Exemption Bummers

Here are my greatest disappointments regarding actions involving the Car Wash Exemption Bill:

• There's been next to no discernible--as in publicized--actions since the bill was deferred over a week ago. I was hoping the neighborhood groups and Nashville Neighborhood Alliance would have jumped on the opportunity to drum up support to try and kill the bill before it is brought back up. If anything is moving on this, then it is happening behind closed doors. Please tell me that neighborhood leaders are not sitting on their hands on the exemption issue like they were a couple of months ago.
• This issue has not come up for discussion on my favorite "urban design issues" on-line discussion, Nashville Charrette. The Charrette has so many positives to it, but one of its limitations is that it tends toward sophisticated design theory and high-minded aesthetics and it seems to shy away from nuts and bolts issues that affect neighborhoods at at the community level. The whole exemption controversy seems a tailor-made crossroads for a Charrette discussion about participatory urban forms, but there has not been a single mention of it.
• No moderate-to-progressive council member has aggressively and outspokenly opposed the exemption bill, thus leading to my greatest disappointment ...
• Council Member John Summers is the only vociferous opponent of the exemption bill. Summers' credibility was all shot full of holes during the Sylvan Park Overlay Catastrophe last year. And yet, he even found a way to sink even lower into the swamp of low regard by voting for English Only. I can only wonder how he is personally benefiting from his opposition, because I'm not convinced that he is digging in his heels on principle.

All things considered, I am concerned that the exemption bill stands a good chance of passage without much resistance.

Indefinitely Deferred: Brakes Put on Passage of Car Wash Exemption Bill

Car Wash Exemption co-sponsor, Charlie Tygard, moved for indefinite deferral tonight of the controversial resolution that would allow new car wash developers to build without consideration of neighborhoods or the council member representing the district. Mr. Tygard said that he wants more time before 3rd and final reading to meet with the Nashville Neighborhood Alliance and with neighborhood association leaders about their opposition to the bill.

Exemption opponent John Summers attempted to table the Car Wash Exemption Bill altogether after Mr. Tygard moved to defer it. "Tabling" or "laying on the table" allows members to stop consideration of a bill without debating it.* The Chair declared Summers out-of-order, because the motion was to defer, not to vote on the bill. In an unexpected twist, exemption proponent Harold White immediately moved to table Mr. Tygard's deferral of the resolution. Council members defeated Mr. White's motion to table, 15-20. Then they approved Mr. Tygard's deferral by voice vote.

It appears that all of the neighborhood organizing since the public hearing has made a difference in slowing down the movement of this bill. It is common knowledge in local politics that council resolutions that make it to 3rd reading are usually guaranteed passage without much resistance. Rather than stopping to rest on their progress, neighborhood leaders and exemption opponents should seize the opportunity and the time they now have to help other leaders make the case to the Metro Council that BL2006-1178 serves only a small special interest group and that it is definitely not in the larger community's best interests.


* My copy of Robert's Rules of Order says that "tabling" is one of the most misused motions in meetings as it is often used to kill a motion and because the motion would not appear again on a future meeting unless it is taken off the table during the meeting in which it was tabled. Tabling is one of the few instances where a majority, instead of 2/3's of the legislative body, can take away members rights, which in the case of tabling would be the right to debate the motion.

Charlie Tygard's Other Ethics Problem

Let me submit for your consideration: the Car Wash Exemption Bill as it currently stands for tonight's 3rd and final reading still does not possess the Planning Department's recommendations despite the fact that Charlie Tygard in his response to the Public Hearing on January 2 said that the bill would include them. I defy you to find evidence in the bill that monument-type brick signs, the knee-walls, and the landscaping are required, as Mr. Tygard claimed they are when he shilled the prospective car washes as "upscale." This is clear misrepresentation of the facts of the ordinance on Mr. Tygard's part; and co-sponsor Diane Neighbors is also duplicitous in so far as she keeps promoting Planning's support-with-conditions in her justifications for the bill.

Council Member to Change Car Wash Exemption Vote to "No"

Council Member Lynn Williams (District 34) e-mailed the Salemtown Neighbors President after receiving the association's letter opposing BL2006-1178 and she informed him that she will be not be supporting the car wash exemption bill. That would be a change from her "Aye" during the bill's second reading roll call vote on January 2. The bill passed on second reading, 27-7 (2 abstained; 4 absent).

