Controversial 6th and Hume Stormwater Run-off Issues Blow Back on Metro

It has been a while since I updated you on the dispute over a drainage pipe at the townhouse development at the corner of 6th Avenue and Hume Street, but the drama is still developing via e-mails between residents and Metro Planning and Stormwater Engineers. There are critical unanswered questions about the approval of the run-off plan and about the reasons given for shunting stormwater run-off toward an adjoining low-lying property that includes a historic, century-old house.

First of all, in e-mail, one Planning Official questions earlier claims by the developers, Dale and Associates, that Planning's zoning's approval did not deal with water run-off issues "at all". That official told inquiring neighborhood association members that, in fact, the planning process does include water run-off issues. It is clear from the December 2005 Planning Commission Meeting minutes, where zoning for 6th and Hume was discussed, that stormwater issues are dealt with (p. 74):

[6th and Hume property] approved [by Planning] with the condition that the following issues be resolved prior to or with the submittal of the final SP application:
1. Stormwater needs a full size set of plans to review, prepared by a Registered Engineer in the State of Tennessee. The SP provided did not have a stamp or any engineer information of any sort.

The minutes also clearly state that the SP zoning--used by Dale and Associates to absolve themselves of responsibility--does not relieve applicants of responsibility for stormwater regulations (p. 72).

Another Planning official told neighbors via e-mail that the Planning Department itself is not funded to perform the engineering review required to advise on stormwater regulations. Instead, Metro's Stormwater Engineers are responsible for approving or denying the plans of Dale and Associates and the owners of the property. (Note to those of you who deal with the Planning Department: that division itself does not deal with the significant engineering details of stormwater run-off).

Metro Stormwater has yet to respond to neighborhood leaders with their reasons for approving that all property drainage be channeled through a single pipe directed at a low-lying property. However, the neighbor who lives on the affected property wrote an eye-popping mouthful to one Stormwater Engineer:

It seems like an unacceptable oversight to have permitted the [Schoene Ansicht project] to be moved forward without ... addressing the water run off problems .... [O]ur combined sewer and storm drains are exceptionally old ... and inadequate. The city has failed to respond satisfactorily to our concern that these systems be upgraded. The very least that the citizens ... have a right to expect ... is that our problems are not added to by private developers whose interests are primarily in their own profit and who have no long term vested interest in our neighborhood. If the site plan did not address these issues, then those government departments whose job it is to represent ... the interests [o]f the community at large should have seen to it that the plans were returned to the planning department ... rather than pushed through to save time and expense for the developer. I wonder if the engineer(s) who went along with this site plan would have so readily done so if the pipe were directed toward his (their) own home(s).

Amen. As soon as I hear something from Stormwater Services, I'll follow up.


UPDATE: Follow-up after the jump.

"Beautiful View" Is Not Looking So Beautiful to Some in Salemtown

A low visibility conflict has been brewing lately among some property owners in Salemtown over a large drainage pipe installed at a new townhouse development at 6th Avenue & Hume Street called Schoene Ansicht (German for "Beautiful View"). The drain pipe would funnel rainwater run-off into the alley between 5th and 6th Avenues and possibly onto the low-lying property of neighbors who reside across the alley from the development.

According to e-mail correspondence between a Metro Storm Water Engineer and a representative of Dale and Associates, the SP zoning of the site did not deal with stormwater run-off at all. However, the property itself has been converted from one that held a small duplex hugging the corner surrounded by mostly permeable greenspace to a high density footprint covering the entire property and offering paved parking. Nearly all of the prior greenspace is gone. So, water from the re-developed property is to drain into retention tanks and overflow though a single pipeline into the alley.

This presents a problem for next-door neighbors whose property sits several feet lower than the alley. I stood in the neighbors' yard to take a picture and from where I stood the pipe seemed to hit me at eye level. In his e-mail the Metro Engineer who also visited the site told Dale and Associates that he is concerned for the adjacent property and thinks that even when the alley is paved, the pavement "inversion" will not be enough to divert the run-off to the street.

