Press release, FRANKLIN, Tenn. – Dr.
Arthur B. Laffer announced his endorsement of Dr. Mark Green for
Congress today. The father of supply side economics and architect of
the Reagan Administration’s economic policies, Laffer’s policy ideas
led to the economic growth of the 1980s.
“As a Tennessean, I’ve
witnessed firsthand Mark’s leadership for pro-growth policies in the
State Senate. With great tenacity and courage, Mark led the fight to
repeal the Hall Income Tax, making Tennessee one of only two states
that has ever repealed an income tax of any kind. The U.S. Congress
needs Mark Green’s leadership,” stated Laffer.
An Army veteran,
physician, and businessman, Green has attracted support from
conservatives across Tennessee and the country. He has been endorsed
by the Club for Growth, FRC Action, the House Freedom Fund, and
conservative leaders across Tennessee.
“I’ve looked up to Art
Laffer ever since I was a student of economics at West Point. His work
has sparked so much growth throughout our country’s history, and
Tennesseans are better off because of it,” commented Green.
Mayor Barry had announced plans to end Metro General Hospital as a hospital. This is a major step in the right direction and long overdue. Metro General has been a money pit unable to live on the money the city appropriates and unable to fill its beds. On average,only about a third of the beds at General are filled. Ever since the advent of medicaid most poor people have been able to go to the hospital of their choice. They do not have to go to General and they don't.
The city, in addition to the subsidy, tried to prop up General by making it the hospital where jail inmates are taken when they need care and by giving a discount to Metro employees who use the hospital. The hospital simply could not attract enough customers to be viable.
This move by Mayor Barry should have been taken about twenty-five years ago. There is no law or charter requirement that metro maintain a hospital yet no administration would look at getting out of the hospital business. General has a vocal constituency in the Black community. General is also the teaching hospital for Meharry Medical College and a source of pride and prestige in the Black community.
As reported in The Tennessean, Mayor Barry said her administration would submit to the Metro Council a
“substantial request” for funds to stabilize the facility until the end
of the fiscal year which ends June 30th. She said her focus would be on efforts on
transforming the facility into an ambulatory surgical care center,
which would provide only outpatient services. She also says she intends to pursue the creation of an indigent care fund to pay for
hospitalization costs for low-income Nashvillians at the privately run
hospitals in the city.
The big news of the night is the approval of RESOLUTION RS2017-910, the $225 million bond issue for the $275 million soccer deal. To see the discussion go to timestamp 1:30:37 in the video. The vote in the Budget and Finance Committee was 10 for and 3 against and two not voting.
While the deal was tweaked to placate some opponents, the major issues remaining creating opposition was the weak guarantee that left Metro holding the bag if the team lost money or if the team owners should lose their franchise, and the give away of ten acres of fairground property to the team owners. John Cooper makes a good argument against the giveaway of the ten acres
of fairground property to the developer and criticizes previous decision
that allowed the fairgrounds to fall into a state of disrepair. He
calls the ten acre giveaway a "gentrification scheme" that benefits the
team owners. I encourage viewers to watch his remarks.
After more than
an hour of discussion the resolution is approved by a vote of 31 to 6.
Those voting against the resolution were john Cooper, Steve Groper, Holly Houzo, Larry Hagar, Mina Johnson, and Dave Rosenberg.
For those really interested in the deal details you may want to read the actual resolution and see the staff analysis. Also, the discussion that took place in the Budget and Finance committee is insightful and you can view that meeting at this link. For more on the deal and the opposition see this link. For media reporting on the Council's vote on this issue see the following:
Channel 4, WSM: Metro Council approves financing plan for soccer stadium
The Tennessean: Soccer Stadium a go.
This is long meeting at over three and half hours long. In addition to the contentious soccer issue this is public hearing night. The chamber is packed with spectators. To access the agenda, the agenda staff analysis and my commentary on the agenda follow this link. You will get more out of the meeting if you know what's going on. Following the prayer, pledge, an insignificant message from the mayor, two presentations, and noncontroversial confirmation of mayoral appointments to boards and commission, the consideration of legislation business starts at timestamp 20:19.
