis and also deferred from a previous meeting effects about 636 acres and would change the current zoning by making applicable the provisions of the DADU overlay. DADU allows for accessory dwelling units, such as garage apartments, on a property and provides a way to create affordable housing options while also maintaining the character of the existing street-facing homes.  In general, I think this is good zoning and is a way to increase the stock of affordable housing without mandating developers build affordable units or engaging in price-fixing or rent control. The sponsor withdraws the bill without explanation.
•  BILL NO. BL2015-1254    would set restrictions over where rock quarries could locate in relation to other property lines and residences. It would have interfered with plans of Industrial Land Developers to put a quarry on 141 acres the company owns at 771 Burkett Road. About a hundred people wearing matching tee shirts were in the chamber in support of this bill. Since it was not introduced in a timely manner, in order to be heard would have required a suspension of the rules. There was opposition to suspending the rules so the bill was not acted upon and was withdrawn.
•  BILL NO. BL2015-1255  would change the zoning text "to permit the transfer of development rights from historic properties in Metropolitan Nashville. This means someone could own a piece of property but could give or sell the right to develop it to someone else, meaning the historical property could not then be developed. That in itself would not protect the structure, but if one could not build on the site, there would be no incentive to tear down a historical structure. If the current owner did not own the development rights, developers would not be trying to buy his property.  Something similar is a tool used a lot in rural areas to preserve the character of rural property. A farmer may own a farm and wish to keep it as a farm, perhaps wanting to pass it own to his children.  He may give the "development rights" to a non profit conservation group.  It is much like a deed restriction that says the property cannot be subdivided or have additional homes build on the property. I was unaware of this as a tool for historic preservation but it makes sense. However, I am still not totally clear how this would work. It appears this transfer of development rights from the owner of the historical property to the party receiving the development rights would somehow benefit the party receiving the development rights, but I am unclear how that would work. This bill passes. This was sponsored by CM Allen. As I have observe the workings of the Council, I have developed a great deal of respect for CM Allen, who has often tackled complex issues, found consensus and got legislation passed. She has tackled issues such as peer-to-peer services such as Uber and Lyft and vacation rentals such as AIRB&B, and in-home recording studios.
•  BILL NO. BL2015-1272 in Councilman Scott Davis's district would apply a DADU overlay to 672 acres. DADU is "detached accessory dwelling unit." There are restrictions on size of the accessory dwelling unit and access and other things. I think this is a great way to increase density and promote affordable housing.  As we grow, we are going to have to accept greater density if we are going to maintain affordable housing in the county and if we are to avoid more urban sprawl. Also, we need greater density if we are going to have a good mass transit system. I view this as a positive move but maintaining character of the neighborhood, keeping a neighborhood predominately owner occupied, and opposition to more local traffic are arguments against this. This passes. The DADU overlay text amendment has not yet passes. So, if the DADU text does not pass on third, then this bill cannot be passed on third. There is an attempt to defer this until the text change authorizing DADU passes, however given the time constraints  due to this being the winding up of this term of the Council, a deferral of this bill would in essence kill it. Davis makes a good argument in favor of his bill. The effort to defer this bill fails and this bill passes. See time stamp 52:02-1:00:13. 

There are 13 resolution on the agenda all lumped together and put on the "consent agenda."  If a resolution does not pass the committee to which it was assigned unanimously then it is not left on consent but is considered separately. Any council member may, from the floor, ask for a resolution to be pulled off of consent and then the resolution will be considered separately. None are pulled.  Here are the ones of interest.

• RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-1586  approves an Amended Economic Impact Plan, providing for $15 million dollars of tax increment financing, for the Bellevue Mall Development Area. This is the same way we have financed a lot of downtown development. Under a TIF plan, the tax revenue generated from the project does not flow into the city coffers but goes to MDHA for development. Without this kind of financing, many projects arguably would not get built. The text of the bill explains in more detail how TIF works. While I think we have abused TIF for downtown development, Bellevue Mall has struggled so long, that if I were in the Council I would probably vote for it. 

• RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-1592 authorizes the director of public property to exercise an option to purchase 568.2 acres of property located on Marrowbone Road and Whitlow Mountain Road for the expansion of Beaman Park. As an avowed conservative, some might think I would oppose government expenditures of this kind; I do not. As we grow, I think it wise to preserve open space and park lands and we should get critical lands and beautiful sites when they are available. A more crowded city needs good parks and places for people to commune with nature and enjoy outdoor recreation. 

