What happened at the Nov. 20 Council meeting: Policing for profit passes, Monroe Harding rezoning passes, Police Community Oversight Board explained.

This is the video of the Council meeting of Tuesday, November 20, 2018. The meeting is just a little less than three hours long. If you are going to watch it, it will make a lot more sense if you can follow along with an agenda. To access a copy of the agenda, the staff agenda analysis and my commentary on the agenda, follow this link.

The minutes of the meeting are not yet posted so I do not know which  members were absent for this meeting. I will update this post and supply that information when the minutes are available.

I have already reported on what I consider the two most important items on the agenda. They are these:

Civil asset forfeiture aka "policing for profit." The Council approved Metro's participation in the civil asset forfeiture program, Resolution RS2018-1486 .  I am disappointing and think it is immoral for Nashville to participate in this program.  The argument in favor is that metro not participating will not make the program go away and besides we need the money. I am not going to rehash my explanation and arguments against it. For more on this issue see  Policing for profit and guilty until proven innocent to continue in Nashville, and Please tell your councilman to oppose "policing for profit" and to support innocent until proven guilty and due process.  To view the council discussion see timestamp 1:20:50 - 1:43:50.

Bill BL2018-1370 is the bill that allowed Monroe Harding to move forward with the sale of their Glendale Lane campus. Under threat of even having more of their property rights stripped away, Monroe Harding was bullied into accepting the plan which reduced their property rights. For more on this issue see Monroe Harding forced "compromise" passes the Council, clearing the way to sale the property.

After the prayer and the pledge of allegiance, there are a couple ceremonial presentations of memorializing resolutions and at 15 minutes into the meeting the council gets down to business.

The vice mayor lays out the process for selecting members to the police oversight board, which was approved in public referendum in the recent election. See timestamp 21:00 - 1:09 for the vice mayors explanation of the process and council discussion. For anyone wanting a better understanding of this issue, the Council discussion is informative. To serve on this board or to sign a petition nominating someone to serve on the board, one does not have to be a registered voter and can be of any age. The only requirement is that they be a resident of Davidson County. A certain number of the board members must be nominated by a "community organization," but the term is not defined. I assume anyone or any group of people could call themselves a "community organization." Four members of the board must be from an economically distressed area but that term is not defined. This is an ill-conceived charter amendment and I would not be surprised if a court or the State legislature does not nullify or mortify it in some way. The deadline for submitting nominating petitions for board members is December 18. See Community Oversight Board Information for more information.

Only two people speak during the open comment period. Neither had anything inflammatory to say. One called for transparency in the Amazon and similar deals. There were no surprises in confirmation of mayoral appointees to boards and commissions. They were all affirmed. The other items of interest are the following bills on Second Reading.

Bill BL2018-1283  essentially says that Metro cannot use the proceeds from sale of surplus property to balance the budget.  While it seems to make sense that one should not use one-time money to fund on-going cost, as we did this year, I am not sure that this flexibility should be taken away. There may be times when the city needs to do this. The bill passes without discussion on a voice vote.

Bill BL2018-1334  tweaks the ticket tax for the Major League Soccer Stadium.This would raise the overall price of attending a game and may suppress attendance. It is deferred indefinitely.

Top Stories

Thanks to climate change, overpopulation problem may be solved.

Heat waves caused by climate change could impair male fertility across generations, scientists warn

The article does not address who is affected most by this discovery.  Will people in developed countries with air conditioning who seldom encounter extreme heat be impacted by this development as much as those who live in hot climes?  I would assume not.  If that is the case, then this is a positive development.  The Western European nations are not replacing themselves whereas third world countries are growing rapidly.  This could be good news.

Top Stories

Monroe Harding forced "compromise" passes the Council, clearing the way to sale the property.

The bill (Bill BL2018-1370) to down-zone the Monroe Harding property from its current zoning which would allow up to 53 units to be build on the property to a zoning that allows 31 units and the saving of big tree on the property passed. This bill had the support of Monroe Harding who negotiated this compromise with a gun to their head.  The offer made to Monroe Harding was to accept this or get a much worse "compromise."