Pubic Hearing. There are two resolution and 27 bills on Public hearing. These are zoning bills or bills related to zoning policy. These really bore me and I watch these segment at double speed. Unless one lives in the vicinity of the proposed rezoning one will probably find this boring. I don't even try to form an opinion on each and every zoning issue. None of the bills on this public hearing are particularly contentious and most had no one speak either in favor or opposition. None are bills are disapproved by the Planning Commission so we do not have to see slide shows and Planning Commission presentation. Below are the bills of interest.
BILL BL2017-903 would ban decorative "rope lighting" on
any building, sign, or property with non-residential zoning
located adjacent to an arterial or collector street except those
in the downtown area. The sponsor tried to pass something similar back
in August (BILL NO. BL2017-704)
but that bill would have applied to residential property also. This
bill is not as bad as that bill, but I still do not see the necessity of
this and remain opposed. Rope lighting is that lighting that you have
probably seen that outlines a tree or structure. It is often used as
Christmas decorations but sometimes is used year-round. Why one would
want to ban this I have no ideal. I like it. I oppose this bill. It is approved by the Planning Commission. No one speaks on it and it is approved.
BILL BL2017-929 is a bill to rezone property in Bordeaux area. I find this of interest not due to the merits of the bill but find it instructive of the way people think about "affordable housing." This bill rezones some agricultural zoned property to a zoning that would allow the construction of up to 40 multi-family residential units. One person speaking on the bill, while saying she does not want to discriminate, makes it clear she does not want section 8 housing in the community. This is not that uncommon. Many people in what is now affordable communities want their community to be upgraded with more expensive homes. They want their affordable community to not remain affordable. Many Council members and other public advocates of affordable housing have this same attitude. They oppose "concentration of poverty." We saw this same sentiment at play in a long drawn out fight to stop an affordable housing development in Antioch.
While I don't doubt that advocates of affordable housing actual want to see the development of affordable housing, they do not want it build were economics would have it be build. Councilman Bedne says this, saying "we need city-wide affordable housing ... all over the city, and not just take advantage of economical affordable land."
Advocates of "affordable housing" want it mixed in with more expensive housing and want to see the building of upscale housing in neighborhoods that now have affordable housing. Of course this will result in those areas being "gentrified," and the destruction of much of the remaining affordable housing stock. When that happens advocates of affordable housing will bemoan "gentrification." I think we would do more to advance the cause of affordable housing if we worked within the framework of market forces. Affordable housing advocates often support policies that are detrimental to affordable housing. To have a significant amounts of affordable housing in Nashville we need neighborhoods with affordable housing. To see the discussion of the bill see timestamp 57:20.
BILL BL2017-937is another bills that would address home-sharing or short term rental.
It would establish a STRP Advisory Committee and it would allow
existing permit holders to renew definitely, apply percentage caps to
Not Owner-Occupied units within certain census tracts, and apply
distance restrictions of 1,320 feet between Not Owner-Occupied units,
among other changes. The Council has been working on the issue of short
term rental property for a long time, at least a year. A comprehensive
short term rental ordinance is in the works and is to be presented to
the Council in January. This bill is deferred to December 5th.
BILL BL2017-938 would exempt religious institutions from current sidewalk requirements,
provided the religious institution is within the General
Services District and does not abut an existing or planned sidewalk.
Currently if a developer does an infill development even on a street
without sidewalks they must build sidewalk even if there are no other
sidewalks on the street. This can greatly increase the cost of
development and can result in less affordable housing. In my view the
whole requirement that developers build sidewalks should be scraped
except in rare circumstance. This bill is deferred to the first meeting in January.
There are 27 resolutions all of which are initially on the consent agenda. A
resolution stays on the consent agenda if it passes unanimously the
committees to
which it was assigned. Resolutions which receive negative votes in committee are pulled off of consent. Also any councilman may have a resolution pulled off of consent. Those remaining on consent are lumped together and passed by a single vote. Resolutions on the
consent
agenda are usually not controversial and tend to be routine matters,
such as accepting grants from the Federal or State Government, entering
into inter agency agreements over mundane things, appropriating money
from the 4% fund, settling lawsuits, or approving
signs overhanging the sidewalk. Unlike a bill which
requires three votes of the Council to pass, a resolution only requires
one vote of the Council. there are several resolution on this agenda
which would complete the purchase and removal of certain
previously identified flood-damaged properties.Below are the
resolutions
of interest.
