Being a council progressive means shielding the corporate polluters

False reporting? New anti-litter ordinance won't prohibit that yellow roll of spam litter.

Less than 24 hours ago WSMV reporter Patrick McMurtry contacted me to get my views on a council ordinance to regulate the delivery of non-subscription materials to homes (like when the Tennessean throws their "free Wednesday edition", which is full of advertising circulars). He asked me to call him. I reminded Mr. McMurtry via Twitter that the ordinance to discourage the Tennessean from littering our neighborhoods was defeated in June.

I didn't blog about the ordinance in June because I was more concerned about the move to shrink the council. That is where I put all the writing energy that I had. Several years ago I blogged at length about a similar ordinance that was designed to regulate the proliferation of news racks in neighborhoods, so readers can imagine my response to the latest news media hijinks.

Mr. McMurtry's request prompts me to return to the question of whether the Tennessean should be allowed to litter neighborhoods like Salemtown with paper that few people read let alone subscribe to. In June, the Metro Council voted 21-10 to kill the proposal that would have enforced our requests not to have the circulars thrown every Wednesday at our homes. Almost farcically, the council's bill would have placed stupid demands on people like you and me to stop the Tennessean litter: we would have to send our request to Gannett by certified letter and we would have to swear out an affidavit with Metro Codes that the Tennessean is violating the agreement. Who should have to do that?

In June, the Tennessean responded to the bill by making some "concessions" to the council. Those concessions included two phone numbers given to each council member providing a direct line to managers in the circulation department who would see that constituent opt-outs were being honored. Why should we need to lobby our council members to get the Tennessean to do the right thing? Again, it's adding extra steps that many people don't have time to take, especially with unresponsive council members.

Another Tennessean concession was that they would audit the distribution and opt-out lists to make sure that delivery people were only delivering to subscribers. The paper also promised to ride around with delivery people and clean up litter that had previously been left. As far as I'm concerned, those concessions never materialized. I can remember at least 6 deliveries of the "free edition" deposited on the sidewalk in front of my home since June, none of which were cleaned up by the Tennessean. All of the editions were kicked out into the street. Over time 2 were pulverized by auto traffic. The remaining editions were picked up out of the street by a volunteer last week before Germantown's Oktoberfest. Gannett/The Tennessean is not keeping their promises; the same promises 21 council members used as an excuse to defeat the ordinance.

And look at the list of progressives who voted against attempts to discourage litter in neighborhoods: Ronnie Steine, Lonell Matthews, Brady Banks, Scott Davis, Peter Westerholm, Anthony Davis, Burkley Allen, Erica Gilmore, Jason Holleman, and (last, but not least) Megan Barry. CM Barry spoke out against the ordinance, but she did not focus on the question of stopping litter in neighborhoods. Instead, she zeroed in on the bill sponsor whom she alleged was trying to force the Tennessean to write an article:

The conversation has led to some really good things that the Tennessean is doing. Having said that, I … think that this is an overreach and I am incredibly uncomfortable that we as a body would ever compel a newspaper to write a story. I heard a colleague of ours earlier tonight talk about the fact that he had actually lived some place at one point where the government could tell newspapers what to write and that was called “a dictatorship,” and I know that that’s not the intention of the sponsor here but tonight I am going to go ahead and say, “Let’s just put this to rest” and I’m going to vote against it.

On the heels of Ms. Barry's comments, CM Fabian Bedne rose to say that he was the one who related his experiences of living under a dictatorship, but he added that CM Barry's use of his own comments against this anti-litter ordinance was "missing the point." While he wholeheartedly disagreed with forcing a newspaper to write a story, he would vote for the ordinance to protect neighborhoods from "trash and litter". Phil Claiborne, the sponsor of the bill, added that he was not trying to force a newspaper story.

To CM Barry's clipped and obfuscating remarks that the Tennessean is doing "really good things," I would respond that the Tennessean has done absolutely nothing "really good" from where I sit in Salemtown. Again, folks, Megan Barry is a 2015 mayoral candidate who claims to be a progressive. How can a progressive stand with a big corporate polluter against the wishes of a community? We are getting a glimpse of what kind of mayor Megan Barry would be.

Before closing, I want to circle back around to WSMV's request for an interview. Patrick McMurtry told me that the ordinance "is back on the agenda." That is not exactly true. The ordinance on the agenda now would regulate any advertising materials except the Tennessean's. The bill's sponsor, Sheri Weiner, believes that controlling some advertising is better than none. And yet, the biggest litter nuisance at my house is the Tennessean. CM Weiner was absent from the June vote, but her bill is toothless on arrival and would actually give the Tennessean a monopoly on un-subscribed advertising litter. The council had its chance to regulate litter and they failed.