Letter from Salemtown Neighbors Neighborhood Association Opposing Exemptions for Car Washes Sent to Metro Council and Mayor

SNNA's Executive Board sent the following letter to Metro Council and Mayor Bill Purcell this morning:

January 30, 2007


Dear Members of the Metro Council and Honorable Mayor Purcell:

We write you to convey our neighborhood association’s opposition to Metro Council Resolution BL2006-1178, which would exempt car washes from categories of businesses permitted only pursuant to a specific plan approved by the Planning Commission and Metro Council. Salemtown Neighbors supports the calls of other associations—most notably White Bridge, Glencliff, Sylvan Park, and others—that car wash owners and developers not be given special treatment or favorable exception from the Council’s earlier resolution requiring certain business owners to consult neighborhood groups and the District Council Member before planning and developing properties.

We are concerned that this bill’s sponsors have failed to address popular objections about substantial increases in traffic volume off arterial streets and into the neighborhoods as the result of new car washes. We are also concerned about allegations that promises made to affected neighborhood groups to defer this bill before it went to Public Hearing were not kept, and as a result neighborhood leaders missed the opportunity to communicate their objections in a public forum. Finally, we are concerned that this resolution sets the bad precedent of encouraging businesses to use the Metro Council as a “back door” to exempt themselves from their responsibility to be good neighbors in local communities.

We call upon each of you to oppose this bill on February 6, but we especially ask our District Council Member, Ludye Wallace to withdraw his support for Resolution BL2006-1178, which we do not believe to be beneficial for our neighborhood. We hope that the addition of our voices to the growing collection of opponents of BL2006-1178 will help check the bill’s momentum. Thank you for your service to our community.

Sincerely,


The Salemtown Neighbors Neighborhood Association Executive Board:
Alan Maloney, President
Carolyn Williams, Vice President
Lynn Hutcheson, Secretary
Kyle Pendleton, Treasurer
Michael Byrd, Board Member
Donna Keeney, Board Member

Counting Her Chickens Before They Hatch?

Vice Mayor Candidate Diane Neighbor's letterhead lacks a preposition between her surname and her prospective title:


I have to say that I was firmly neutral on Council at-Large Diane Neighbors until this whole car wash exemption dust-up, but now I am dead set on not voting for her for (which happens to be the missing preposition) Vice Mayor in the fall.

And I don't care how many times she tries to spin her surname into a neighborhoods talking point this time. I fell for that and voted for her last time. But actions speak louder than words. And her constant repetition of faulty justifications for an anti-democratic initiative regardless of the flack she catches from constituents is approaching Bushian proportions. The parroted rationalizations are looking more like mantras of expedience every day.

The more she pitches her campaign as "Neighbors and Friends," the more I am reminded that it should be called "Neighbors and Special Business Interests." And while she may deny now that the car wash developer's previous campaign contribution had an effect on her support for the bill, we need to remember that there are seven months between February 6 (when the Council will most likely pass the car wash exemption) and election day. That leaves plenty of time for the lobbyists--fresh with disposable car wash income--to reward her campaign later for shepherding the exemption into law now. We need to remember that she has not pledged not to accept their campaign contributions in the future.

So, unlike other local progressives (who might hold their noses and vote for her just to oppose a social conservative) I do not agree that putting Diane Neighbors on the fast track to local political stardom is our best option. Whether it throws a wrench into the fine tuning or not, I must say that conscience will not let me trust a local politician who styles herself progressive and democratic but then does her actual business with business. I trust that candidate less than I do a somewhat mediocre social conservative who stands less of a chance being fast-tracked in a Democratic stronghold. I won't vote for the latter, but I would also caution others to the real hazards of voting for the former.

Until someone else with character and competence emerges, I say, "Write-ins for Vice Mayor, anyone?"

Neighbors vs. Neighborhoods: Diane Neighbors Sends Letter to Supporters

I received a copy of a letter Diane Neighbors sent out on Friday to her supporters defending her conduct during her sponsorship of bill BL2006-1178, which would exempt car washes from neighborhood and Council consideration. In it she provides a timeline and she finally concedes that she did in fact state that "indefinite deferral would be the best course to take" shortly after assuming responsibility for it in summer 2006. But she repeats a point she made lately that "ample time" has been given for public input.