RESOLUTION RS2017-910 is the soccer stadium resolution addressed at the top of this page. It is not on "consent."
RESOLUTION RS2017-920 concerns civil forfeiture. That is a program that is sometimes called "policing for profit." It allows law enforcement to take someones property upon arrest without due process and then the person who had their property taken must fight to prove they were not guilty of a crime in order to have their property returned. Most often the person who had their property taken are low income and cannot afford the legal fees necessary to fight for the return of their property.
This resolution would approve two agreements between the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Metro Nashville Police Department. These agreements would govern the participation of DEA Nashville District Office Task force participants in the United States Department of Justice Equitable Sharing Program. In my view civil forfeiture is an evil practice in which metro should not participate. Both liberal and conservative civil liberty advocates included the ACLU and organization such as The Institute for Justice oppose civil forfeiture. This resolution was not on "consent." Dave Rosenberg speaks against it. Unfortunately it is approved by a vote of 16 to 15 with four abstentions. To view the discussion see timestamp 2:35:10.
RESOLUTION RS2017-951 would accept a grant of $50K from the State to be matched by $50K from Metro to print new, larger recycling cart stickers and tags to increase curbside recycling and participation in Nashville. Unless I am missing something, this seems like a waste of money. It passes on the consent agenda.
RESOLUTION RS2017-962recognizing November 20, 2017 as Transgender Day of Remembrance. This is a memorializing resolution which means it simply expresses the will of the Council and has no force in law. It passes on a machine vote of 31 in favor, one opposed, two abstentions and six not voting.
Bills on First reading: There are 35 bills on first reading.
First reading is a formality that gets bills on the agenda and they are
not considered by committee until after they pass first reading. Normally bills on First Reading are all lumped together and pass by a single vote. It is rare that a bill on First Reading is voted on separately.
Councilman Scott Davis has BILL BL2017-951 acted upon separately. This is a bill that would create a Community
Oversight Board responsible for providing citizen oversight of the Police Department. He moves to pass the bill and defer to the first meeting in January for consideration on Second reading and he ask for a public hearing on the bill. At the Vice Mayor's suggestion the request for a public hearing is taken out of the motion with an understanding that that will be decided at a later date. Normally the Council does not have hearing on any bills but zoning resolutions and budget resolutions. Davis says that his motion would allow the task force working on the bill time to produce a really good bill.Councilman Russ Pulley moves that the bill instead be deferred on First Reading two meetings. Davis passionately argues his position. See timestamp 3:19:05 for Davis' emotional speech. Davis prevails. Bills on Second Reading. There are 9 bills on Second Reading. These are the ones of interest.
BILL BL2017-939would add additional obstacles to adopting the mayor's proposed transit plan.
The state enabling legislation allowing for transit improvement
known as the IMPROVE Act, provides that a transit improvement
program be adopted by ordinance or resolution by majority vote of
the local government’s legislative body. This bills specifies that such a
plan must must be approved by ordinance rather than a resolution. A
resolution only requires one vote of the Council; a ordinance requires
three votes. This is a good bill. It passes on a voice vote.
BILL BL2017-941 would establish a a Commercial Permit Parking Program. The
council would have to approve the geographic areas in which this
applied. In those areas commercial vehicles could only park on the
street if they had a permit to do so. As we grow, parking become more
of a problem with people parking on streets taking parking places that
deny those spaces to those who have businesses or residence on the
street a place to park. These seems reasonable. At the request of the sponsor it is deferred to the second reading in December.
Bills on Third Reading. There are 9 bills on third reading. Most
of them are zoning bills that have been approved by the Planning
Commission. None of them are very interesting.
