Further proof that conservatives do not object to government spending when it serves their own

These are the salad days for council member at-Large Charlie Tygard. Unlike the past, he is on excellent terms with the Mayor's Office, which is no big shocker. Bellevue just opened a new library and conservative CM Tygard was there for it.

Charlie's long Bellevue nightmare is over (CM Tygard in red-shirt).

Back in 2006 the news media reported that the previous mayor allocated money for a Bellevue library, but that CM Tygard (who was Bellevue CM then) told Finance Director David Manning that he would not build the library for "political reasons." Here is what the press did not report in 2006:

That's not all either Tygard or Manning said .... Tygard demanded that both Manning and [Mayor] Purcell explain to Bellevue residents why they would not be getting a library or more elementary schools. And then, he overplayed his hand: he accused the Mayor of spending less money on the Nashville community and more money on the courthouse and public square, which Tygard called, "monuments to government."

Manning countered with facts that we all know: this Mayor has spent more money on the neighborhoods than any other Mayor ever has or probably ever will. The Finance Director said that if previous mayors and councils had taken steps to maintain and repair the courthouse over the years, then Metro would not now be spending so much to do so now. He also took his own shot at the Metro Council by saying that the mayor spends more time out in the neighborhoods than any Council members.

Anyone who recalls what the Courthouse (and its raggedy blacktop parking lot) was like before the renovations knows that Courthouse Square is a magnificent improvement: a public space (with parking logically below ground) that is a testament to open spaces and free exchange. It is no more a "monument to government" than the new Bellevue library is.

Goodness knows, Bellevue needed a new library, but apparently government buildings are only good to CM Tygard when they serve his own home base. And he did not do those constituents any favors by lashing out at government buildings elsewhere.

Erica Gilmore schedules community meeting on ballpark, but it looks right out of the developers' playbook for discouraging public turnout

Last night I sent an email to all council members requesting a longer time for approval on Sulphur Dell to allow for more community meetings. CM at-Large Charlie Tygard replied to my email this morning by acknowledging my concerns and asking CM Gilmore to schedule a community meeting "convenient" to her and "the neighborhoods" before the council committees consider her Sulphur Dell bill on December 2 and 3. She replied this afternoon by announcing that she is scheduling a community meeting on the ballpark plan for the Saturday of Thanksgiving weekend, November 30, at 9 in the morning at the Goodwill Industries on Herman Street in Hope Gardens.

There should be no whining out there just because you have been given about a week to change last-minute any family Thanksgiving plans you might have had in order to study up on a bill that was introduced in council a couple weeks ago (some council members may not even grasp it yet). You should come Saturday morning, holidays or not, prepared to ask your questions and then just go away so that the council can move this bill through committee when the Mayor tells them to pass it, as is their "tradition." Jump through the hoop and then move on. What do you expect? A participatory democracy? C'mon.

Never mind that it is a developer's dream to have a community meeting on a controversial bill involving a huge and historic Metro expenditure while everyone else affected is likely on vacation.


UPDATE: no sooner did I post this than CM at-Large Tygard replied to CM Gilmore's scheduling with word that he would not be able to attend Saturday morning because of his family's Thanksgiving plans.

Charlie Tygard's ongoing infatuation with signs enabled by Metro Council approval of ads in parks

Erectile dysfunction ads are everywhere else, so why not in parks?

It's a vicious circle: the Mayor's Office will not fully fund Metro Parks, which leaves Metro Parks to scramble to come up with other ways to get revenues, which prompts council members--with buddies in the sign business or corporate donors looking at every possible marketing angle--to pitch privatizing in order to bring parks more money without holding the Mayor responsible for fully funding parks. Since Metro Council operates in such a vicious circle--made more vicious by a Mayor who has proposed and generated budget-busting capital projects--it must have been welcome relief to the blundering herd that CM at-Large Charlie Tygard pitched his latest smoke-and-mirrors pretense to help out Metro Parks.

With little debate Metro Council has approved this bill not once, but twice. Approval on third reading will open parks' gates to advertisers, large and small. The rationale is that our green space is growing so much that alternative sources of funding need to be found. However, Karl Dean has slashed parks programming by authorizing cuts to community center hours since he first took office. Hence, this move will likely lower expectations for increases in public revenues for parks. It will place the onus on Metro Parks to hire sales staff to market ad space in parks to corporate clients. It fits right in with the privatizing that the Dean administration has already done in other municipal services like public schools.

Rationalizing advertisements and signs by minimizing their impact is not a new tactic for CM Tygard. In 2007 he tried to justify putting car washes in residential neighborhoods by insisting that the signs advertising the businesses would be "attractive, monument-style" signs, as if comely signs would convince neighbors to accept car washes nearby. In 2009 he led the fight for LED signs in residential neighborhoods and he repeated over and over that they would not be large or flashing, as if that would never be an eventuality if allowed. In 2013 he promises no neon signs on the Parthenon (according to his sign-making buddy, Bobby Joslin, LED light strips are "alternative to neon", so maybe they'll look better in Centennial Park) and he issues talking points on signs that he predicts people will not see in parks:

The bill would give the parks board the power to create rules about ads and sponsorships. That would give the board the power to not accept ads from booze or cigarette companies, for example, or strip clubs.