While Ms. Neighbors challenges questions about financing she has received from car wash interests, she continues to refuse to address neighborhood leaders' charges that their chance to give input was short-circuited by the perception that she was going to defer the bill indefinitely. The timeline provided in her letter says nothing about any public statement from her that she had changed her mind about deferring indefinitely or that leaders she had promised were told differently, even though the former were still under the impression that she was promising indefinite deferral in the fall. Seeming to channel former Senator Bill Frist, she continues to argue that Council is entitled to an "up-or-down" vote on this bill, as if indefinite deferral constituted some kind of filibuster (which it does not).

She also defends her stewardship of the bill by saying rather opaquely that the "issue of jurisdiction over the location of the car washes had not been part of the original discussion." That one is confusing to me. We cannot consider jurisdiction just because some Council Members lacked the foresight to bring it up? The Council had a huge debate in the last meeting over a bill that would declare wheel chairs "pedestrians" with opponents calling for the need for Council to anticipate the unexpected when they pass legislation. But now, Diane Neighbors is precluding any debate about unexpected issues like control over location simply because they weren't a part of the original discussion? And even though they were brought up in the Public Hearing? Isn't that what Public Hearings are for? To consider matters that the Council might miss?

Finally, Ms. Neighbors once again leans on a rather disingenuous claim: "the record will clearly show that I have not worked in favor of or against" the bill in question. She has not abstained from any vote on this bill. She voted in favor of it twice and is the primary co-sponsor, and her letter suggests that she will see it through third reading on February 6. If she is as neutral on it as she claims to be, why is she not abstaining on the votes or turning the bill over to another co-sponsor in the interests of avoiding the appearance of bias?

I do not know how much traction the critics of the car wash exemption bill have been getting, but Diane Neighbors seems to perceive the need to shore up her support with this letter.

Salemtown Association Votes to Oppose Car Wash Exemption Resolution

Salemtown Neighbors Neighborhood Association voted unanimously tonight to authorize their Executive Board to send a letter to Metro Council Members and the Mayor opposing the Car Wash Exemption Bill, which has already caused an ethics controversy for Council Member Diane Neighbors and has spurred outcries among other neighborhood groups. SNNA joins several other associations and the Nashville Neighborhood Alliance in opposing special exemptions for select businesses. Once the letter is written, signed, and sent I will post it to Enclave.

Car Wash Exemption Bill Continues to Lack Planning Department's Revisions, Despite Co-sponsors' Claims

After the Public Hearing on Metro Council's Car Wash Exemption Bill, co-sponsor Charlie Tygard claimed responsibility in his remarks in chambers for not communicating to neighborhood residents all of the design conditions that new car washes would have to meet. Many of those residents oppose this bill. He also litanized some of what he called "upscale" conditions: monument-type brick signs, short knee-walls, and landscaping.

However, many of those "upscale" conditions--as recommended by the Planning Department--are not in the bill which is slated for third and final reading February 6. Compare the current Council resolution to the Planning Department's version (after the jump scroll to Item #13 on p. 76). Notice that Planning's recommendations are in bold in their document and notice that they are totally invisible in the Council version. As such, if it had not been for co-sponsor Diane Neighbors's medical procedure delaying its third and final reading on January 16, the bill that Council passed would have lacked a number of the very conditions Mr. Tygard cited to try and soften the blow to neighborhoods of exempting car washes from getting their consent.

As long as Mr. Tygard is taking responsibility, he needs to be accountable for misleading his audience into believing that the exemption bill says more than it actually does. If this bill passes in February without the Planning conditions, then bill co-sponsors' misrepresentation of the conditions will be codified and imposed upon the affected neighborhoods. That will merely be adding insult to injury.

Walking a Thin Line; Tottering a Bit

A Nashville City Paper editorial tip-toes its way through the car wash exemption controversy today, bracketing the question of ethics but underscoring the importance of questioning campaign financing in Metro Council politics. Except for a couple of missteps, it is worth the read. There has been no response whatsoever (outside of Diane Neighbors's response) from the council members supporting this bill as to their relationship with the car wash special interests. It is important especially for members like Buck Dozier, who is running for Mayor, to be explicit about those ties.

The problems that I see in the NCP editorial concern its characterization of the sides in this debate. It erroneously suggests that the pro-neighborhood side is not pro-development. I don't know any neighborhood advocates who see development of city neighborhoods as at odds with their goals. Development, if responsibly pursued, supports the interests of neighborhood residents and leaders. The law requiring neighborhood and council member consent on development stipulated that developers and neighbors should work together for the overall good. Absentee developers should be responsible to the folk who actually live near the development. That is pro-development; just not pro-any-kind-of-development-whatsoever.