Preservationist, planners and many neighbors did not want to let Monroe Harding do anything with their property that did not preserve the 20-acre campus and the 1935-era home on the property. This "compromise" forced upon Monroe-Harding was as about as good as Monroe Harding could get. Monroe Harding plans to relocate and needs the proceeds from the sale to support their mission. The current site no longer suites their needs. Monroe Harding's initial desire was to sale the property as currently zoned which they had the right to do. The right one has to build on ones own property can be stripped away at the wimp of the city Council without compensation to the owner.  In Metro our property rights are very tenuous. 

If Monroe would have not accepted this "compromise" then likely a much worse bill would have passed.  Monroe could have fought it in the courts and likely prevailed.  However, legal fees would have been enormous and it may have taken a long time to reach conclusion. Rather than fight this illegal down-zoning, Monroe-Harding gave into bullying. I don't blame them for doing so.The city forcing this "compromise" on Monroe Harding is a shameful abuse of power. However, Monroe may not be much worse off financially. I don't know the numbers but I would assume Monroe will generate almost as much income from the sale as rezoned as they could have without the rezoning. The developer will simply build larger and more expensive homes.

The bill passed by a vote 27 to 0, which was the bare minimum it needed to pass since it was a disproved bill. The bill was disapproved by the Planning Commission because it did not preserve the mansion on the property.

To read The Tennessean's account of this story, see Nashville council clears way for sale of 20-acre Monroe Harding campus in Green Hills.

Top Stories

A Thanksgiving Lesson

As we gather together to celebrate Thanksgiving this year, let’s not only remember the lessons of Plymouth — let’s commit to proclaiming the virtues of self-reliance, property rights and free markets more boldly than ever.  Otherwise we’ll have even less to be thankful about next year.

By Howard Rich — The Separatist Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock in November 1620 began their new settlement utilizing overtly communist economic principles.  In addition to common ownership of the land, the Pilgrims farmed corn on a communal plot and divided their harvest evenly amongst themselves.

This is the theoretical Marxist utopia — minus indoor plumbing, NPR, MSNBC and portable electronic devices powered by Solyndra solar panels, naturally.  But did this early communist experiment work?  Did it succeed at putting food on the table?

Not according to William Bradford, an early Pilgrim governor of the colony best known today as the “Father of Thanksgiving.”

The communal arrangement initially employed by the Pilgrims was “found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort,” Bradford wrote in his journal, which was later compiled into Of Plymouth Plantation.

Why did this arrangement fail?  Because as has been the case from time immemorial, the equitable division of inequitably produced assets did not sit well with those whose labors yielded the harvest.
“For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense,” Bradford wrote.

But enmity amongst settlers wasn’t the real problem encountered at Plymouth — it was a shortage of food.  In his book Mayflower: A Story of Courage Community and War historian Nathaniel Philbrick discusses how communal farming and common ownership produced a “disastrous harvest.”

Faced with the prospect of starvation, Bradford “decided that each household should be assigned its own plot to cultivate, with the understanding that each family kept whatever it grew,” according to Philbrick.  Not surprisingly this approach replaced infighting and starvation with harmony and industry — not to mention an abundance of food.

“This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content,” Bradford wrote.

In other words where top-down planning based on communist ideology failed — the enforcement of private property rights based on free market ideology succeeded.

“The change in attitude was stunning,” Philbrick writes. “Families were now willing to work much harder than they had ever worked before.”

“The Pilgrims had stumbled on the power of capitalism,” Philbrick added, noting that “although the fortunes of the colony still teetered precariously in the years ahead, the inhabitants never again starved.”

As the United States moves further away from its free market foundation this Thanksgiving, the example of Plymouth is worth considering.  It is a cautionary tale — a grim reminder of where the federal government’s present trajectory is going to take our nation.

Already the “fair share” policies of Barack Obama — who is making good on his stated desire to “spread the wealth” around — have failed to produce the promised economic recovery.  In fact America’s central bank is now printing money indefinitely as government’s debt and unfunded liabilities race past the threshold of sustainability.