Below is the commentary of Melissa Smithson as posted to her Facebook page. Melissa has long been an advocate of the fairgrounds and was a leading opponent of the soccer deal.
Well, we can thank our council for setting the precedent tonight that our city will give you free public land if you are interested in development. NO, REALLY!
And, we will co-sign a loan for you if you need us to so you can hold on to YOUR MONEY, and you can pay us back a little each year, and hey - if you are not able to pay us back or guarantee the loan, that's okay too, our taxpayers have got you covered. AND, you can keep the land we give you too! WOW!
We were outnumbered by soccer fans tonight and did not have the turnout and was disappointed, and I don't hold any ill-will to any of them and not against soccer in any way. A number of them I talked to tonight do not understand either why the giveaway of public land was in the deal.
It's one hurdle we were not able to overcome tonight, but we will stay on top of it and will have more chances to debate and people's voice be heard on this as there are more resolutions and bills to be vote on. I hope you will continue to contact the council and let them know your voice on this. Thanks to those that came out tonight!
After several hours of discussion and consideration of several amendment, the Budget and Finance Committee voted to approve the approve the $275 million soccer stadium deal by a vote of 10-3. Major concerns that the guarantee from the team owners was a weak guarantee with no individuals team owners responsible remains a very weak guarantee. The tea acres to be given to the team owners remains as part of the deal.
Those voting against the resolution were Councilmen John Cooper, Angie Henderson and Steve Glover. Councilman Bob Mendes who had been critical of the deal now supports it and voted in favor.
by Melisa Smithson -
The leadership of our city is once again trying to sell the taxpayers on the latest and greatest ‘must have’ - Major League Soccer, and they want it ONLY on the Fairgrounds property. They also want the taxpayers to co-sign for the deal for the billionaire owners, the Ingram’s, who could get any financial institution to loan them the money. In return, the city will give them 10 acres of prime real estate at the Fairgrounds for making the deal. Also, they want to take away 30 acres for a ‘Fair Park’ with seven soccer fields, a dog park, and greenspace.
If you don’t know already, a prominent family of the times donated the Fairgrounds to the State to generate revenue to hold a State Fair each year. In the Private Acts of 1923, a Fair Board was established, giving them ultimate power to excise a tax, borrow money, whatever it had to do to generate revenue to hold the yearly State Fair. When the Metro government was formed, it adopted the Private Acts as part of their Charter.
During Karl Deans reign in 2010, the city wanted to do away with the Fairgrounds to build a mix-use facility with parks, affordable housing, retail (sound familiar) – all part of a ‘Master Plan’. A small group of us got together to form a coalition and were able to stop the city from bulldozing the Fairgrounds, assembled a petition drive, and placed a referendum on the May 2011 ballot, which 72% of the voters of Nashville voted to keep the Fairground’s existing uses and require a super majority vote of 27 another referendum for any changes to the existing uses or demolition of buildings.
Fast forward to today, they are presenting the same ‘Master Plan’, only disguising it as a ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ opportunity to bring Major League Soccer to Nashville. When we decided to bid for an NFL team, we had a chance to vote for it. The city is trying to sell you that our opportunity is now and only now for MLS. This is not true. They can apply again within two years, but they say that would be much harder and competition would be further along in the bid process, and we must act now, sounding like a typical sleazy used car salesman.
This deal has BAD written all over it for the taxpayers and citizens of Nashville:
Why are we co-signing for bonds for $250 million for the owners?
Why are we having to give away land for the deal?
Why the Fairgrounds when the city owns so much more property?
Why no ‘Plan B’ if the Fairgrounds cannot accommodate?
Why do we need to have a MLS Stadium, while we haven’t paid for the Titans Stadium or Sounds Stadium?
Why put our city, and state, at risk for a lower bond rating?
Where is our money from all the investments already made in downtown?
Why are we not seeing a return in our surrounding communities from the Sounds or Titans or Predators?