“I don’t think we want to tackle the condom manufacturers,” Tygard said.

No? Well, what about predatory lenders, one of whom is Nashville's second fastest growing company (and a major campaign donor)? Is allowing ads from companies who market high-interest loans to park patrons who may be at vulnerable moments but who cannot afford them better governance than allowing Trojan to market condoms? It is interesting that CM Tygard was quick to prohibit ads that may or may not involve personal vices, but not ads that may or may not involve corporate irresponsibility.

Again, generating and justifying these alternative funding schemes that benefit his friends in the private sector has always been CM Tygard's M.O. And he has been downright hostile in the past toward publicly funding green spaces: during its construction Mr. Tygard derided the Courthouse Public Square as a "monument to government". This time the Metro Council is going along with his scheme.

Will people care when they start to see visual clutter in parks like signs with, "This mulch trail is brought to you by Waste Management"? Not likely. But it will stand as a precedent to allow Metro Parks to expand ads and increase their clientele later. Restricted ad space will likely generate greater competition and bigger offers that Metro Parks may have problems resisting. Look at the logic of the marketplace: smaller signs give way to larger signs. And who knows. One day we may begin to see illumination and LEDs on ads in parks as the first wave of private ads will have done the job of desensitizing us to more intrusive marketing that is bound to follow after the money rolls in.

District 19 council member listed among others on developer's "secret tapes"

Over the weekend the Tennessean reported that "secret tapes" exist that contain 40 hours of conversations between a May Town Center developer and over a dozen council members regarding his team's plan to build a sprawling "second downtown" on Bells Bend. Noteworthy is the mention of District 19 CM Erica Gilmore:

 

By early 2010 — when the first recording was captured — May Town leaders had turned their attention from the Metro Planning Commission, where the development had stalled in a 5-5 vote, to the 40-member council, where the project needed 27 votes for approval because of the planning commission setback.

Ultimately, the council in March 2010 voted to defer the May Town project indefinitely.

According to May’s recent filing, plaintiffs secretly recorded conversations with council members Megan Barry, Phil Claiborne, Tim Garrett, Erica Gilmore, Jason Holleman, Edith Langster, Lonnell Matthews Jr., Jerry Maynard, Bruce Stanley, Ronnie Steine, Charlie Tygard, and then-council members Michael Craddock, Randy Foster and Jim Hodge. It also cites “others.”

The parties discussed the project, speculated about votes and offered their impressions of Jack May, Mayor Karl Dean, Tony Giarratana and others, according to the brief.

The Metro Planning Commission refused in a close vote to approve the proposal, which put the burden on Metro Council to approve it only with a super-majority. The proposal was eventually withdrawn, so we do not have recorded votes of these CMs.

However, some of these council members made their opinions clear during the planning public hearing process. Here is an excerpt of the May 2009 public hearing minutes:

Councilmember [Mike] Jameson first explained that he was asked by Councilmember Barry and Councilmember Cole to include their names as part of the record as expressing their opposition to the proposed May Town Center. They were unable to attend the meeting....

Councilmember Holleman acknowledged Councilmember Matthews support for the May Town Center, however, expressed his concerns with respect to the May Town Center development affecting the entire region as opposed to only Council District 1. His district is in the pathway of connecting this development to the rest of the city and he expressed his concerns regarding its impact on District 24. He explained the work that he and his constituents have completed on the West Nashville Community Plan update and spoke of how the May Town Center would impact their transportation network and infrastructure. He also explained that he and his constituents have not had the chance to review the Traffic Impact Study recently released from RPM and would like for the Commission to allow them an opportunity to review the study and provide their comments regarding the study at the next Public Hearing scheduled for June 25, 2009. Councilmember Holleman then pointed out some of the highlights included the Traffic Impact Study and how they would directly affect his district. He requested that the Commission deny the zone change request until he and his community can further digest any impacts on their district.

Councilmember Craddock expressed his support for the May Town Center development as the project is a good quality development; and that the proposal would lessen the burden on the Nashville’s taxpayers. He spoke on the issue of spiraling property taxes and the need to seek good quality development to further enhance the City of Nashville. Councilmember Craddock then acknowledged the importance of not allowing a development of this size to adversely affect surrounding districts and to need to find the best way to implement the project for the betterment of all living in Nashville.

Councilmember Matthews .... stated that over the year, he has obtained the necessary information in which he could now support the proposed May Town Center development and explained all of the positive attributes that could be derived from the development. Attributes such as increased jobs for the area, and additional opportunities for corporate relocations to the City of Nashville .... He stated he would assist the bill as it makes it way through the approval process at Council .... As Councilmember Matthews closed, he explained all of the conversations he has with all involved parties and expressed his support for the May Town Center.