The result of this “stimulus?”  Income levels are shrinking, joblessness remains chronically high and economic growth is anemic.  And lurking around the corner are massive tax hikes and the full implementation of Obama’s socialized medicine law — both of which will result in additional large-scale shifts from the “makers” to the “takers” in our society.

Incentivizing dependency has clearly failed to stimulate our economy.  From 2000-10, government’s cash assistance to the poor increased by 68 percent — after adjusting for inflation.  Health care assistance increased by 87 percent, housing assistance by 108 percent and food assistance by 139 percent — again, all after adjusting for inflation.  Still, poverty in America climbed from 11.3 to 15.1 percent during that time period.

Government efforts to combat poverty have produced more poverty, in other words — and based on the ongoing entitlement expansion, the worst is likely yet to come.

As we gather together to celebrate Thanksgiving this year, let’s not only remember the lessons of Plymouth — let’s commit to proclaiming the virtues of self-reliance, property rights and free markets more boldly than ever.  Otherwise we’ll have even less to be thankful about next year.

The author is chairman of Americans for Limited Government.

Top Stories

Policing for profit and guilty until proven innocent to continue in Nashville

Last night the council voted to renew the contract to participate in civil-asset forfeiture. After considerable debate, the council voted 25-5 with two abstentions. Last year, the vote was much closer

and was approved by a vote of 16-15. The shift in favor of the program can be attributed to a more forceful police advocacy of the program. Concern over the loss of revenue generated by the program was a factor in the program's support. The revenue generated by the programs amounts to about $150,000 and is realized from confiscating property of citizens who are not convicted and often not even charged with a crime.

The  five who voted against the program were Freddie O'Connell, Ed Kindall, Colby Sledge, Sharon Hurt and Bob Mendes.

Resolution RS2018-1486  was the bill before the Council, which formalizes  an agreement between the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Metro Nashville Police Department (MNPD). This agreement  governs the participation of DEA Nashville District Office Task Force participants in the DOJ “Equitable Sharing Program” and formalize MNPD's participation in the program.  What this program does is allow Metro to become a partner with the State and Federal government in the civil asset forfeiture program.

What Civil asset forfeiture does is allow the police to confiscate the cash one is carrying and one's vehicle and possession one may have in his vehicle without being proven guilty of a crime. The person whose property is confiscated may not even be charged with a crime. Often it will come about that the police stop a car for a traffic violation and the owner gives the police permission to search the car or the police search the vehicle under probable cause. Upon searching the vehicle, the police discover the driver has $5,000 in cash, for example.  They can confiscate the money and the vehicle.  It may be that the person was on his way to Florida to buy cocaine, but he may have been on his way to Florida to rent a truck and buy a truck load of landscape plants for a work project.  In any case, the person who had his property confiscated, in order to get it back must go to court and prove he was not in procession of the cash and the vehicle to commit a crime.  This can be a lengthy and expensive process. Often people do not have the means to wage the legal battle and just lose their property. 

Top Stories

Civil-asset forfeiture would be called robbery by any reasonable standard. It’s time for the practice to end.

by Freeman & Fuson Tennessee Trail Lawyers Blog .... In Tennessee, the police can seize your car, take your money, take your personal property, take your home, sell these items and use the proceeds of that sale for their benefit without the person being found guilty of a crime. In fact, the police can seize and sell these items without even charging the owner with a crime. And worst of all, the laws in Tennessee promote this activity. (link)

The Washington Post - Since 2007, the DEA has taken $3.2 billion in cash from people not charged with a crime 

ACLU - Police abuse of civil asset forfeiture laws has shaken our nation’s conscience. Civil forfeiture allows police to seize — and then keep or sell — any property they allege is involved in a crime. Owners need not ever be arrested or convicted of a crime for their cash, cars, or even real estate to be taken away permanently by the government. (link)

Institute for Justice - The Institute for Justice aims to curtail, and ultimately, abolish civil forfeiture, one of the gravest abuses of power in the country today. Unlike criminal forfeiture, which takes property from convicted criminals, under civil forfeiture, property owners do not have to be convicted of a crime, or even charged with one, to permanently lose their cash, cars, businesses or even their homes. (link)

National Review -  Civil-asset forfeiture would be called robbery by any reasonable standard. It’s time for the practice to end. (link)



 

Top Stories

Please tell your councilman to oppose "policing for profit" and to support innocent until proven guilty and due process.

by Rod Williams, Nov. 20, 2018 - Most Americans, whether they think of themselves as liberal or conservative, agree on certain basic concepts of government. Most people believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty and believe in due process. Most people do not want the police to be able to confiscate their property if they have not been convicted of a crime. On Tuesday November 20th, the Council will have on its agenda a resolution to approve Metro's participation in a program that violates these basic concepts.