This deal is not good for Nashville in so many ways. It will cannibalize the existing uses of the Fairgrounds, and the city will be on the hook if the sport does not do well (we are already on the hook for the Sounds, Preds and Titans). It’s like our city leaders are addicted to development and the latest and greatest ‘must haves’, but our city has a lot of ‘need to haves’ we must address. Our surrounding communities have been ignored and in need of sidewalks, public safety, public works, schools, to name a few. Let’s start spending our resources on our neighborhoods and not downtown, and not to MLS. We can skip this one, focus on our communities, and stop spending our money!
Melissa Smithson is owner of Smithson Marketing Solutions and Chair of the Davidson County Republican Party. She has been a leader in the effort to save the fairgrounds.
On October 17, Mayor Barry announced a $5.2 billion transportation infrastructure plan called "Let's Move Nashville: Metro's Transportation Solution," which would be paid for by combination of sources including a sales tax increase that would tie Nashville with Chicago for the highest sales tax in the nation.You can read the fact sheet on the proposal here, and/or attend one of the following Mayor's office open houses to share feedback, questions and concerns.
The most important item on the agenda is RESOLUTION RS2017-910 to authorize issuance of $275 million in bond sales to build a soccer
stratum on the site of the fairgrounds. Despite some tweaks that improve the bill, it still includes giving 10 acres of prime property to the developer and the guarantees that the proposed team owners will be responsible for the bulk of the debt remains weak. Before the bonds could be issued the team must be awarded a
major league soccer franchise and some other conditions must be met. One of the conditions that must be met is that the Council must approve demolition of some existing building on the fairground site which are to be replaced under this plan. For a more detailed analysis of the resolution follow this link and see the staff analysis and read the bill. The staff analysis runs several pages long. It should be noted that I am writing this on Sunday November 5 and more changes may be made to the resolution at the Budget and Finance Committee meeting on Monday November 6. As of this time, I remain opposed to this resolution.
There are three mayoral appointees to Boards and Commission on the agenda
for confirmation and as always they will be affirmed.
There are two resolution and 27 bills on Public hearing. The resolutions are unimportant and simply exempt establishments from the minimum
distance requirements for obtaining a beer permit.The bills on public hearings are all rezoning bills or related to
planning and zoning policy.
Rezoning hearings bore me and I don't even try to form an opinion on the
merits each rezoning bill before the Council. Rezoning bills usually
are of interest only to people who live near the proposed rezoning.
People who don't care
one way or the other do not show up and with rare exceptions the only
people who speak in favor of rezoning bills are those who will benefit
from the rezoning such as the property owner or the developer.
Opponents always make the same argument which boils down to one of
these: 1) the change will result in stressing the infrastructure such as
too much traffic on the roadway or overcrowd the schools, 2) will cause
flooding, and 3) will change for the worse the character of the
community. If you are interested in knowing what is permitted in
different zoning districts, follow this link. I call attention to only those bills on public hearing that for some reason I expect to be controversial or to bills which have been disapproved by the Planning Commission. A bill disapproved by the Planning Commission requires 27 votes to be approved on third and final reading and sometimes that can be difficult to obtain. Some bills on public hearing have not yet been to the Planning Commission and some are approved contingent upon the sponsor making changes recommended by the Commission. Below are the bills on public hearing I find of interest.
BILL BL2017-903 would ban decorative "rope lighting" on any building, sign, or property with non-residential zoning located adjacent to an arterial or collector street except those in the downtown area. The sponsor tried to pass something similar back in August (BILL NO. BL2017-704) but that bill would have applied to residential property also. This bill is not as bad as that bill, but I still do not see the necessity of this and remain opposed. Rope lighting is that lighting that you have probably seen that outlines a tree or structure. It is often used as Christmas decorations but sometimes is used year-round. Why one would want to ban this I have no ideal. I like it. I oppose this bill.
BILL BL2017-937is another bills that would address home-sharing or short term rental. It would establish a STRP Advisory Committee and it would allow existing permit holders to renew definitely, apply percentage caps to Not Owner-Occupied units within certain census tracts, and apply distance restrictions of 1,320 feet between Not Owner-Occupied units, among other changes. The Council has been working on the issue of short term rental property for a long time, at least a year. A comprehensive short term rental ordinance is in the works and is to be presented to the Council in January. This bill is do be deferred to December 5th.