Dale and Associates told the Engineer that Public Works would not allow them to run the pipe to the street because of a sidewalk, and so they maintain that they had no other choice. They are advocating a high crown in the alley to divert water to Hume Street. But that would present another problem for the adjacent property. The corner of 5th and Hume is where the water would run. 5th and Hume is one of those water run-off problem areas that Metro Water promised to solve a long time ago, but has not done so. So, even if the run-off from 6th and Hume is diverted down the alley to Hume, it will eventually add to the post-storm ponding in the adjacent neighbors' front yard instead of their back yard.

To further heighten tensions in the neighborhood, co-owners of the development seemed to send mixed messages to concerned neighbors about the project. One co-owner told neighbors that the pipe would empty right into the alley where it currently comes out. Recently, I sent an e-mail to another co-owner with the text:

I noticed that on your 6th and Hume development you are running what looks like a drainage pipe along the property line to the alley. Will that carry water run-off into the alley or are you planning to connect the pipe to the street run-off?

I received this response:

It'll be connected underground. This was a requirement by Metro Water's Storm Water division. All of that special stuff for that underground water retension system cost $117k installed. Not to mention the amount of time it takes to custom make pieces to fit our small project.

That response does not indicate that the water would run into the alley, even though it is very clear from other sources that the water will not connect to the street run-off or underground to the storm sewers. That mixed message generated confusion--with some charging Schoene Ansicht co-owners with deception--at our last Salemtown Neighbors meeting when we discussed the pipe. The co-owners used to attend those meetings, but have stopped doing so.

Salemtown Neighbors has been very supportive of this development from the beginning. We gave approval to this and other projects so that they could get Metro Council authorization to build. I even wrote a letter on their behalf to the Planning Commission supporting their plans. However, there are increasing concerns among some members, especially affected residents, that co-owners and developers of Schoene Ansicht are not doing what they should to mitigate water run-off problems that could adversely affect some of those who have supported them in the past.


UPDATE: Schoene Ansicht Co-owner Steve Yokley responds in the comments section of this post that he mistakenly assumed that the drainage plans on this development and another they are going to start in the future were the same when he replied to me in the e-mail I quote above:

The Salem Garden project at the corner of 6th and Garfield, was slated to discharge underground. I assumed that this project would be done the same way.

Is the Salemtown neighborhood association prepared for these January rezoning requests?

Salemtown Neighbors does not traditionally hold December business meetings deferring instead to hosting a holiday social. This tradition will hold in 2014, but given news of some requests for rezoning due for public hearing in January, the association officers may want to consider discussing them since they will happen before the January 2015 business meeting:

A seven-home courtyard style project is slated for 1614 and 1616 Fourth Ave. N. Dale & Associates will go before the Metro Planning Commission on Thursday, Dec. 11, to request the SP.

At 1618 Fourth Ave. N., and on the southeast corner of the intersection of Garfield Street and Fourth, an eight-unit development with six attached townhomes to face Garfield and a two-family dwelling to address Fourth is planned. D&A will go before the commission on Thursday, Jan. 8.

And at the northeast corner of Sixth Avenue North and Garfield, a 20-unit attached-townhomes development is being targeted. Seven of the units would face Sixth, eight would address Garfield and five would run along an alley. The project would replace the four existing duplexes seen here in an image courtesy of Google Maps. D&A also will address the commission about this project on Jan. 8.

The project that is before the Planning Commission tomorrow (1614 and 1616 4th Av N) was already vetted and discussed by the association at their October business meeting. The association made no requests for changes, even though an "SP" ("Specific Plan") allows them to leverage changes to the plan in exchange for community support of the plan. However, those developers promised in October to keep the association in the communication loop as plans unfolded. I have not heard anything from SNNA officers on new plan developments since that meeting. Maybe it is time for an update? I would hate to be blind-sided by tomorrow's commission meeting.

The association has not heard from the developers for the larger 8-unit development at Garfield and 4th Av N or what sounds like a massive one at Garfield and 6th Av N. Most of Salemtown is zoned "R6" for medium density single family detached homes or duplexes, so I assume that the developers are seeking rezoning. At the very least, we should be discussing the impact of replacing 8 units with 20 units at 6th Av N and Garfield. The street parking situation on Garfield alone is getting silly with the existing onslaught of new builds.