Likewise, editors should not pit communities against "the progress of development," precisely because not all development is progressive in nature. For instance, does clogging neighborhood streets with 200 to 300 cars resulting from new car washes really count as progress? Would that count as progress in your neighborhood? It is progress for the individual who owns the wash and his bank account; but does it really count as overall community progress? Moreover, introducing the labels "liberal" and "conservative" into the mix strains analogy, since the political spectrum spans both sides of the car wash issue.

The most glaring error in the NCP editorial was the mention that the letter was from a handful of neighborhood groups. The letter came from the Nashville Neighborhood Alliance, which represents more than a "handful" of associations. Granted the number of the most vocal neighborhood groups who take issue with the car washes are the few currently facing car washes in their neighborhoods. But notice: the NCP editors failed to point out that the special business interests involved on the "development" side constitute something closer to a "handful": three individual car wash entrepreneurs. Throw council members behind them and that is a handful.

Car Wash Exemption Resolution Deferred

Council voted tonight to defer bill BL2006-1178 to the next meeting.

Planning Commission Conditions Are NOT Included in Current Car Wash Exemption Bill

Car wash exemption advocates (including Diane Neighbors as late as today in the City Paper) keep invoking the Planning Commission's approval of the exemption bill, but Planning Department conditions continue to be left out of latest version of BL2006-1178. I just got off the phone with a Planning Department official who told me that bill co-sponsors have not included Planning conditions in the bill, which is up for third and final reading tonight. If Planning's approval is significant enough to invoke for this bill's fortunes, why aren't their recommendations worthy to be incorporated into this bill?

Tennessean Has Latest Response from Diane Neighbors

Council Member at Large Diane Neighbors, the subject of allegations of deceiving constituents and showing favoritism to special business interests, sent out an e-mail to her fellows this morning, and she shared it with the Tennessean. She insists that "ample time" has been given to the public for what a previous bill sponsor hoped would be a "full and honest" discussion of a special exemption for car wash developers, who will no longer have to consult neighborhood associations or council members before building if the resolution passes tonight on third reading.

HT: Volunteer Voters

Council Ethics Splashed in Print

The Car Wash Exemption/Campaign Ethics Boondoggle hits hard copy this morning. Nothing much new to the story. Outside of the newsprint, we're still left with the images of Ludye Wallace shaking a car wash developer's hand after the latter spoke as the sole proponent of car wash exemption and the irony of Harold White's argument that the Council should not be influenced by a few neighborhood association people (he forgot to add "unless those few people want to build some car washes"). We can add to those Diane Neighbors's rather perplexing, equivocal comment to the Tennessean that she has not worked "for" or "against" this bill, even as she has received campaign help from car wash developers. If she has not worked "for" the bill, then why did she vote "for" it twice? Wouldn't a bill sponsor not working "for" or "against" a bill abstain when it came time to vote? Or better yet, why wouldn't she just shepherd the bill to the leadership of another co-sponsor to bring through the process in order to keep her name from being tied to the fortunes of special business interests?

White Bridge President Claims that Car Wash Developer's Lawyers Agreed to Abide by Association's Opposition

According to a letter from the White Bridge Neighborhood Association President Paula Lovett, the attorneys of Tim Cameron (the developer who plans to build a car wash on White Bridge Road) told WBNA that they would abide by the association's opposition to the car wash after they met in July 2006 and the WBNA Board voted against the plans. According to Ms. Lovett, Mr. Cameron was only proposing to buy the White Bridge property when they first met, but after Resolution BL2006-1178 was introduced, Mr. Cameron purchased the property and proceeded with plans to build a car wash.

Ms. Lovett also charges that Diane Neighbors promised to defer the car wash exemption bill indefinitely at a Planning Meeting in September after all sides agreed that the earlier bill that included car washes in its restrictions had not been in existence long enough to see if it worked.

The White Bridge Association was the only group to oppose the bill in Public Hearing on January 2 (even though Glencliff and Woodbine had also organized opposition to it before the Public Hearing).

The Frustration of Missed Opportunities

The public gallery was packed on January 2 with people attending the Metro Council Meeting to speak out against the highly visible Downtown Westin Hotel Development. There was no space where there weren't neighborhood leaders. I even saw one or two from the Historic Germantown neighborhood.

Yet, not one other leader--outside of the three expressly present to oppose it--rose to speak against the attempt by Diane Neighbors et al. to let car washes get unimpeded into neighborhoods through this backdoor ordinance. That's a head-scratcher.