I attended that public hearing, and I do not recall seeing CM Gilmore. I am curious about what her views on the May Town Center proposal are on those "secret tapes". I am also wondering, as a constituent, whether I have a right to know what my CM says to developers about voting intentions on significant projects.

Metro Council finally gets its Meals for Deals back

My blogging on Metro Council's Meals for Deals goes back 6 years, when I argued that prohibiting organizations and individuals from providing CMs meals was not a be-all-end-all for guiding CMs to conduct becoming, but it is a fair expectation. The lion's share of Metro employees do not expect to be catered to by outside agencies looking to network. They either bring or buy their own meals.

So, I have never understood the resistance from CMs like Charlie Tygard, Ronnie Steine Greer, Rip Ryman, etc. to being required to provide their own food, too. It is disingenuous and naive to act like influence would not enter into the equation, but Meals for Deals is definitely not the worst CM entitlement.

Well, tonight, the council approved on third reading a bill co-sponsored by CM Tygard, CM Phil Claiborne, and CM Anthony Davis to bring Meals for Deals back:

This ordinance would allow the acceptance of meals, beverages, and food of a value not to exceed $25 from a single source in any calendar year. The acceptance of the free food or drink would be required to be disclosed on the annual benefit disclosure statement filed with the Metropolitan clerk. The provisions in the ethics ordinance regarding the acceptance of promotional items not to exceed $25 in value and the acceptance of tickets to events not to exceed $100 in value from a single source in a given year are not changed by this ordinance.

Go buy a famished council member a meal. You've got 25 days left in this calendar year to spend $25.00 on each. Some of them have been working so hard for a half decade to get this perq back.

Megan Barry's budget committee failed to vet Arriola's budget for the rest of the Council

I appreciate that you all do the marriage licenses.

-- At-Large CM and Budget Chair Megan Barry setting the tone
for last May's powder-puff budget hearing with John Arriola

NewsChannel5 investigative reporter Phil Williams has been effecitvely stalking and running down the continuing controversy of County Clerk John Arriola. His latest coverage is a tally of council members who are and are not willing to vote on a memorializing resolution (that is, a resolution that is a nonbinding expression of the council's wishes) requesting Arriola's resignation.

A Tygard sign grows in Salemtown

One of my Salemtown neighbors has erected a Charlie Tygard-for-council sign. I figure that any home owner in an urban neighborhood who votes for sprawl-happy, developer-friendly Charlie Tygard should have to look at an LED sign from their house, since Tygard sponsored legislation to allow the brightly lit signs in high density neighborhoods like Salemtown.

How they vote is their business, but a closely-placed LED would be karma.

Local partisan blogger walks back insinuations about two very different CMs

He's been attacking Karl Dean's critics for so long that yesterday's salvo against CM Jamie Hollin should have come as no surprise to anyone, but partisan blogger and aspiring candidate for big cheese of Tennessee Young Democrats, Sean Braisted clearly overreached in his latest digs.

Those of us who actually paid attention to the Metro Council meeting debate on Hollin's co-sponsored non-discrimination ordinance (and make no mistake that he was one of the primary architects of the bill motivated by the sad episode at Belmont) recall that Michael Craddock made no effort to argue against the bill. Now, I've been as critical of the Madison CM since 2005 as any other local blogger; but Craddock not rising to speak on a polarizing and controversial bill is about as regular as an Alberta Clipper through Ashland City in August. So, you long-time council watchers will note that Craddock's silence on nondiscrimination when given a golden opportunity is remarkable.

But the facts didn't stop Braisted:

Hollin [is] working to help Michael Craddock become Nashville's next mayor.  Now, its no secret that there isn't much love between Hollin and Dean, but while the mayor might've been a bit slow walking up to the plate on the Contractor NDO, Craddock was actively working to oppose this, and other measures intended to give gay men and women a certain level of protection in their jobs.

Everything about Craddock indicates a deeply homophobic man.  Why Hollin, who clearly has a disdain for this element of our political society, would actively work to help make the man mayor, is beyond me.

Glory be. Hollin is working to help Craddock beat Dean. In other news, politics makes strange bedfellows. Take Craddock's fellow conservative Charlie Tygard, who also voted against Hollin's ordinance: Tygard is widely acknowledged to be one of Karl Dean's staunchest supporters even going so far as to say so in a recent Tennessean story. But he opposes nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. And yet, none of Braisted's blog trolls are going after Tygard or Dean.

Moreover, Braisted played the good soldier and soft-pedaled Dean's actual slow walk to nondiscrimination. The Mayor's original stand was to oppose based on the misguided notion that "less regulation is good." Dean's come-to-Jesus moment on Hollin's NDO afterwards was patently arbitrary: Mike Curb told him he supported it. So, if Mike Curb told him he was ambivalent on it or opposed it, the Mayor would have fought Hollin, and thus, sided with council conservatives like Tygard and Craddock (who voted against Hollin on NDO).