Sometimes called "Policing for Profit," the program the Council will be voting on is to participate in the “Equitable Sharing Program” of  the  civil asset  forfeiture program. The legislation is Resolution RS2018-1486  which formalizes  an agreement between the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Metro Nashville Police Department (MNPD). This agreement would govern the participation of DEA Nashville District Office Task Force participants in the DOJ “Equitable Sharing Program” and formalize MNPD's participation in the program.  What this program does is allow Metro to become a partner with the State and Federal government in the civil asset forfeiture program.


What civil asset forfeiture does is allow the police to confiscate the cash one is carrying and one's vehicle and possession one may have in his vehicle without being proven guilty of a crime. The person whose property is confiscated may not even be charged with a crime. Often it will come about that the police stop a car for a traffic violation and the owner gives the police permission to search the car or the police search the vehicle under probable cause. Upon searching the vehicle, the police discover the driver has $5,000 in cash, for example.  They can confiscate the money and the vehicle.  It may be that the person was on his way to Florida to buy cocaine, but he may have been on his way to Florida to rent a truck and buy a truck load of landscape plants for a work project.  In any case, the person who had his property confiscated, in order to get it back must go to court and prove he was not in procession of the cash and the vehicle to commit a crime.  This can be a lengthy and expensive process. Often people do not have the means to wage the legal battle and just lose their property.

I know this is unbelievable. You may have thought that in America you were innocent until proven guilty. That is not the case. Under The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 the procedure as described is perfectly legal. Many poor people who may be carrying cash, with their cash gone, can't afford to hire a lawyer to fight to get their money and car returned and are forced to just accept the injustice and the loss.  It they can fight to get their property returned it may take months or even years to prevail.

Civil Asset Forfeiture is an outrage. It is opposed by liberal groups like the ACLU and conservative groups like The Institute for Justice and The Beacon Center, yet it prevails. The police often use this money to supplement their budget and the practice is sometimes referred to as "policing for profit."  The Council should vote against this resolution and refuse to participate in this shameful practice.

This is the second time this issue has been before the Metro Council. This agreement has to be renewed every year.  It was before the Council last year and by a vote of 16 to 15 with four abstentions the Council approved participation in the program. Councilman Dave Rosenberg spoke against the resolution and argued Metro should not participate in this program.  To view that discussion see timestamp 2:35:10 in the video at this link. 

Below is the result of the roll call vote when the issue was before the Council at that time.

Voting YES to approve Resolution RS2017-920. Voting in favor of Civil Forfeiture

Nick Leonardo, District 1                 Brenda Haywood, District 3         Bill Pridemore, District 9
Doug Pardue, District 10                  Larry Hagar, District 11                Steve Glover, District  12
Holly Huezo, District 13                  Jeff Syracuse, District 15              Mike Freeman, District 16
Mary Carolyn Roberts, District 20   Russ Pulley, District 25                Tanaka Vercher, District 28
Karen Johnson, District  29              Jason Potts, District  30                Jacobia Dowell, District 32
Antionette Lee, District  22

Voting NO, a vote against Resolution RS2017-920. Voting against Civil Forfeiture
 
John Cooper, At-large                     Jim Shulman, At-large                Scott Davis, District 5
Bret Withers, District 6                   Anthony Davis, District 7           Nancy VanReece, District 8
Burkeley Allen, District                  Freddie O'Connell, District 19    Ed Kindall, District 21
Mina Johnson, District  23              Kathleen Murphy, District 24      Jeremy Elrod, District 26
Davette Blalock, District  27           Fabian Bedne, District 31            Dave Rosenberg, District 35