There are no bills on First Reading. This term of the Council soon coming to a close, there is no time for a bill on first reading to become law, thus no bills on First Reading.

Bills on Second Reading of interest:

• BILL NO. BL2015-1098  concerns '“Community Education' siting" and would allow schools to locate in zoned districts where they are not now permitted and would relax the lot size requirements for a school is deferred indefinitely.  I think this is a good bill. Included in this is a provision that schools could now be established in IWD districts (Industrial Warehousing/Distribution, intended for a wide range of warehousing, wholesaling, and bulk distribution uses). The bill also provides for "adaptive reuse," meaning a school could be located in an existing building, regardless of lot size, that was not originally intended for a school. On the face of it this seems like a good thing to do. Why not allow a school to locate in a relocated church building or an empty mall? Some people in the Greenhills area are opposed to any relaxation of the current school siting requirements because they are concerned that Hillsboro High will relocate and the valuable land which is now Hillsboro High will be redeveloped. They want to make it very difficult for Hillsboro High to relocate simply because they oppose new commercial and multifamily development in Greenhills. The bill was on public hearing on July 7th and deferred indefinitely. It passes on a voice vote.

• BILL NO. BL2015-1212   would prohibit the sale of single cans or bottles of beer by off-sale permit holders located within 100 feet of a facility that provides food to homeless persons. I oppose this type of bureaucratic micro-management. The bill was previously on second reading and was deferred. It is fails on a machine vote of 14 for, 15 opposed and 2 abstentions. 

• BILL NO. BL2015-1304  is a tax give away to the Neighborhood Resource Center.

In June 2007, the city sold at a bargain price a historic piece of property to NRC,  located 1312 3rd Ave. North, known as Fire Hall # 1.  The property was sold for a price of $86,000 and was appraised for $147,000, meaning Metro essentially gave  $61,0000 to NRC.  However, the deed stipulated that if NRC ever failed to occupy the building, NRC was entitled to the $86,000 they paid for the property and the cost of any improvements to the property and the property would revert to metro.

Since that time, NRC has fallen on hard times and now wants to sell the property, but they want to change the original deal. Now they want to pay Metro $100,909 for the property, sell it and pocket the difference. The property is currently appraised for $590,000. That would be a huge windfall for NRC and would fund their operating budget for a long time.

The Neighborhood Resource Center is a non-profit group that while doing some non-objectionable, if not good things, also engages in some far left political activity, as they did in 2011 when they hosted a meeting to discuss how to implement the Contract for the American Dream.

The Contract for the American Dream was a project of the far left MoveOn.Org. A whole host of other liberal and leftist organization were also partners in the Contract for the American Dream campaign including Planned Parenthood, Progressive Congress.org, Progressive Democrats of America, Daily Kos, People for the American Way, and Code Pink.

A long time staffer (unsure if he had the title Executive Director, but he was always the public face of the organization), Mike Hodge was a community organizer trained in the Saul Alinsky tradition.  Hodge now works for the progressive group NOAH.  In addition to that overtly leftist Contract for the American Dream effort, NRC often engaged in activity, that while not terribly offensive, was more suited to an organization such as a labor union or political organization rather than a non-profit claiming a charitable purpose.

Some of what they do, such as helping neighborhoods start neighborhood watch programs is not at all objectionable but they do much that is objectionable. NRC is good at going into neighborhoods and getting people stirred up to stop projects which could actually help communities.  They often stir people up to stop affordable housing projects and they attempted but failed to stop the partnership between Metro Parks and Belmont University that lead to the massive investments and improvements to E. S. Rose Park.

At one time NRC was heavily funded by United Way and received funding from other sources but lost most of their sources of funding. In December 2014 they attempted to get Metro to give them funding as a charity. After several delays, the Council turned down their request for funding.

To learn much more about the Neighborhood Resource Center, follow this link.

Councilman Phil Claiborne and Councilman Robert Duvall speaks against the bill. The staff analyst makes the case that this is a fair deal. He argues that Metro must share with NRC the appreciated value. It passes on a machine vote of 30 in favor, 3 against and no abstentions. The four council member who voted against the bill were, Claiborne, Duvall, Dominy and Tenpenny. I will be offering more documentation that is in fact a tax giveaway and not a good deal for the city.  Check back.  To view the discussion see time stamp 1:38:07-1:45:20.