So after blogging, Braisted vouchsafed an audience with Hollin whereupon learning that his information was wrong. Instead of writing the standard "Correction," Braisted wrote an update indicating to me that it was Hollin, not the blogger correcting misinformation. Note the mealymouthed wording:

*Updated: After a lengthy and informative conversation with Councilman Hollin, he rightfully corrected this statement about Craddock actively working to oppose the contractor NDO. In fairness, he didn't speak out on the matter as some of the other conservative council-members did. He has, however, actively opposed other pro-gay rights measures on the council.

As did Karl Dean's "deeply homophobic" man, Charlie Tygard. But Dean gets a pass from Braisted.

A couple of years ago I couldn't convince Braisted about the importance for neighborhoods of council meetings and of zoning and planning meetings. Nowadays he's in with both feet, never having met a developer's tear-down plan or a Mayor's growth scheme he didn't like. My guess is that his newfound interest correlates to his party aspirations and helping his Dem friends out where he can. I'm sure the Mayor's Office honchos appreciate his willingness to play whack-a-mole on their critics because they've made it clear that the Mayor won't be taking this kind of low road.

I just wonder if we are going to see Braisted ask Re-elect Dean to pay him as a campaign consultant in the same way CM Jerry Maynard did. He is certainly putting in the hours at his blog.

At what point is it okay to ask, "Is this non-profit endorsing a mayoral candidate?"

Second Harvest Food Bank or Second Term for Dean?

(For the record: in 2007, I questioned the appropriateness of Habitat for Humanity allowing its "brand" to be used supportively in CM Charlie Tygard's campaign commercials, especially when the non-profit was the recipient of financial benefit due to CM Tygard's council initiatives.)

Council members reconsidering, pandering or hedging bets on Mayor?

The "Save the Fairgrounds" preservationists sent out the following news release the day before yesterday:

Council Members Charlie Tygard, Robert Duvall, Parker Toler, and Tim Garrett will be visiting the fairgrounds this weekend to talk with vendors. We appreciate the past support given by Council Members Tygard and Duvall as evidenced by their vote on November 16, 2010 to make sure BL2010-770 survived the Mayor’s extraordinary effort to have the bill defeated through parliamentary rules of procedure.*

The sudden interest by Council Members Tim Garrett and Parker Toler is shocking. Both voted with the Mayor to kill the Fairgrounds. Fortunately those votes were not successful. If they were successful, this trip to the fairgrounds would be patronizing to the vendors and seem like pandering, perhaps it still is. Or, perhaps the packed courthouse, impromptu public speakers, and thousands of emails and calls in support of saving the Fairgrounds moved Councilmen Garrett and Toler. Regardless, the least they could do while they’re visiting is open their wallets and make some holiday purchases for their friends and family. Better yet would be if they started casting votes in favor of saving the fairgrounds.

If anyone was present for the CM visit, please e-mail report to me or comment below and I'll update.


UPDATE: News 2 has an update on the CMs' visit:

Among the thousands of shoppers at Saturday's flea market were several Metro Council Members who were there to get opinions of shoppers and vendors about the potential move.

"These people don't want this place to be closed," Councilman Robert Duvall said.

Despite shoppers and vendors not wanting the flea market moved, some area residents have complaints about the fairgrounds.

"Their biggest problem is with the noise from the racetrack; at least with the folks that I have talked with," Duvall said, adding, "Some would like to see some development. They believe that development would increase property values, and there's no reason not to want that, but the noise from the racetrack, that's fixable."

UPDATE: Channel 4 has even more of the CMs' responses to flea market vendors and shoppers opinions:

Four Metro Council members spent their Saturday morning at the Nashville flea market listening and asking questions -- for example, would shoppers still go to the flea market if it moved to Hickory Hollow Mall in Antioch?

One shopper told Councilman Parker Toler she hasn’t been to the Hickory Hollow Mall area in years and doesn’t go to that area of town.

Vendor Tommy Turner told Councilman Charlie Tygard he’s against moving from the fairgrounds to an area that has a history of retail failures.

"Hickory Hollow has become a crime scene anymore. It's gone down," Turner said.

Others, like Charlene Johnson, told Council members it's not about Antioch's reputation; they just like to shop in the fresh air.

“I just don't want to go inside a mall. No, not for a flea market,” Johnson said.

In the past, several Council members have spoken out against Mayor Karl Dean's efforts to shut down the fairgrounds. Saturday's group included two longtime Council members who had voted before to support the mayor. That's important, because the Council is split on this issue, and every vote is critical.

Council members like Tim Garrett are balancing what they heard at Saturday’s flea market with the concerns of neighbors who are tired of the noisy fairgrounds racetrack.