Since rezoning cases are about the only times the neighborhood can have direct influence or control over what gets built and the plans' consistency with Salemtown's character, I hope the association officers are keeping tabs on this. I have heard nothing from them as an SNNA member. Hopefully, they are considering making more of a social media effort beyond promoting cookies and dog grooming on the association's Facebook page.

In my opinion, Roy Dale's development company has a debatable track record of building in Salemtown and so we need to stay on our toes and vigilant about these proposals. Otherwise, in a few years we may regret letting this opportunity go by without exercising some control over the process. I hope the officers are keeping their eye on the ball despite the distractions of the holiday season. Developers are notorious for sneaking controversial proposals through the Planning Commission when neighbors are distracted by the holidays. We need to keep tabs on Dale & Associates for that reason alone.

Is this Salemtown development designed for people or for cars?

Over the past year--whether concerning a new bus rapid transit line or an $18 million pedestrian bridge--the Mayor's Office has drummed into our heads that the strapping millennial generation is different than others in that they want more walkable neighborhoods and more mass transit. In short, they don't care for cars.

What's good for public dollars ought to be good for private dollars, too, so why is Dale & Associates builders planning a high-density build in Salemtown with what looks like parking for at least 40 cars? New builds are marketed to millennials who don't subscribe to car culture (unlike baby boomers), so why do these the developers of "The Row at 6th and Garfield" plan to pave/build over what looks like about 80% of the land across 5 properties?

Accommodations for 40 cars?!!

It seems brash enough to demolish 8 units across those 5 plots and build 20 in a neighborhood zoned mostly for medium density. However, I can grasp the logic that the urban core is going to become more, not less dense over time. What I fail to appreciate is taking out what are currently modest rentals that accommodate working-class folk in are increasingly being pushed out of Salemtown. What I fail to fathom is why one more project is being built for upwardly mobile millennials, with no mention of affordable options to hang on to diversity. What I fail to respect is the idea that the space will be more devoted to servicing cars than people; in an age where we are told that millennials are giving up their cars.

Current configuration: 8 units, maybe a dozen parking spaces.

Some in the new urbanist klatch refer to this corner as the "last remaining corner at 6th and Garfield," even as it continues to be occupied families with children. Part of the problem with the gentrifying mindset it that it renders people of modest income invisible. The more profound attribution to me is that if The Row at 6th and Garfield is built as currently planned, then the last patch of considerable green space at this intersection will be paved over. It is not uncommon to see children playing on the grassy areas whenever I pass this intersection.

The builders of each of the other three developments (one is Dale & Associates) at the intersection took vacant lots with nothing but green space and built town homes with completely paved car ways in the back. They left thin slivers of green space ringing each of the developments. So, The Row at 6th and Garfield would complete the trend of orienting intersection completely to car traffic regardless of environmental and stormwater run-off impact.

While the question of 20 units may not be as much of an issue in the urban core, the question of parking for 40 cars in the core makes 20 units too much for this intersection. The owners of these properties are allowed to build what they wish within the current medium density parameters, but they are requesting rezoning for 40 cars. They have to have community support to be permitted to build for 40 cars.

In my opinion, it is unwise for Salemtown to support to the idea of parking for 40 cars in one development. We need to ask the developers to scale down their build more practically for the people they are marketing to. Why not double the number of units from 8 to 16 and reduce the number of car provisions to 32 (or less since millennials don't prefer cars)? And they should be required to include affordable housing components in the project.

If the men of Dale are going to ask for our support in their bid to maximize land owners' investments, then they should be willing to give something back to our community.


UPDATE: I took a photo of the MTA bus stop closest to the properties where The Row at 6th and Garfield would be built. The blue sign marks the stop. The red brick duplexes in the center background of the photo are the properties in question. We are talking about a few dozen feet to walk to catch a bus that runs straight down 5th Av N to downtown's central station in around 5-10 minutes (yes, I have picked up a bus there before), where other buses can take riders anywhere in Nashville.