• BILL NO. BL2015-1306  is another of those PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) sweetheart deals to encourage businesses to locate or expand in Nashville. This one would lure a company from Lavergne to Nashville and give them a $710,000 tax break. It passes with no opposition. 
• BILL NO. BL2015-1308 gives Piedmont Natural Gas two pieces of property and $159,617 to reimburse them for $530K of cost they had in relocating a pipeline during the construction of the Sounds ballpark. This was left out of the construction cost appropriations when approved by the Council.  Bo Mitchell asks why?  Good question. An expensive project anyway and plagued by massive cost overruns Mitchell suggest this cost was not included at the time the project was being build in order to deceive the council.  It passes.

There are 96 Bills on Third Reading. Most of them are zoning bills.  Here are the bills that I find of interest.

• BILL NO. BL2013-569 amends the zoning text as it relates to car sales lots, car washes, auto repair centers and maybe some others. It does a lot of things including dictating the type of fence or wall that is permitted in front of the establishment, to requiring at least 1,000 feet between car lots. This bill was disproved by the planning commission. This bill was first introduced in October 2013. It is deferred indefinitely, which kills it since all pending bills must start all over when a term of the Council ends.This bill is primarily of concern to councilmen representing Nolensville Road. Nolensville Road has seen little of the improvements of other areas of town and there are used car lot after used car lot down Nolensville Road and also lots of pay day lenders and pawn shops.  A lot of the used car lots seem to do very little business. I see the problem, but I am not sure this is a solution. If not used car lots, the parcels would probably be vacant lots.  The solution for Nolensville Road is some economic growth.
•  SUBSTITUTE BILL NO. BL2015-1120  creates a DADU (Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit) overlay district that could be used in zoning districts that are not zoned R. In June 2014, the council approved a zoning text change to allow detached accessory dwellings on lots within the R districts.  The bill is deferred one meeting. The sponsor says she will have more meetings to address some remaining concerns and will be offering an amendment. She only has one more chance to get it passed or it would will have to start over with a new Council. I support this bill.
•  BILL NO. BL2015-1147 is a less bad form of "inclusionary zoning."  Since Substitute Ordinance No. BL2015-1139 was approved on third reading at the July 21 council meeting, this less bad version of bad concept is not needed and it is withdrawn.  
•  BILL NO. BL2015-1153 creates some new zoning districts which would be deemed more pedestrian friendly. It passes. 
• BILL NO. BL2015-1155 would apply a DADU overlay to 120 acres in Councilman Westerholm's district. It is deferred one meeting.
• BILL NO. BL2015-1210   is the bill that would amend the zoning code to say where a natural gas compression station could be located. This is an attempt to restrict them to certain industrial areas and keep them out of rural and residential areas.  This was primarily prompted by a natural gas compression station planned for Joelton and many people spoke in favor of this bill at the last public hearing. Without this bill the pipeline companies could build gas compression stations wherever they thought they were needed, subject to getting a certificate of convenience and necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).  However,  federal law prohibits local governments from regulating natural gas facilities through zoning. This is probably a futile effort. Other cities have tried the same thing and lost. The bill passes. Now, if Metro refuses to give a permit to the gas company, they will probably take Metro to court and Metro will probably lose. Council member Evans explains why this is a bad bill and why she is voting no and offers examples of previous similar attempt to pass text amendments aimed at one business and how that has cost the city money. I understand the genuine concern of people in Joelton and I understand the council members responding to the concern of there constituents, and I can understand the desire to stand up and defy the federal government, and I understand "sending a strong message,"  but this is probably a wasted effort that will end up costing the city money and accomplish nothing.  I would be torn on how to vote if I were serving in the Council, but I think the responsible vote is a vote against this bill. It passes by a vote of 30 for, 3 against and 1 abstention but 6 not voting. I guess a lot of council members all got the urge to go to the bathroom at the same time. See time stamp 2:21:23 - 2:40:50.
• BILL NO. BL2015-1273 and BILL NO. BL2015-1274 are bills that create two new redevelopment districts. One in Bordeaux and the other in the James C. Casey Homes area off Shelby Avenue. This would make these areas eligible for Tax Increment Financing and other benefits.They pass.
• BILL NO. BL2015-1278  would allow the council to exempt by resolution, after a public hearing, an applicant for a beer permit from the distance requirements of the regulation. This makes so much sense to me. As we become more dense, their will be a greater desire for neighborhood pubs and restaurants. Many sites or off limits for such due to their proximity to a church or park or residence. This is deferred one meeting.    