"What you want to do as a councilman is listen to the public and keep an open mind as much as you can," Garrett said.

Toler got an earful from vendors and shoppers, who asked him not to relocate the events currently at the fairgrounds. Some vendors have had booths for more than 25 years.

"This is a very valuable piece of land now. So we're just going to have to listen to as many people as we can and try and make a good decision," Toler said.

Dean has said the fairgrounds land has great development potential as an office park, but he hasn't said who, if anyone, wants to buy it.

"Everybody would like to know the plan. This situation hasn't been handled very well from the very start," Garrett said.

UPDATE: NewsChannel5 has a blurb on the visit, but did include comments from CM Tygard:

I think there are other ideas both the redevelopment of this site, improvement of this site or possibly looking for other accessible locations and rebuild from scratch a modern facility that would serve the same needs.

UPDATE: Not waiting around for any "intrepid" reporters, CM Jamie Hollin struck out on his own fact-finding mission and blogged his impressions, complete with video documentation of vendor views on Mayor Dean's attempted Expo exile.

Depends on whose council member is being gored

During his tenure as a Metro beat reporter first at the City Paper and then at the Tennessean, I do not remember a discouraging word from Nate Rau against controversial CMs like Charlie Tygard (whom Rau once defended as "blogged to death") or Eric Crafton (whose English Only initiative Rau handled sensitively, nearly generously). But consistently with non-ostentatious CM Mike Jameson, Rau breaks out the critical analysis, regularly referencing what the Mayor's Office dislikes about him.

My issue here is not with evenhandedly treating CMs critically. I simply do not think that Rau's treatment of Jameson in particular has been the highest quality criticism.

It is no different in Rau's recent blogging on Jameson's reservations about privatizing the public Fairgrounds.  Rau blogs a somewhat rambling, disjointed, and loaded criticism of Jameson:

Jameson’s indignation could be seen as some what puzzling. He’s been a councilmember for more than seven years. He knows the ugly ins and unseemly outs of city politics.

I’ve heard it said that former Mayor Bill Purcell never used petty tactics like calling down department directors on district council members.

Somebody should tell that to Charlie Tygard and Chris Whitson, because I believe they would paint a different picture.

Since Dean was elected mayor, by my count he’s had five tough votes go through council – the Predators lease, the stormwater fee, the convention center land acquisition, the creation of the Convention Center Authority and the convention center bond resolution. Jameson has voted against three of those proposals; the lease agreement at Hickory Hollow would make four out of six.

It is fair for observers to wonder if Jameson’s opposition, no matter how eloquently justified, is rooted in politics, not policy, especially considering the weight of his stance just a year ago.

Someone needs to tell Nate that his wonderment is only fair if he goes back and actually analyzes Jameson's arguments and points out the logical fallacies point-by-point. I never remember him doing that, and I was reading the City Paper long before he was hired.

The problem is that in previous stories reporter Rau seemed to transmit what mayoral staffers either believe or spin about Jameson. The Mayor's Office told reporters that Mike Jameson was an opportunistic grandstander seeking a judgeship. Rau simply passed that judgment along without expressing any journalistic critical thinking or probing curiosity. When Jameson used the same parliamentary rules that other CMs (including Tygard) have used, Rau assumed without a second thought (or as if it had been spun to him) that Jameson used "obscure" tricks to shut down an unquestionably legitimate policy brought at an unquestionably impeccable pace. Jameson conducted council queries of Dean staffers in ways that casual observers called "polite" and "professional," yet analyst Rau was prompted to call the same act a "deposition" as if Jameson was not able to perform as anything but a slick lawyer.

But politics is an end game. If someone is playing politics then they make a rational choice for benefits that outweigh the risk involved in taking on a popular Mayor under this Metro Charter which relegates CMs to a ridiculously weak position from which to make legislative checks on the executive. While I am not happy with acquiescent CMs, I can understand that in this system their choice is either to be a Dean supporter or to find oneself isolated to the Mayor's dog house. And the fawning print media does not help break the servitude by repeating whatever their Metro PR sources tell them.

So, the insistence that a maverick is somehow gaining more than losing in opposing the Mayor on most of the most contentious issues is absurd. And yet, that seems to be exactly what Nate Rau is insisting. If it's just politics, then what is the benefit to Jameson of continuously sticking his head out of the council trenches only to face Karl Dean's howitzer? Given the Courthouse disdain he faces from the perfect storm of council conservatives, sovereign Mayor, and cynical reporters, what chance does Jameson have to win the end game that Metro politics is? Rau doesn't say, but he doesn't seem to be required by anyone to do so, either.

In the end Nate Rau fell into the same trap as many bloggers: he put up a post based mostly on anecdotes with few warrants, making a flawed case, nonsensical when judged rationally. Granted, it may make airtight sense inside the Courthouse.