BILL BL2017-938 would exempt religious institutions from current sidewalk requirements, provided the religious institution is within the General Services District and does not abut an existing or planned sidewalk. Currently if a developer does an infill development even on a street without sidewalks they must build sidewalk even if there are no other sidewalks on the street. This can greatly increase the cost of development and can result in less affordable housing. In my view the whole requirement that developers build sidewalks should be scraped except in rare circumstance. I support this bill but the whole issue should be addressed.
There are 27 resolutions all of which are on the consent agenda. A
resolution stays on the consent agenda if it passes unanimously the
committees to
which it was assigned. Since the committees have not met
yet, some resolutions which are listed as on the consent agenda may not
be on the consent agenda when the council meets. Resolutions on the
consent
agenda are usually not controversial and tend to be routine matters,
such as accepting grants from the Federal or State Government, entering
into inter agency agreements over mundane things, appropriating money
from the 4% fund, settling lawsuits, or approving
signs overhanging the sidewalk. Resolutions on the consent agenda
are lumped together and passed by a single
vote of the Council rather than being considered individually. Any
member of the body may have a resolution pulled off of the consent
agenda or
have their "no" vote or abstention recorded. Unlike a bill which
requires three votes of the Council to pass, a resolution only requires
one vote of the Council. there are several resolution on this agenda which would complete the purchase and removal of certain previously identified flood-damaged properties.Below are the resolutions
of interest.
RESOLUTION RS2017-910 is the soccer stadium resolution addressed at the top of this page.
RESOLUTION RS2017-951 would accept a grant of $50K from the State to be matched by $50K from Metro to print new, larger recycling cart stickers and tags to increase curbside recycling and participation in Nashville. Unless I am missing something, this seems like a waste of money.
RESOLUTION RS2017-962recognizing November 20, 2017 as Transgender Day of Remembrance. I am sorry that any transgender person or any other person has lost their life to violence but this is meaningless political correctness.However, if I were serving in the Council, I would probably let it slide since these memorializing resolution simply express the view of the council and are not official acts of the Metro Government. The handful of conservative council members should probably pick their battles and just let this pass.
Bills on First reading: There are 35 bills on first reading.
First reading is a formality that gets bills on the agenda and they are
not considered by committee until after they pass first reading.I do not read them until they get to second reading. Bills on First Reading are all lumped together and pass by a single vote. Bills on Second Reading. There are 9 bills on Second Reading. These are the ones of interest.
BILL BL2017-939would add additional obstacles to adopting the mayor's proposed transit plan. The state enabling legislation allowing for transit improvement known as the IMPROVE Act, provides that a transit improvement program be adopted by ordinance or resolution by majority vote of the local government’s legislative body. This would specify that such a plan must must be approved by ordinance rather than a resolution. A resolution only requires one vote of the Council; a ordinance requires three votes. This is a good bill.
BILL BL2017-941 would establish a a Commercial Permit Parking Program. The council would have to approve the geographic areas in which this applied. In those areas commercial vehicles could only park on the street if they had a permit to do so. As we grow, parking become more of a problem with people parking on streets taking parking places that deny those spaces to those who have businesses or residence on the street a place to park. These seems reasonable.
Bills on Third Reading. There are 9 bills on third reading. Most
of them are zoning bills that have been approved by the Planning
Commission. None of them are very interesting.
To watch the
Council meeting, you can go to the courthouse and watch the
meeting in person, or you can watch the broadcast live at Metro Nashville Network's Government TV on Nashville's Comcast Channel 3 and AT&T's U-verse 99 and it is streamed live at the Metro Nashville Network's livestream site and you can watch it live on Roku. You can catch the meeting the next day (or the day after the next) on the Metro YouTube channel.
If can stand the suspense and just wait, I will post the video on
this blog the day after or the day after that and provide commentary.
As the author of A Disgruntled Republican I often post items which I think may be of interest to the conservative, Republican, libertarian or the greater community. Posting of a press release or an announcement of an event does not necessarily indicate an endorsement. Rod
Posts