Again, if mass transit is a comer with potential buyers, and they do not have to walk even a block to access mass transit, why should developers include 40 parking spaces at The Row at 6th and Garfield?

Opportunity for Salemtown residents to influence three building plans tonight

According to Salemtown Neighbors president, Freddie O'Connell, tonight's association business meeting will entertain proposals from three developers on Specific Plan rezoning requests under consideration at the municipal level. Since all three seek Specific Plans, they are all required to incorporate community feedback consistent with neighborhood character into plans before getting final approval from Metro Council.

The first proposal is one that generated controversy and argument between SNNA and council member Erica Gilmore at the last association meeting. Members questioned whether CM Gilmore was interested in including Salemtown in on rezoning requests that affected them. CM Gilmore brashly questioned whether SNNA legitimately represented Salemtown. Of course, I felt compelled afterwards to rejoin Erica Gilmore, who seems blissfully unaware of her own contradictions.

That disputed proposal comes from Aerial Development who has their own track record of destabilizing neighborhoods. Aerial is lately being sued by a former partner for allegedly failing to share the profits for their projects on 5th Av., North. Aerial's proposal before SNNA is called "4th Avenue Cottages."

Aerial's plan.

Metro Planning's development tracker gives the full details:

A request for final site plan approval for property located within the Salemtown Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District at 1706 4th Avenue North, approximately 175 feet north of Garfield Street, zoned SP (0.40 acres), to permit six single-family detached units, requested by Civil Site Design Group, applicant; Aerial Investment Properties, LLC, owner.

Residents were particularly upset that CM Gilmore has spoken for Aerial on the cottages development without consulting them. They were also angry that Aerial pushed ahead without consideration for the conservation overlay passed recently. Metro Planning staff recommended approval of the development because it fits with their own higher density goals.

Are the 4th Avenue Cottages already on the market? (click-on to enlarge)

One would think that Aerial should be in full PR drive damage-control tonight if last month's meeting is any indication of popular dissatisfaction. Hopefully, they will be open to listening. The issue here is not that urban residents will not accept higher density, but that we do not appreciate being blind-sided on rezoning requests that should have had our input.

Another proposal under consideration tonight concerns properties about half-a-block south of the Aerial real estate. I have perceived no unpleasant, unnecessary drama about this proposal as yet, but little is known about it beyond what Metro Planning divulged to the community:

According to Metro Planning's development tracker, here are the complete details of the request to rezone on this property:

A request to rezone from CS to SP-R zoning for properties located at 1614 and 1616 4th Avenue North, approximately 115 feet south of Garfield Street,  (0.4 acres), to permit up to seven detached residential dwelling units, requested by Dale & Associates, applicant; T & J Holdings IV, LLC, owner.

I am curious to know why the developers are proposing seven instead of six homes across two properties. Are they trying to squeeze as many people as possible on real estate to maximize their profits or is this a reasonable request? Given what we learned about flooding along 4th Av in 2010, I'll be interested to see what their plans are for dealing with stormwater run-off.

There is no plan for 1614/16 4th Av. up yet on the Planning's website, which puts the neighborhood at a distinct disadvantage to developers as usual. But if you want a sample of real estate Dale & Associates (owner is former CM Roy Dale) develops, especially in Salemtown, I've blogged on several. Maybe we will learn a host of details tonight and the developers will express an openness to future meetings if needed.

I don't have any details on the third SP proposal to be considered tonight. Surprise, surprise.


UPDATE: Jump to my follow-up with clarification and correction of the information above.

Tygard's Top Financial Backers: Will Big Campaign Money Usher Stranglehold Growth Should He Win?