Charlie Tygard and Megan Barry end up on the same side of a significant Metro vote again

Last night the council committee clockwork went in motion to approve the Mayor's plan for a new convention center. Only one CM on two committees voted against the largest capital finance plan in Nashville history and it wasn't a progressive CM. It was conservative Michael Craddock expressing popular mood:

This train has left the station. It’s got a full head of steam because the haves in this city want this to happen.

As much as it troubles me to land on the same side of an issue with a conservative CM, even more troubling is the fact that once again on an issue that affects neighborhoods and community quality of life, CM Megan Barry voted with CM Charlie Tygard.

You'll remember that Charlie Tygard once referred to the Courthouse Public Square, built by the previous Mayor, as "a monument to government." Mr. Tygard seems to have a second face when it comes to the Music City Center:

I truly believe that if we don’t build this center, two, three, four, five six years from now, our citizens will be worse off.

CM Tygard hypocrisy has been well-documented here at Enclave and it truly knows no bounds.

However, we've tried to expect more from Megan Barry, who just keeps disappointing us on issue after issue. Her feeble defense of the Mayor's financing plan last night was chocked with mind-numbing jargon:

Is there a risk? Of course....But in my analysis, I conclude that the risk is manageable — not trivial, not minimal, but manageable. I see that as a risk worth taking in order to achieve the economic development outcomes that are realistically in the cards.

Barry claimed to seek a "robust" debate on the matter of Music City Center, but she seems loath to muster a stout argument on the matter herself. It comes across to me as if she's playing it safe by having it both ways.

Compare & Contrast: Rich Riebeling vs. David Manning on Planning Capital Projects

Why is Dean Finance Director Rich Riebeling prone to spend Metro money before planning for new Metro facilities, given the previous Finance Director's common sense explanation in 2007 that thoughtful planning should always precede spending capital revenues on big ticket items?

Now consider this dispatch from a neighborhood leader who attended Tuesday night's community meeting with Rich Riebeling regarding the Finance Director's intention to shell out $14 million to purchase a former car dealership to house the West Nashville police precinct with no planning:

Mr. Reibeling, the Metro finance director, answered [neighbors' questions]:

1. There were no detailed drawings or site plans for the Frensley property and that he didn't want to spend any more money on planning. That they had already spent money on planning the Horizon Building and that those plans would basically serve to PLAN the Frensley property.
2. He didn't know how much money was available for planning.
3. He didn't know how much we had spent on planning for the Horizon location already (we've heard around $50,000 has been spent on planning for the Horizon Building and that council has approved a total planning budget for the project of $500,000).
4. Basically he had no intention of spending any more money on planning the Frensley site before it went to council for a vote, that he "knew" it would come in under the $14 million that was appropriated.

One of the reasons the last council loathed David Manning was because he demanded careful planning before authorizing spending as Charlie Tygard put it for a "3, 4, 5, or 6 millon dollar crime lab" while resisting attempts to dicker with council over $500,000 to plan for the multi-million dollar projects. It seems to me spending $500,000 to help avoid paying an extra $3 million would be a good thing, although old school politicians like Tygard seemed to disagree. The current courthouse finance crowd seems ready to spend big development and construction dollars without a lick of planning on the new West Nashville police precinct. That should satisfy development-happy patrons like Mr. Tygard, but it is not good for the community around Richland Creek.

Not so fast, Michael Cass

The Tennessean's long-time Metro beat reporter Michael Cass veered overboard today describing the connection between a church's will-to-commerce and Charlie Tygard's will-to-power. Here's how Cass retells the history of the LED signage controversy:

The issue has pitted commercial interests and some community organizations against neighborhood groups for more than 18 months, raising questions of effective advertising, "visual clutter" and enforcement. After Tygard postponed a 2008 bill inspired by a Bellevue church's plea for a more visible way to market themselves along a heavily commercial stretch of Highway 100, the council put together a task force to come up with another plan.

Is there a double standard using romantic concepts like inspiration to describe the drive to light neighborhoods with LEDs while descriptions of neighborhoods seek to protect their quality of life against LEDs are described more neutrally or negatively? And then there is the issue of what these congregations want to be in chasing after commercial-style amenities as "community organizations." One member of the Nashville neighborhood list responded with the following letter to the Tennessean challenging the "inspired" theory of faith-based commercial signage in residential neighborhoods:

To the Editor:

An article in The Tennessean on [Nov] 2 said that a proposed Metro Council bill on permitting commercial-type, brilliant, LED electronic signs for churches and schools in residential neighborhoods is being delayed. The article said the bill was "inspired by a Bellevue church's plea for a more visible way to market themselves."

How inspiring is that? A tax-free church that believes commercial-type, outdoor, electronic signs is their route to salvation.

I believe that churches that behave like businesses and rely upon business-type outdoor advertising along the roads are churches that have lost their way.

Pete Horton, Nashville 37204

Amen, brother.