By the way, I never called the reporter back, I have better things to do with my time than waste it on a bill that would not make a dent in the Tennessean's misbehavior or on a reporter who does nothing to hold the 21 council members who voted no in June accountable for enabling the Tennessean's misbehavior. After seeing Patrick McMurtry's story, I have no regrets. My time was well spent doing something else.

A 12South timeline: residents vs. developers

Two months ago, H.G. Hill Realty and Southeast Venture announced to the media plans to build a mixed-use four-story complex that will include one- and two-bedroom apartments in order to fill what they called "a much needed niche" in the 12South neighborhood. One commercial building and two old houses used for small commercial (the zoning is currently commercial) are to be demolished. This particular kind of growth has not brought the neighborhood together in support of the proposal. In fact, there is a group that has been organizing since January to fight the development team.

There seemed to be bad blood from the beginning. The co-owner of Blackbird Tattoo, one of the small businesses affected, told concerned neighbors:

In September 2011, we were informed that our building was most likely going to be demolished and that we should find a new building .... I do not know how we could have fought this ... in effect we WERE forced. We were told we could purchase our building for $500,000, an astronomical price for our small business.

A 12South blogger vented her frustration early in January:

I’m not one of those rabid listserv purists who goes nuts every time somebody proposes a new development in my neighborhood. And although the proposed construction project at 2310 12th Avenue South (the property between the 12South Taproom and Rumours Wine Bar) does appear a bit overblown and disproportionate at first glance (67 apartments and 4,200 sq. ft. of retail), I was ready to keep an open mind.

But when I found out last week that that the owners of the Rumours property right next door had exerted a little deep-pocket muscle on Rumours restaurateurs to strongly “incentivize” them to sell their lease with four years left, I felt frustrated and not a little bit angry.

12South neighbors who are otherwise supportive of growth in their community utilized their elist to express incredulity at the deviation from community character and anger that the process seemed less-than-transparent in its early phases (it did not help that they learned about it in the media). Some expressed opposition to 12South becoming an "extension of The Gulch". Some pointed to the distraction of the holidays (introducing controversial zoning requests during holidays or vacation seasons is a time-honored ploy many developers use to mitigate public backlash). Some pointed out to the quality of preserving the older houses along 12South and wondered why the developers did not pursue other properties for sale along 12th Av S. Some objected to paving over properties with surface parking.

Even those who supported the project emphasized that the community should have a "constructive voice" in the planning of the project.

The frustration and ambivalence about developers extended deeper into January:

When the bulldozers come, I am going to weep shamelessly. And that means that suddenly, the stakes went way up for me. Consequently, I’m going to judge what rises from my favorite wine bar’s ashes much more harshly than all previous building projects here. It’s going to take a whole lot for what comes next to be a net gain for me, an improvement in my quality of life. And that’s kind of a big responsibility, You Developers. Please do well. And do good. Don’t make our little corner of the world worse.

The neighborhood association attempted to reassure members in an elist posting:

The 12South Neighborhood Association has some concerns about this large-scale project, and has been diligently working together and initiating discussions with the development team.

We want to assure you that we are actively involved in reviewing the schematic design and voicing the concerns of everyone in the neighborhood and adjoining communities.

We have called on the Metro Planning Commission and The Mayor's Neighborhood Representative, and have thoroughly reviewed the zoning/planning overlays for this property to ensure that what is being proposed is within the guidelines established.

Southeast Venture has agreed to listen to a smaller representative group from the neighborhood in the schematic design phase...and would also like to meet with the neighborhood at-large in a subsequent meeting to present the project to the community .... The initial meeting with Southeast Venture will include members from the 12South Neighborhood Association Board, the Belmont-Hillsboro Neighborhood Board, the Sunnyside Board as well as councilwomen, Sandra Moore from District 17 and Burkley Allen from District 18.

We are cautiously optimistic that our concerns will be heard while recognizing that from a practical standpoint we are not in a position to stop a project that meets current zoning and codes requirements.

The initial meeting occurred on January 20, and the officers emailed association members to tell them how they believed residents' concerns were addressed:

The major points of concern from the 12South Representatives & Council Representatives were:

• How will traffic be affected and how will the designers address the additional influx of cars with a single point of entry/egress? Answer - A traffic study will be done/is being done and will dictate anything beyond what is currently shown in the design in regards to traffic flow. The parallel spaces along 12th should provide some traffic calming as well.
• How is the design team approaching the selection of exterior materials? Answer - the exterior materials are being selected based on the contextual materials in the 12South area.
• How is the size/scale/mass being dealt with in order to stay within the context of the neighborhood? Answer - the design along 12th is not a solid wall/facade but is broken up with pieces being pushed back off the street to break up the facade. Also, the 4th floor being pushed back from the lower 3 floors will help minimize the height of the building at street level.
• What are the lease/rental rates for the retail/restaurant spaces? Answer - the rates will be consistent with the rates in and around the 12South area.
• Are the developers seeking any zoning variances? Answer - not at this time and there is no plan to do so.