Here is The Tennessean's coverage of the Council meeting: Council seeks to block Joelton gas compressor station.

Top Stories

Public Meetings on the future of Nasvhille transit system, Scheduled for Aug. 11 and 12. My Plan for Transit.

Public Meetings Scheduled for Aug. 11 and 12, Join Nashville MTA/RTA for a public discussion on the future of Nashville’s transit system at the East Park Community Center on Tuesday, Aug. 11, and the Downtown Nashville Public Library on Wednesday, Aug. 12.

Nashville MTA/RTA will present a draft of the project’s guiding principles and potential improvement solutions for the system for your review and input. We need to hear from you as we make decisions about what strategies we should consider to improve the region’s transit system. We hope to see you there. Tuesday, Aug. 11 5:30 to 7 p.m. East Park Community Center 600 Woodland St. (Accessible by bus routes 20, 25, 26 and 30) Wednesday, Aug. 12 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. Nashville Public Library Main Branch 615 Church Street (Accessible by bus routes 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8) Be sure to visit our events page for more upcoming events. If you’d like to have a Nashville MTA/RTA representative come to a meeting in your community, you can request a Transit Talk.

I have a detailed plan for transit improvements that I am forwarding to MTA/RTA. You can find my complete essay on the topic of transit at this link:  What to do about Mass Transit and traffic congestion . Here are some bullet point highlights:

• Use the private sector to the largest extend possible.
• Seek a unique solution and think outside the box. 
• Create an environment that welcomes private solutions, competition and innovation instead of our current system that penalizes private solutions and innovation.
• The Nashville Star has been a failure and is not a model to follow.
• Not everyone minds their long commute- Don’t assume people want to give up their car and don't over promise.
• Mass transit and planning for development should coincide and we need greater density to make mass transit successful. 
• Promote what we already have. Express Regional bus service is a  bargain. Advertise.
• Use Technology, synchronize lights, build roundabouts,  pedestrian passageways and make Nashville more walkable.

Top Stories

Desperation leads to conspiracy theory about a candidate's name. Will the real Carrie Searcy please stand up.

From the July 16th Tennessee Tribune

Things really get weird and silly this close to election and they don't get much weirder or sillier than in District 2 where Carrie Searcy is running for Council and is being attacked because her last name is "Searcy."

Searcy is  also the name of a prominent Black family here in Nashville. Walter Searcy is an attorney and Joyce Searcy, his wife, heads a large non-profit organization.


Not only are opponents of Carrie Searcy scrambling to ensure everyone knows that Carrie Searcy is not Joyce Searcy, or related to that Searcy family, but in a recent piece, opponents of Carrie Searcy alleged she purposely took the name Searcy to confuse people and to promote her law practice. A word of mouth campaign is spreading the theory that she has hid her white identity and has purposely let people think she was Joyce Searcy.  They allege Searcy is not really her name at all, but a name she just chose.

A piece published in CNN iReports by a community blogger shows multiple head shots of Carrie Searcy captioned as Carrie with various last names of prominent Black attorneys. (link)

Carrie Searcy is married to  James Searcy who works as a probation officer for General Sessions Court. When she married she took her husbands last name which is traditional and was the norm until fairly recently. Carrie says if those questioning her last name would just go to the Davidson County Clerk's office and check, her marriage certificate is on file.

The Tennessee Tribune, a newspaper serving the Black communality,  has called Searcy "Lilly white" and unable to represent an African-American community.

They have alleged she has hid her identity so people would not know she was white. They allege her campaign material does not show her picture.

I have seen her primary campaign piece and her picture is prominent and the press release announcing her candidacy that she sent me included a picture. Carrie told me that the only campaign material without her picture is her yard signs.  Most yard signs do not have a candidate's picture.  It sounds to me like her opponents are pretty desperate.

