![]() |
Josh Stites |
This week legislation was introduced on the state level to
prohibit any local government from enacting legislation requiring inclusionary
zoning. I’m not opposed to the state stepping into local affairs when it’s
necessary to maintain a cohesive statewide business environment or protect
citizens from harmful actions of a local government, but I think HB1632 passes neither
of these tests. HB1632 is simply a Williamson County representative’s response
to a small number of his financial supporters who themselves have a business
interest in the zoning laws in Nashville. I get that and it’s nothing new. It
happens across the aisle and at all levels of government. But, that doesn’t
make it right or a good idea.
But my frustration is that Casada uses free market reasoning
for his bill. I’m a big free market guy. And I agree that the free market could
fix our affordable housing problem. Quickly. But, to those who have ever tried
developing land or building anything in any big city, they know that land
development does not happen in a free market. On the contrary it is a tightly
controlled market by unelected but often well-meaning bureaucrats at the local
planning departmentand the political and sometimes not well-meaning appointees
of the Planning Commission. State law doesn’t just permit such meddling into
the free market of local real estate - it requires it in Title 13, Chapter 4 of
the state code. Each planning department, by state law, is required to create a
general plan every ten years or so. This general plan serves as the tool by
which planning departments dictate where a developer can build housing and what
type of housing can be built. If Casada really wants to champion free markets,
sponsor a bill prohibiting zoning. It’s worked well for Houston.
In Nashville the current plan (Nashville Next) generally
calls for affordable and workforce housing to be concentrated in pockets along
the major corridors of Nashville. Think: Murfreesboro Road, Lebanon Pike,
Charlotte Ave, Dickerson Pike, Franklin Road, West End Avenue, Hillsboro Road.
I’m not a class warfare conspiracist, but I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that
the number of affordable units built along Hillsboro Pike and West End in the
next decade won’t be enough to house the workers required for one downtown
hotel. This “free” market that Casada hides behind in defense of his bill is
anything but. It’s law already that the local government has the authority to
dictate where affordable housing units are to be built, why all of a sudden
does he care how many?
And the head scratcher for me is this; when affordable
housing is torn down to make way for newer more expensive homes or other uses,
where do those people needing affordable housing go? They move to where the affordable
houses are - that is gradually further and further from the urban core and
ultimately out past the county line. Developers who don’t want to contend with
the burdensome regulations and requirements of the Metro Planning Commission
are going to go to where land is cheap. So all the suburb representatives and
senators, including Senator Haile of Sumner who is sponsor of SB1636, should be
delighted that Metro wants to keep the poverty associated with affordable
housing in Davidson County.
While I have a different view and am pleased to see legislation introduced that would ban mandatory inclusionary zoning, I am pleased to present an alternative point view from my friend, former Councilman Josh Stites. Rod
Top Stories
I have never given money to Glen Casada, nor do I own a business interest in Davidson County. However, I support a ban on inclusionary zoning.
ReplyDelete