The roster of top 20 financial donors on at-Large candidate Charlie Tygard's latest disclosure forms weighs heavily to the growth side of development against sustainability and infrastructure:

• Gaylord PAC (Convention industry) -- $1,000
• John Coleman Hayes (Developer, John Coleman Hayes Construction Co.) -- $1,000
• Al McKinney (Engineer, Concord Group) -- $1,000
• Sid Smith (Engineer, Smith, Seckman, & Reid) -- $1,000
• Carl Neuhoff (Accountant, Hostettler, Neuhoff, & Davis Real Estate Brokers) -- $1,000
• Lee Beaman (Auto Sales, Beaman Automotive) -- $1,000
• Kelley Beaman (Auto Sales, Homemaker) -- $1,000
• Ann Fussell (Homemaker) -- $1,000
• Sandra Lee (Homemaker) -- $1,000
• Mary Jones (Realtor, Jones Realty) -- $1,000
• William Freeman (Developer, Freeman Webb) -- $750
• Julia Whitson (Homemaker) -- $750
• Mary McGrath (N/A) -- $650
• Greater Nashville Area Realtors PAC -- $500
• Colin Reed (Business Exec., Gaylord) -- $500
• Cecil Branstetter (Attorney, Branstetter, Stanch, & Jennings) -- $500
• Dewey Branstetter (Attorney, Branstetter, Stanch & Jennings) -- $500
• James Webb, III (Developer, Freeman Webb) -- $500
• Kevin Estes (Engineer, Dale and Associates*) -- $500
• Mack McClung (Developer, Vastland Realty) --$500

That's a lot of money collected from a number of growth industry bosses from April 2007 to June 2007 (approximately 90% of Mr. Tygard's total of $24,770 in contributions collected during that period are from donors giving over $100). Not included in this list are two other engineers and one other Realty PAC which each gave at least $200 to the Tygard campaign.

Mr. Tygard's past voting record seems to lack any balance between growth and infrastructure, and yet there is nothing in his financial disclosure forms that should lead us to believe that he would govern with any more balance in an at-Large seat. He would seem to be beholden to big money and untrammeled growth, which could hurt neighborhood sustainability and the influence of neighborhood associations on local politics.

________________
*Dale and Associates engineered the controversial water retention tank at the Schoene Ansicht development in Salemtown. That tank is set to funnel run-off from the property into a lower-lying alley and an adjoining property (as of this date no crown has been put on the alley as recommended to the UP, LLC ownership group in order to divert the run-off). Schoene Ansicht is a neighborhood symbol of growth running roughshod over sustainability and infrastructure when money becomes more important than people.

It Takes a Lot of Balls to Attempt to Market a Development on the Very Enclave Post Criticizing that Development

The co-owners of Schoene Ansicht have given a whole new meaning to cliche, "There is no such thing as bad publicity." In the comments section of my last post--which details attempts by those co-owners and by Dale and Associates developers to install a drainage pipe that would funnel run-off downhill into neighbors' properties--one of the co-owners posted the contact information of the real estate agent for potential buyers. As if it were not adding insult to injury. As if any indifferent business could spam Enclave without me removing it. As if it wouldn't have gotten the response: they won't be getting any free advertising or support from me until they find a more constructive purpose for the drain pipe.

You know who is untouched in all of this? Dale and Associates, that's who. These guys and girls are basically beholden to the co-owners. They can plead to Metro that they had no other option but to design the pipe as it is, whine about having to go back to the Planning Commission with details that they should have resolved the first time around, but then make no effort to be responsible to Salemtown. And then they can walk away without fear of any financial repercussions. Neighbors cannot boycott their business, because we're not the ones doing business with them. We cannot lobby against them, because the land owners choose them. They come in and survey and design and then leave with their money in hand; beholden to no one who lives here.

Maybe someone more knowledgeable over at Belmont's Center for Entrepreneurship can explain the merits of that catbird seat to me. I tell you what, though: no matter how much smarter they are, that someone could never justify spamming a blog to capitalize on the very criticism one chooses to ignore while expecting that spam to stay.

Exceptionally large, 20-unit Salemtown development deferred for community meeting

The "Specific Plan" rezoning requests are now flying into Salemtown, with new ones barreling down the pike persistently, enough to make your head spin. Most of the "SPs" propose to expand the number of units currently existing on the properties, which is consistent with the priorities of planners (who strive to increase density) and those of developers (who strive to wring out every last drop of value that they claim to add to properties). Former Metro Council member Roy Dale has been the applicant of a number of recent rezoning requests; a sweet parlay on his part.