Just for the record, if I ever decide to run for office again or write a book or become a performer or do anything where name recognition is important, my name is "Rod Williams;" well, actually it is Rodney M. Williams (the "M" stands for Mark but that is not on my birth certificate.) "Williams" really is my last name but I am not related to Avon Williams, Robin Williams, Tennessee Williams or Hank Williams.

Top Stories

What is on the Council Agenda for Aug. 4th: A tax giveaway to Neighborhood Resource Center and a very long agenda. (update)

The big item of interest on this agenda is a bill on second reading which would change the terms of an original deal in order to provide a windfall for the leftist Neighborhood Resource Center. See the analysis of BILL NO. BL2015-1304 below.

If you don't know what the Metro Council is voting on and you watch a council meeting, you will find it really, really boring. If you have your own copy of the Council agenda and staff analysis the meeting will most likely still be boring, but you will at least know why it is boring.

There are five appointees to Boards and Commissions on the agenda for Council confirmation. None of them are to the agencies that are problem or controversial agencies.

There is one resolution on public hearing and it is to allow a restaurant that already has a state liquor license to be exempt from the distance requirement necessary to get a beer permit. This seems like a waste of time. In my view if you have a liquor license then you should automatically be eligible for a beer license.

There are 30 bills on public hearing and I don't even try to form an opinion or even understand the issues involved in every zoning bill. Most zoning bills would only concern nearby neighbors. I am pointing out those bills that effect a large number of parcels, or are a zoning text change or for some other reason, I think, may be of general interest or controversial.

• BILL NO. BL2015-1064 amends the zoning text to allow DADU's (detached Accessory Dwelling Units) on property zoned Commercial Limited. In June 2014 the zone text was amended to allow them in residential zoned districts. I approve of this change.

Much of our current poor land use and urban sprawl were caused by policies that were thought the wisest land use policies at the time. Many of these policies were adopted after World War II to accommodate the automobile culture. Requirements for parking for x number of cars per x feet of commercial floor space or dining tables, in-front, off-street parking requirements and such were considered smart planning. Also the brightest land use professionals at the time thought industrial, commercial and residential should be strictly separated. Prior to that time, it was not uncommon for people to live in back of the shop or over the shop where they worked. A lot of what people may think of as a "new" concept in zoning is really going back to older concepts of land use that developed naturally, before land use became so heavily regulated. I guess my sermon of the day is beware of "best practices" and the best and brightest are not always right.What today may seem like a smart idea may not be so smart in years to come.

• BILL NO. BL2015-1167  by Councilman Scott Davis changes from SP to RS5 zoning on about 238 acres. “Specific Plan District,” generally known as “SP,” zoning refers to a type of base zoning district which is not subject to traditional zoning districts’ development standards. Under an SP zoning, design standards are established for that specific development and are written into the zone change ordinance. RS5 is a medium density residential zone requiring a minimum 5,000 square foot lot and intended for single-family dwellings, prohibiting duplexes. I generally think it is a bad idea to change zoning to a zone that permits less density, but not knowing the details of the current SP, I do not know if this does that or not. This was deferred from a previous meeting.

• BILL NO. BL2015-1168 also by Councilman Scott Davis and also deferred from a previous meeting effects about 636 acres and would change the current zoning by making applicable the provisions of the DADU overlay. DADU allows for accessory dwelling units, such as garage apartments, on a property and provides a way to create affordable housing options while also maintaining the character of the existing street-facing homes.  In general, I think this is good zoning and is a way to increase the stock of affordable housing without mandating developers build affordable units or engaging in price-fixing or rent control.

•  BILL NO. BL2015-1255  would change the zoning text "to permit the transfer of development rights from historic properties in Metropolitan Nashville. This means someone could own a piece of property but could give or sell the right to develop it to someone else, meaning the historical property could not then be developed. That in itself would not protect the structure, but if one could not build on the site, there would be no incentive to tear down a historical structure. If the current owner did not own the development rights, developers would not be trying to buy his property.  Something similar is a tool used a lot in rural areas to preserve the character of rural property. A farmer may own a farm and wish to keep it as a farm, perhaps wanting to pass it own to his children.  He may give the "development rights" to a non profit conservation group.  It is much like a deed restriction that says the property cannot be subdivided or have additional homes build on the property. I was unaware of this as a tool for historic preservation but it makes sense. However, I am still not totally clear how this would work. It appears this transfer of development rights from the owner of the historical property to the party receiving the development rights would somehow benefit the party getting the development rights, but I am unclear how that would work.