Voting "ABSTAIN"  
Erica Gilmore, At-large                  Bob Mendes, At-large                  Sharon Hurt, A-large
Angie Henderson, District 34 
                                               
NOT VOTING
DeCosta Hastings, District 2        Robert Swope, District 4                 Keven Rhoten, District 14
Colby Sledge, District 17             Sheri Weiner, District  22                                      

Please note that minutes show the only one absent from this meeting was Robert Swope. The others may have been there at one time and stepped out of the room, not paying attention, or simply chose not to vote.  It is very disappointing that some of those who voted in favor of the bill are members who are thought of as among the small handful of conservatives in the Council. Those who I am extremely disappointing with for supporting this bill or failing to vote against it, I have highlighted in red.

It is time to end this shameful practice. If you would like to tell your councilman to vote against this bill, follow this link and you may do so. To find your individual  council member's  phone number and email address, follow this link and click on their name. If your council member voted the right way last year, you may want to encourage them to also vote that way this year. If they sat on their hands and did not vote or voted "abstain," try to switch them to a "no" vote. Some of the "yes" could be switched to "no" if they get calls from their constituents. Note that there have been a couple changes in the Council makeup since last year. District 1 Councilman is now Johnathan Hall and the District 29 seat formerly occupied by Karen Johnson is now vacant.  The vacancy helps those who oppose civil forfeiture since Karen Johnson voted in favor of it last year. This was close last year, it could be defeated if people care enough to let it be know that they care.

Top Stories

What's on the Council agenda for 11-20-2019: Civil Asset Forfeiture, increasing the ticket tax at Soccer games, prohibiting balancing the budget by selling surplus property.

by Rod Williams - The Metro Council will meet Tuesday, November 20th at 6:30 PM in the Council chamber at the Metro Courthouse. Here is a link to the Council agenda and the staff analysis for those who want to watch the Council meeting and follow along. If you are going to watch it, it is somewhat less boring if you have the agenda and agenda analysis.  You  don't have to watch it and yet you can still me informed. I will watch it for you and then a couple days later post a summary of the most important Council actions and a video of the meeting. Below is a summary of the agenda, highlighting what I deem to be the most important items.

There are two mayoral appointments to boards and Commission on the agenda for Council confirmation but none are to  the troubled commissions. The Council rarely rejects a mayoral appointee.

Resolutions: There are 12 only twelve resolutions on the agenda. Only one is controversial.

Resolution RS2018-1486  approve Metro's participation in "Policing for Profit." It is

an agreement for Metro to participate with the State and Federal government in the civil asset forfeiture program.

What civil asset forfeiture does is allow the police to confiscate the cash one is carrying and ones vehicle and possession one may have in his vehicle without being proven guilty of a crime. The person may not even be charged with a crime. To get the cash and belongings returned the person who had their property taken must prove he did not possess them in order to engage in crime.

This is a shameful program and violates basic concepts of fairness, due process, and innocent until proven guilty. For more a more detailed explanation of the bill, follow this link.

Bills on Second Reading:  There are 17 of them. These are the only ones of interest.

Bill BL2018-1283  essentially says that Metro cannot use the proceeds from sale of surplus property to balance the budget.  While it seems to make sense that one should not use one-time money to fund on-going cost, as we did this year, I am not sure that this flexibility should be taken away. There may be times when the city needs to do that. 

Bill BL2018-1334  tweaks the ticket tax for the Major League Soccer Stadium. I don't expect this to generate controversy, but it might. This would raise the overall price of attending a game and may suppress attendance.

Bills on Third Reading:  There are 33 of them. Most are noncontroversial zoning bills or other mundane issues, like allowing underground encroachments into the right-of-way. Below is the only bill of interest.

Bill BL2018-1370  is a disapproved rezoning bill changing from R20 to SP zoning on property located at 1120 Glendale Lane. I have no insight as to the merits of this rezoning. I am simply calling attention to this bill because, being disapproved by the Planning Commission, it will take 27 positive votes to pass.

Top Stories