One development about which I have waved red flags early on is "The Row at 6th & Garfield." The plan is to demolish 8 existing units across 5 plots and infill 20 new ones. The Salemtown neighborhood association informed me before the plan came before the Planning Commission on January 8 that the developers were seeking to defer in order to hold community meetings on the project. The association gives no public indication that I can see (I am a member) that they have concerns about the project. The Planning Department's recommendation reflects that deferral:

Project No. Zone Change 2015SP-001-001
Project Name The Row at 6th & Garfield

Requested by Dale and Associates, applicant; Bryan Development, LLC, owner.

Staff Reviewer Birkeland
Staff Recommendation Defer indefinitely.
_____________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUEST
Zone change to permit twenty multi-family units.

Preliminary SP
A request to rezone from One and Two-Family Residential (R6) to Specific Plan-Residential (SP-R) zoning for properties located at 1700, 1702, 1706, 1710 and 1712 6th Avenue North, at the northeast corner of 6th Avenue North and Garfield Street, (1.01 acres), to permit up to 20 multifamily dwelling units

Existing Zoning
One and Two-Family Residential (R6) requires a minimum 6,000 square foot lot and is intended for single-family dwellings and duplexes at an overall density of 7.71 dwelling units per acre including 25 percent duplex lots. R6 would permit a maximum of 7 lots with 1 duplex lot for a total of 9 units.

Proposed Zoning
Specific Plan-Residential (SP-R) is a zoning district category that provides for additional flexibility of design, including the relationship of streets to buildings, to provide the ability to implement the specific details of the General Plan. This Specific Plan includes attached residential buildings.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends an indefinite deferral at the request of the applicant.

The Planning Commission did indeed approve the deferral two weeks ago.

This week the neighborhood association sent out announcement of its next business meeting, Monday, January 26 (6:00p). That agenda included the item, "Developer Presentations (30 min.) [held jointly with Councilperson Gilmore]." No other details were listed and there is no clarification announced by Salemtown Neighbors, but I assume that the SP request for The Row at 6th and Garfield is to be addressed. It is not easy to see where SNNA's executive board stands on this.

Chances are, if Roy Dale is present on Monday, he will also be discussing the SP request at 4th Av N and Garfield (2015SP-002-001) which was approved by the Planning Commission on the January 8 consent agenda without any discussion by the commissioners. Even with that approval I am unaware of any community meetings having been held on this plan by developers. It would demolish 6 units and build 8. But again, specific plans require allowance of community input before final approval. The public hearing has not been held by Metro Planning, yet so there is still time to slow this down if community discussion does not happen at the association meeting on Monday. I have received no notifications from CM Erica Gilmore about upcoming community meetings on rezoning. I certainly hope she is doing her due diligence on these rezoning requests.

Here is the planning staff's recommendation for the 4th and Garfield plan:

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval with conditions and disapproval without all conditions.

CONDITIONS

1. Uses within the SP shall be limited to a maximum of 8 residential units.
2. If a development standard, not including permitted uses, is absent from the SP plan and/or Council approval, the property shall be subject to the standards, regulations and requirements of the RM20-A zoning district as of the date of the applicable request or application. Uses are limited as described in the Council ordinance.
3. The final site plan shall include architectural elevations showing raised foundations of 18-36” for residential buildings.
4. A corrected copy of the preliminary SP plan incorporating the conditions of approval by Metro Council shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to or with final site plan application.
5. Minor modifications to the preliminary SP plan may be approved by the Planning Commission or its designee based upon final architectural, engineering or site design and actual site conditions. All modifications shall be consistent with the principles and further the objectives of the approved plan. Modifications shall not be permitted, except through an ordinance approved by Metro Council that increase the permitted density or floor area, add uses not otherwise permitted, eliminate specific conditions or requirements contained in the plan as adopted through this enacting ordinance, or add vehicular access points not currently present or approved.
6. The requirements of the Metro Fire Marshal’s Office for emergency vehicle access and adequate water supply for fire protection must be met prior to the issuance of any building permits.