• BILL NO. BL2015-1269  would make "applicable the provisions of the contextual overlay to various properties.." This involves 98 acres and a lot addresses. It is approved by the planning commission. I don't know what it does but effecting 98 acres I think it is worth pointing out.

•  BILL NO. BL2015-1272 in Councilman Scott Davis's district would apply a DADU overlay to 672 acres. DADU is "detached accessory dwelling unit." There are restrictions on size of the accessory dwelling unit and access and other things. I think this is a great way to increase density and promote affordable housing.  As we grow, we are going to have to accept greater density if we are going to maintain affordable housing in the county and if we are to avoid more urban sprawl. Also, we need greater density if we are going to have a good mass transit system. I view this as a positive move but maintaining character of the neighborhood, keeping a neighborhood predominately owner occupied, and opposition to more local traffic are arguments against this.

There are 13 resolution on the agenda all lumped together and put on the "consent agenda."  If a resolution does not pass the committee to which it was assigned unanimously then it is not left on consent but is considered separately. Any council member may, from the floor, ask for a resolution to be pulled off of consent and then the resolution will be considered separately.  Here are the ones of interest.

• RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-1586  approves an Amended Economic Impact Plan, providing for $15 million dollars of tax increment financing, for the Bellevue Mall Development Area. This is the same way we have financed a lot of downtown development. Under a TIF plan, the tax revenue generated from the project does not flow into the city coffers but goes to MDHA for development. Without this kind of financing, many projects arguably would not get built. The text of the bill explains in more detail how TIF works. While I think we have abused TIF for downtown development, Bellevue Mall has struggled so long, that if I were in the Council I would probably vote for it. 

• RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-1592 authorizes the director of public property to exercise an option to purchase 568.2 acres of property located on Marrowbone Road and Whitlow Mountain Road for the expansion of Beaman Park. As an avowed conservative, some might think I would oppose government expenditures of this kind; I do not. As we grow, I think it wise to preserve open space and park lands and we should get critical lands and beautiful sites when they are available. A more crowded city needs good parks and places for people to commune with nature.

There are no bills on First Reading. This term of the Council soon coming to a close, there is no time for a bill on first reading to become law, thus no bills on First Reading.

There are 16 bills on Second Reading. These are the ones I find interesting:

• BILL NO. BL2015-1098  concerns '“Community Education' siting" and would allow schools to locate in zoned districts where they are not now permitted and would relax the lot size requirements for a school is deferred indefinitely.  I think this is a good bill. Included in this is a provision that schools could now be established in IWD districts (Industrial Warehousing/Distribution, intended for a wide range of warehousing, wholesaling, and bulk distribution uses). The bill also provides for "adaptive reuse," meaning a school could be located in an existing building, regardless of lot size, that was not originally intended for a school. On the face of it this seems like a good thing to do. Why not allow a school to locate in a relocated church building or an empty mall? Some people in the Greenhills area are opposed to any relaxation of the current school siting requirements because they are concerned that Hillsboro High will relocate and the valuable land which is now Hillsboro High will be redeveloped. They want to make it very difficult for Hillsboro High to relocate simply because they oppose new commercial and multifamily development in Greenhills. The bill was on public hearing on July 7th and deferred indefinitely.

• BILL NO. BL2015-1212   would prohibit the sale of single cans or bottles of beer by off-sale permit holders located within 100 feet of a facility that provides food to homeless persons. I oppose this type of bureaucratic micro-management. The bill was previously on second reading and was deferred.

Fire Hall # 1

• BILL NO. BL2015-1304  is a tax give away to the Neighborhood Resource Center.

In June 2007, the city sold at a bargain price a historic piece of property to NRC, located located 1312 3rd Ave. North, known as Fire Hall # 1.  The property was sold for a price of $86,000 and was appraised for $147,000, meaning Metro essentially gave  $61,0000 to NRC.  However, the deed stipulated that if NRC ever failed to occupy the building, NRC was entitled to the $86,000 they paid for the property and the cost of any improvements to the property and the property would revert to metro.