At-Large in Name Only

Two years after we elected them, and have the 5 at-Large CMs consistently done anything to show that they generally represent the broader interests of Metro Nashville-Davidson County taken together?

• Charlie Tygard--I've watched him consistently advocate causes and sponsor bills for Bellevue and mostly white West Nashville.
• Jerry Maynard--He keeps reemerging on behalf of mostly African American North Nashville. Like this morning.
• Megan Barry--the social liberals' special interest CM. Socially liberal, economically conservative: the general profile of reporters in the mainstream media. She should go far beyond Nashville with that kind of PR interface.
• Ronnie Steine--The Mayor's CM; as Budget Chair in the coming year, he'll be the one hammering all of the Mayor's budget recommendations through the council process. Carrying water leaves no time for the rest of us.
• Tim Garrett--the good ol' boy who votes with the conservative, pro-growth Nashville Business Coalition and seems to be more interested in cake-baking competitions and name-dropping his connections to celebrities than he is in governing well.

Two years later and there is really no one here who pulls an intelligent and broad agenda together to balance the more focused district representatives. In the case of Tygard and Maynard, two sections of Nashville seem to have extra CMs to plead their cause. Maybe we'll get some challengers in the next council election who have more to offer. Or maybe at-Large is a beautiful theory that doesn't work in practice.

Community Leaders Respond to Planners' Recommendations on LED Signs

Below is a sampling of the Nashville Neighborhoods e-list reactions to news that Metro Planning disapproves of CM Charlie Tygard's proposal to place commercial-style LED signs in residential neighborhoods and that they are offering an alternative, as-yet unsponsored ordinance called "Electronic Sign Overlay District." Planners will make their recommendations to the Planning Commission later today.

Trish Bolian:

actually, I find it one of the WORST things they have ever proposed....creating constant monitoring by every neighborhood in this city well into the future...and granting of permission on an individual basis with neighborhoods having little ground to stand on to prevent these signs. Also, it does not restrict LED's to those who have currently lit signs. My worst fear is that anyone would step forward to sponsor it. I see it as a nightmare. I am among those who will meet with planning this afternoon to go over all of this but I see their proposal as a disaster.

Charlotte Cooper:

I don't like the alternate bill, but it may have a better chance of getting approved than the Tygard bill; therefore, I was merely trying to mitigate the consequences by suggesting the addition of language that would prohibit application for ESOD unless the applicant property is surrounded by commercial zoning. I think this would eliminate the possibility of LED signs in residential neighborhoods - ALL residential neighborhoods, without neighborhoods having to oppose applications. Perhaps there is a flaw in my suggestion, but having an ordinance that prohibits LED signs for civic use property zoned R in a residential neighborhood might be a good thing. In addition, the alternate ordinance also prohibits the use of SP zoning in Section 4 by amending 17.40.105 of the Metropolitan Code to read "The Specific Plan district shall not be used for the purpose of approving an electronic display sign."

Adrianne Marianelli:

To me, the ESO would be another name for SP sign zoning for certain landowners, including Metro .... In my opinion, the alternative ordinance should be disapproved. It is even less restrictive in residential districts than the original request. If the residential districts are removed from the original request, then I believe most of the opposition will end. The codes department already does not have enough employees to ensure any new LED sign compliance in residential districts.

CM Emily Evans (not an e-list member, but her message was forwarded per her request by a member in response to a direct query):

The staff has recommended disapproval. The staff alternative is just an idea and I do not think anyone has gotten behind it and plans to move it forward. I know that MPC will not be voting on any text amendments related to it. There is a draft circulating and some comments are that are very much in order.

A Metro Planner (not an e-list member, but her message was forwarded by members who met with her to discuss community reaction):

The public hearing on the Sign Task Force bill is closed and the Planning Commission will deliberate on that. Staff is recommending that discussion on the Alternative Electronic Sign Overlay District be deferred indefinitely.

Bellevue Resident Views Charlie Tygard's "Edible" Intentions as Suspect

CM-at-large Charlie Tygard consistently panders to the Bellevue community he once represented, and his latest pipe dream for them (the rest of constituents-at-large can go to hell) is an "edible garden" project for Bellevue Middle School. A long-time community opponent expressed her suspicion at the Bellevue Exchange Club-linking City Paper last week:

I am sure that this is just another political ploy on Tygard's part. For instance, the Bellevue reporter for the Tennessean wrote a couple articles several months ago about Tygard's desire to build a new high school in Bellevue. He stated that he wanted it built on the Hill tract of land; however, he failed to mention that The Friends of Warner Parks have been very publicly raising money to purchase this tract for years now. (This particular tract of land contains an old-growth forest with trees estimated to be 200 years old.) When the Tennessean reporter was notified of this situation, the articles on Tygard's "proposal" suddenly stopped and, as far as I can tell, Tygard has not publicly made another mention of a high school being built on this plot of land since then. It is pretty clear to me that Tygard's only goal in this situation was to build up his political "clout". He had to have known the importance of the Hill tract and been aware of the efforts of The Friends of Warner Parks to purchase it because he has lived in Bellevue for years and was one of Bellevue's Council reps for several years as well. (His most recent term ended in 2007.) So it is pretty clear to me that his sole purpose in proposing a high school on this particular plot of unavailable land was PR.