Given the rapid transition Salemtown is currently experiencing, we really do have to keep our eye on the ball. The sheer volume of rezoning requests in a short period of time could tip it out-of-hand completely if we are not vigilant.


UPDATE: both properties did come up for discussion and questions at the January SNNA business meeting. Developers of The Row at 6th and Garfield said that they plan to defer the proposal to the end of February. They also emphasized to those in attendance that SNNA could have some influence over the direction of this project, which is a hopeful sign as long as the association officers encourage input from members. I will post more information on the site plan here soon.

My Eyes Are Peeled on This One, Brainstem

My friend, Sean Braisted, beat me to this City Paper news that new at-Large Council Member Jerry Maynard is having a fundraiser with some very influential Nashvillians to help him pay off his campaign debt. Sean is much less cynical and much more charitable than I am and he suggests that we give Mr. Maynard a chance since this is not a big deal as Sean sees it. But he also calls upon us watchdogs to keep tabs on the situation.

I feel more like a hangdog right now: after seeing the news earlier on Karl Dean's post-election Joslin-connection, I'm plain disappointed that a second leader for whom I cast a vote in the run-off is getting all tied up with big-money company, which has a very keen interest in Metro Council decisions.

The company Mr. Maynard keeps may not lend to balance when decisions get made. Here is a list of the contributors that the City Paper names:

• Adam Dread--lawyer who helped Davidson Co. Republicans prop up Kay Brooks on the School Board
• Other lawyers: Keith Simmons, Bob Tuke, James Weaver
• Multiple lobbyists: Jane Alvis, Peter Heidenreich, Joe Hall, Abby Trotter
• Roy Dale--Dale and Associates Engineering and Architecture firm who designed the controversial water holding system for a Salemtown development
• Other developers and contractors: Bill Hostettler, Bill Knestrick
• Nashville Chamber of Commerce Chair Darrell Freeman
• Convention Center proponent Bert Mathews

We will have to keep an eye on Council proceedings and watch to see whether at-Large Member Maynard sponsors bills or votes in ways that could be a conflict of interest based on his pocketbook needs rather than the broader community's welfare. It's just a shame that the post-election honeymoon ended so quickly for me.

What Did the Metro Stormwater Engineer Investigating Schöne Ansicht Mean by "Concern"?

The Metro Engineer, Steve Mishu, who has been dealing with the Salemtown controversy involving stormwater drainage on the Schoene Ansicht development said by e-mail that the drain system installed to direct water to a lower adjoining property meets regulations, and thus, required no action on his division's part. However, according to the affected neighbors, when he came out to meet with them a few weeks ago after they filed a complaint, he told them that the drainage pipe was "bad" for them, and they believe that that comment was the basis for his statement of "concern" to developers in a January e-mail. Mr. Mishu's exact comment in the January 23 e-mail to Dale and Associates was:

To follow up on this. I made a site visit today and am concerned for the adjacent property owner. I understand the inverted crown alley thing but its not inverted now and it may not be inverted enough when completed to divert the runoff [when the drain system is operating].

When I asked Mr. Mishu last Friday why he would express concern in the January e-mail if the pipe met regulations from the beginning, he responded:

Although the plans met our regulations and were approved, a complaint was made. I take all complaints seriously.

When I asked whether the the regulations essentially allow this drain system to direct the flow of stormwater run-off on to lower-lying adjoining property, his response was:

[Y]es. Runoff tends to flow downhill.

I won't try to attribute an attitude to that rather curt response. Maybe Mr. Mishu is just busy and didn't have time to respond beyond stating the obvious.

There is wide discrepency in interpretations over what was was said and what was meant in the original Metro investigation of Schoene Ansicht's drain system. The affected owners are now left with the impression that Metro Sewer Department should be their next stop. The buck has been passed from Planning to Stormwater to Sewers: it really does flow downhill in local government.