Since that time, NRC has fallen on hard times and now wants to sell the property, but they want to change the original deal. Now they want to pay Metro $100,909 for the property, sell it and pocket the difference. The property is currently appraised for $590,000. That would be a huge windfall for NRC and would fund their operating budget for a long time.

The Neighborhood Resource Center is a non-profit group that while doing some non-objectionable, if not good things, also engages in some far left political activity, as they did in 2011 when they hosted a meeting to discuss how to implement the Contract for the American Dream.

The Contract for the American Dream was a project of the far left MoveOn.Org. A whole host of other liberal and leftist organization were also partners in the Contract for the American Dream campaign including Planned Parenthood, Progressive Congress.org, Progressive Democrats of America, Daily Kos, People for the American Way, and Code Pink.

A long time staffer (unsure if he had the title Executive Director, but he was always the public face of the organization), Mike Hodge was a community organizer trained in the Saul Alinsky tradition.  Hodge now works for the progressive group NOAH.  In addition to that overtly leftist Contract for the American Dream effort, NRC often engaged in activity, that while not terribly offensive, was more suited to an organization such as a labor union or political organization rather than a non-profit claiming a charitable purpose.

Some of what they do, such as helping neighborhoods start neighborhood watch programs is not at all objectionable but they do much that is objectionable. NRC is good at going into neighborhoods and getting people stirred up to stop projects which could actually help communities.  They often stir people up to stop affordable housing projects and they attempted but failed to stop the partnership between Metro Parks and Belmont University that lead to the massive investments and improvements to E. S. Rose Park.

At one time NRC was heavily funded by United Way and received funding from other sources but lost most of their sources of funding. In December 2014 they attempted to get Metro to give them funding as a charity. After several delays, the Council turned down their request for funding.

To learn much more about the Neighborhood Resource Center, follow this link.

• BILL NO. BL2015-1306  is another of those PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) sweetheart deals to encourage businesses to locate or expand in Nashville. This one would lure a company from Lavergne to Nashville and give them a $710,000 tax break.

There are 96 Bills on Third Reading. Most of them are zoning bills. There are so many because this is the near the end of this term of the council and anything pending at the end of this council term must start all over. This may be a long meeting even if none of the bills generate debate. With so many bills, I am just doing a cursory review. I may miss something. I am not doing my normal careful review so don't depend on me to catch something that may interest you. Here are the ones that I find of interest. 

• BILL NO. BL2013-569 amends the zoning text as it relates to car sales lots, car washes, auto repair centers and maybe some others. It does a lot of things including dictating the type of fence or wall that is permitted in front of the establishment, to requiring at least 1,000 feet between car lots. This bill was disproved by the planning commission. This bill was first introduced in October 2013.
•  SUBSTITUTE BILL NO. BL2015-1120  creates a DADU overlay district.This is how the staff analysis explains this bill: "This ordinance amends the zoning code to create a detached accessory dwelling unit (DADU) overlay district.. In June 2014, the council approved a zoning text change to allow detached accessory dwellings on lots within the R districts with certain conditions. This ordinance would create a new DADU overlay district that could be used on properties that are not in an R zoning district. The design standards listed in the zoning code for other DADUs would apply within this overlay district, which include the following:... "
•  BILL NO. BL2015-1147 is a less bad form of "inclusionary zoning."  Since Substitute Ordinance No. BL2015-1139 was approved on third reading at the July 21 council meeting, this less bad version of bad concept will be withdrawn.  
•  BILL NO. BL2015-1153 creates some new zoning districts which would be deemed more pedestrian friendly.
• BILL NO. BL2015-1210   is the bill that would amend the zoning code to say where a natural gas compression station could be located. This is an attempt to restrict them to certain industrial areas and keep them out of rural and residential areas.  This was primarily prompted by a planned natural gas compression station planned for Joelton and many people spoke in favor of this bill at the last public hearing. Without this bill the pipeline companies could build gas compression stations wherever they thought they were needed, subject to getting a certificate of convenience and necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).  However, the staff analysis says that Federal law prohibits local governments from regulating natural gas facilities through zoning so even if this passes the courts would likely rule it not enforceable. 
• BILL NO. BL2015-1273 and BILL NO. BL2015-1274 are bills that create two new redevelopment districts. One in Bordeaux and the other in the James C. Casey Homes area off Shelby Avenue. This would make these areas eligible for Tax Increment Financing and other benefits.

Top Stories