TN continues legal push to cut Nashville council in half. I say enough is enough. Give it a rest.

by Rod Williams, August 9, 2024- As reported in The Tennessean today, State officials are appealing a court ruling that let Nashville keep its 40-person Metro Council. On July 29th, a split panel of three judges struck down a state law passed in 2023 that capped councils for all metropolitan governments in large cities at 20 members. In effect, the law as it was written only applied to Nashville. Two of the three judges said this violated protections for home rule in the Tennessee Constitution. The Tennessee Attorney General's office filed its appeal Wednesday of this week.

State legislators justified passing the law capping the size of a cities governing body in the name of efficiency, but I don't think anyone is buying that. This law was passed, along with other laws that took certain decision-making powers away from Nashville and gave them to state officials, as a way to punish Nashville after the Metro Council rejected a draft agreement to host the 2024 Republican National Convention. 

The State needs to give it a rest. This is pure vindictiveness. After the Council refused to pursue attracting the Republican National Convention, which we would have likely gotten, the State retaliated with a series of measures to punish Nashville. These included taking over the Sports Authority, the Airport Authority, a measure to protect racing at the Fairgrounds, a measure abolishing Metro's police civilian review board, and the measure to cut the size of the Council. I understand the State's frustration, but this vindictiveness is too much. 

Metro should have pursued the Republican convention. The City rejected it for no other reason than it was a Republican convention. To host it certainly would not have implied support for the Republican Party or Donald Trump. We host a lot of conventions that may not represent the views of the majority of Nashvillians. We recently hosted a Bitcoin convention. That does not constitute an endorsement of Bitcoin. 

Hosting a major party convention is a big deal. Milwaukee attracted over 50,000 visitors. Nashville is a more fun place than Milwaukee and if Nashville had hosted, the number of visitors would have probably been even greater. The economic impact for Milwaukee was estimated to be a $200 million revenue boost. I am always a little skeptical of the claims of a financial boost from any major event because often it is a gross estimate and not a net calculation. Hosting a big convention, like a major party convention, means other conventions do not take place during that time period and other tourist who would have been here or not here because the convention takes all of the hotel rooms. So, while the claim of economic benefit may be inflated, to host such a convention is never-the-less an economic plum. Also, it cast a spotlight on the city which attracts other tourist and other conventions and maybe corporate relocations. That is a hard intangible to measure but it is a benefit of hosting such an event. 

Hosting major events can be disruptive and inconvenient for a few days to people who go downtown and there is always the threat of disruptive protest and violence at a political convention. However, I think Nashville was foolish for rejecting the Convention. I would feel the same way if it were the Democrat convention we were considering. 

The City was petty for rejecting the Convention and the State was vindictive for the City's pettiness. Metro has won on most of the efforts to punish it. The law abolishing Metro's version of a police civilian review board did survive. The measures that failed did so because they violate the Home Rule Amendment to the Tennessee Constitution, which prohibits that state from passing measure that only impact one city without approval from the local residents of the city impacted.

Some critics of the state's actions will make the argument that this vindictiveness on the part of the State is hypocritical because Republicans are quick to condemn the Federal government imposing its will on a state and they see the relationship of federal to state, analogous to the relationship between state and city. I reject that analogy. States have real sovereignty; cites do not. Home rule gives cities a certain amount of sovereignty; the Federal government does not give the States their sovereignty. Cities are chartered by the state. It the state wanted to abolish a city; it could do so. The Federal government has no authority to abolish a State. 

Some critics of the state action will lump all State actions curtailing Nashville's decision making into the same bucket. I don't. When Nashville tried to impose requirement on developers that they build so many units of affordable housing in each new development, a policy called "inclusionary zoning," the state passed a law preventing the city from doing so. Some years ago, when the city attempted to become a sanctuary city, the state stepped in and prevented Nashville from doing so. The recent action regarding civilian review boards falls in this bucket of political and economic policy decisions. There are others, that do also but do not come immediately to mind. If not for the State our progressive city would probably have its own minimum wage law, and rent control, and price controls, and would protect what is called "gender affirmation health care" for minors, and would ban Big Gulps. I am pleased that the State preempts the city from taking certain actions and stops Metro from becoming the San Francisco of the South. 

So, while on policy issues, I support state supremacy and preemptions; when it comes to taking over the Sports authority, or the Airport authority or reducing the size of the council this are governance issues. These vindictive actions by the State are as distasteful as was Metro's pettiness in rejecting hosting the Republican convention. The State needs to give it a rest and return to a normal relationship. 

Top Stories