You cannot convince me that partially blocking the Broadway view of the Cumberland with a supersized Westin Hotel would be more diasterous to our actual quality of life than building several car washes in neighborhoods where traffic is already choked, where noise and sight pollution clog the senses. I cannot believe that those leaders in the gallery did not rise as readily to oppose car wash exemptions as they did to oppose the Westin. It's beyond me.

Telling Moments from the Car Wash Exemption Debate on January 2

You should do yourself a favor and watch the two specific video files in the council archives that show the car wash exemption bill public hearing and the ensuing council debate. You should see these highlights for yourself:

• There was only one proponent to speak in favor of the car wash exemption during the Public Hearing. His name is Joe Meeks and he is one of the property owners intending to build a car wash. After his speaking time ended, Ludye Wallace (Dist. 19) came up to him, said something, and shook his hand. That may or may not be significant, but Ludye failed to show opponents such partiality.
• Mayoral candidate Buck Dozier (at Large) attempted to end Council debate on the car wash exemption bill immediately after the bill's two co-sponsors, Diane Neighbors and Charlie Tygard responded to the Public Hearing feedback. Dozier called for "the previous question"--which effectively ends deliberations and prompts a vote on the bill--before any bill opponents had the chance to speak. When the council voted on Dozier's motion, there were enough "no" votes to kill it and keep deliberations going. Buck Dozier has not yet disclosed any ties to car wash developers, even though he has built a substantial campaign war chest in his run for Mayor. Given his attempt to cut off debate, I am bound to ask whether Dozier is as committed as original sponsor Amanda McClendon to a "full and honest" debate. If we ever do find out his financial ties, this vote might hang like an albatross around his mayoral hopes.
• During council debate car wash exemption proponents kept referring to the Planning Commission's approval of their bill. However, when Ludye Wallace asked a Planning official whether he thought Tygard's defense of the bill was "true," the Planning official did not exactly leap forward with a glowing endorsement. He brushed Wallace off and he stated that the bill lacked conditions that the Planning Commission had recommended, including one "to address the needs for parking restrictions on automatic car washes." That official said he was in the middle of e-mailing Tygard about that omission when Ludye called on him. What a futile attempt to get rubber stamped that proved to be.
• Despite the fact that during the Public Hearing opponents of the exemption bill outnumbered proponents 3-to-1, Harold White (Dist. 14) barked to his fellows, "I do not believe that one group of two people coming from White Bridge Road to be against [the exemption bill] represents all of Davidson County." And one self-interested car wash developer does represent the County, Mr. White?
• John Summers (Dist. 24) cut to the chase in his opposing comments:

  [The car wash exemption] bill is here because there are some people that want to be able to put in a car wash where they want to put in a car wash. And rather than sitting down and working with you as the district Council Member and working with neighbors ... and working with other property owners and trying to find a compromise, they just want to be able to go down to Codes and get their permit.

The Nashville Post Has a Response from Diane Neighbors

E. Thomas Wood and Walker Duncan at the Post have a comment from Vice Mayoral Candidate and Council Member Diane Neighbors in the wake of the car wash exemption controversy. It seems unchanged from what she, Charlie Tygard, and other co-sponsors have argued in public council deliberations.

Ms. Neighbors still does not address the matter of whether she promised neighborhood leaders one thing and then did another in moving for approval on January 2; nor does she divulge any information regarding financial or campaign ties she may or may not have to car wash exemption proponents. Just as she did on January 2, she also ignores the primary concern driving neighborhood opposition to the bill: that neighborhood streets off of the main arterials will be flooded with traffic because of new car wash developments.

District 23 Metro Council Member Emily Evans Says She Will Not Support Car Wash Exemption on Tuesday

Metro Council Member Emily Evans (Dist. 23) sent me the following e-mail yesterday evening:

I was absent from the car wash bill vote but I do not intend to vote for it. There has been a good deal of opposition to the bill voiced by residents of my district. Many of them are avid readers of your blog so I thought I’d save them a bit of trouble and let you know where I stand.

Sincerely,
Emily Evans
Metro Council District 23

Sylvan Park Neighborhood Association Opposed Car Wash Exemption

In an e-mail to Metro Council last Friday, Sylvan Park Neighborhood Association President Rob Robinson expressed opposition to the Car Wash Exemption Bill and he reiterated that the previous SPNA President had contacted Metro Council in December with the news that SPNA "voted unanimously after thoughtful discussion to formally oppose this bill."