Overall, the major concerns of the neighborhood were discussed and we are optimistic that they will be met as the design process moves forward. We will be working with SEV, HG Hill & Council-lady Sandra Moore in the coming weeks to schedule a neighborhood-wide meeting.

While officers met with developers, a group of residents held strategy meetings to recruit volunteers to fight the proposal.

Those aiming to fight the developers did not seem satisfied with answers they got back from the association officers' meeting with the developers. Dissent seemed to come to a head last week when an opposition letter signed about around 50 people in advance of the large community meeting was sent out through the neighborhood contact list:

We the signers believe the four-story, luxury apartments proposed for the sites of Middle Tennessee Roofing, Rumours Wine Bar and Blackbird Tattoo are a poor fit for the 12th Av So neighborhood. First, the vehicle traffic associated with 95 living units plus retail, all moving through a single 12th Av entrance, will exacerbate already-stifling 18 hour per day congestion. Second, the size and privacy of the structure will dwarf historic landmarks, obstruct viewscapes, and foreclose integration of the business district center with the larger community. Third, the gentrification entailed - upscale, gated, high-turnover rentals replacing small businesses and manageable leases - will reverberate in higher costs-of-living and diminished diversity throughout the locale.

The structure is planned for dead center in the old-and-new community. In the immediate vicinity of 12th Av intersections with Elmwood and Caruthers are “worthy of conservation” ... churches, commercial buildings, school, and homes, including the Rumours and Blackbird cottages and many residences in the Belmont Hillsboro Conservation District west of 12th. For three decades, entrepreneurs and residents have invested heavily in these buildings and in the prospect of “new urbanism” based on century-old development patterns.

The neighborhood’s documented periods of balanced self-sufficiency should be guiding new growth. The original village combined streetcars, distinctive and affordable homes, farm produce, dry-goods, elementary school, and churches. By the 1940s, additions included groceries, pharmacies, service stations, meat & three, tavern, hardware, bookstore, middle school, and Sevier Park. After crippling outmigration in the 1970s, government, business and homeowners initiated re-birth under 1221 Partners banners of “neighborhood strategic district” and “cultural marketplace.” Later studies – the 2005 Plan of Nashville, 2006 Future of Neighborhoods, 2008 12th Av So Detailed Neighborhood Design Plan (DNDP), Mayor Dean’s recent Green and Healthy initiatives - touted “human-scaled,” “complete neighborhoods.”

While the precedents cited above do not legally constrain new construction, they are socio-economically compelling. They suggest the following responses to the proposal:

1. Quoting the DNDP, “auto-oriented development … conflicts with business center mixed use.” The SV/Hill project is less “mixed use” than high density “mixed housing” and thus should be located on an exterior, larger thoroughfare. In either location, however, it would merit rear access by alleys and side streets, and shared parking, in line with original and contemporary best practices. The developer should do its part to “(re-) create an alley system parallel to 12th Avenue South along the east side.”
2. Nevertheless, the more fundamental problem is inappropriate “mass, scale and orientation.” The height will be twice, and length and depth three times, that of vintage structures. The rear extension will invade the former alley. Rumours and Blackbird cottages will be demolished. The developer should consider a 3-story, more modest “urban design” paralleling the street, with less rear extension.
3. This upscale, limited access project introduces aspects of exclusivity that are alien to democratic “smart growth.” Gated apartments for the wealthy are not uniformly a priority for diverse neighborhoods. Currently, destination attractions for disposable incomes overshadow basic services for residents. The project will abut the old school yard, affording private green views and precluding planned pedestrian movement from 12th Av through the school to 10th. The developers should embrace the crucial urban connections between the neighborhood center and the surrounding residential, civic and recreation areas. Specifically, the new project should, according to authentic mixed use, diversify living options, complement possible futures for the school, include more revenue sources, and help create a local sense of place.
4. While this project will significantly raise the bar in traffic, mass and scale, and gentrification, these issues have long been simmering. “Permissive building codes,” responsible for sprawl in suburbia, now enable excessive “bulk” and lot coverage and insufficient parking and green space in our urban community. The resident and business associations should recognize and nurture the existing constituency for conservation, small community life, and sustainable growth. This could begin simply with defining the distinctive essences of our “place,” and then promoting them to homeowners, employees and customers. It might – or might not - later involve the adoption of one of several guidelines for “appropriate” land use and development character. By whatever means, though, we should unite in taking care of the “golden goose” that brought us here in the first place.

Last December developers told the media that construction would start in April. It looks like they may have a showdown with their new 12South neighbors before the groundbreaking. It seems to me that they should have started having larger community meetings months ago about this, especially if they are seeking rezoning from commercial to mixed-use. Public hearings at planning and council meetings can always turn nasty with controversial developments that do not strive for transparency and compromise.