And let's not forget how Charlie got a bill passed in the Council a few years ago to have an ILLEGAL (per state law) landfill put in the old McCrory rock quarry--the same quarry that some of his developer friends/campaign contributors wanted to purchase. (He advertised the landfill as a "land reclamation project".) Once the community found out about the true purpose of the project, the outcry against the proposal was deafening. Oh yes, and he is still pushing the LED issue in the Council, against the better judgment of countless neighborhood groups and individual citizens.

About the above article, Charlie has done some "favors" for Bellevue Middle School in the past, but if he wants to be a true friend to our community, why is he not providing help to HG Hill Middle School and Hillwood High School--schools for which many of Bellevue's children are zoned? Oh yes, I forgot, Tygard's daughter doesn't work at those schools, just Bellevue Middle.

I am sick and tired of Charlie's disservice to our community and, especially, to Bellevue. When is he going to put the needs of our community above the needs of himself and his developer friends? Besides, he is supposed to represent the entire city now, not just Bellevue. There are many people here in Bellevue who would like nothing more than for him to just leave us alone. The only saving grace about him being elected to an at-large position is that now he has P.O.ed countless people across Nashville with his antics. Maybe now that he has shown his true colors to the entire city he will never be elected to any political position ever again. Here's hoping.

The Mayor's Supporters Pull Their Own "Obscure" Parliamentary Move and Force Less Time for Reconsidering Authority

Thanks to Christian Grantham for forwarding these documents, which Vice Mayor Diane Neighbors supplied to the news media.

First, CMs who apparently have a dog in a speedy convention center hunt (Ronnie Steine, Michael Craddock, Jim Gotto, Anna Page, Carl Burch, Buddy Baker, Parker Toler, Jim Forkum, Rip Ryman, Charlie Tygard, Walter Hunt, Frank Harrison, Duane Dominy, and Phil Claiborne) submitted a letter earlier today requesting a special meeting to consider Mike Jameson's move to reconsider the council's snap approval of the Mayor's new convention center authority in the wake of the Mayor's PR debacle the last couple of weeks:


Without pause and as if she has a dog in the swift hunt, Vice Mayor Neighbors responds by scheduling a special meeting for the day after tomorrow:



I can't say that I've ever seen Metro Council move with such cat-like and coordinated reflexes on a mayoral request. Makes me wonder how hungry Metro Council members are to have influence over and benefits from the construction of a convention center. Makes me wonder how corralled by the Mayor's Office the council is on this single issue. Makes me wish they were motived to operate with such coordinated efficiency on issues that benefit common people's real lives like parks, neighborhoods, schools, infrastructure, etc.

Two Huge Deferrals at Tonight's Council Meeting

As expected, CM Lonnell Matthews indefinitely deferred his proposal to change the neighborhood plan and rezone Bells Bend to allow May Town Center, after the Planning Commission recommended disapproval almost two weeks ago.

As promised, CM Charlie Tygard deferred his bid to open neighborhoods up to commercial-style LED billboards, after the Planning Commission deferred his bill at an opponent dominated June public hearing to August 1. Tygard plans to bring the bill to Metro Council public hearing in November.

Planning Commission Defers Tygard's LED Billboard Ordinance after an Avalanche of Opposition

Several Planning commissioners looked a little skittish at tonight's public hearing on the LED billboard ordinance after an hour or two of listening to over 25 opponents (several of whom represented neighborhood associations of many members) criticize the measure and of their own casting about for solutions that could please commercially-minded but community-based non-profits and appease the throngs of opponents (200 e-mails opposing LEDs had been received), who seemed as mobilized by the proposal as they were before it spent months being tooled by a task force.

Initially bucking the favorable recommendation of the Planning Department, the commissioners voted to defer their vote on the ordinance until August 1 after Planning Director Rick Bernhardt mercifully offered them three options for causing a delay in the Metro Council public hearing of the LED bill on July 7. The Director told the group that he had already powwowed with the Planning and Council lawyers to produce workable solutions based on the charter and council rules. Charlie Tygard also promised to defer the bill at the July 7 public hearing.

Until that point it seemed to me that their vote was angling against neighborhood leaders. The commissioners who seemed to speak most critically of the ordinance were Andree LeQuire and Hunter Gee. Those who advocated voting with Charlie Tygard were CM Jim Gotto and Tonya Jones. Leaning toward advocating were Stewart Clifton, Phil Ponder and Derrick Dalton. Sitting on the fence were Judy Cummings and Victor Tyler. Chair James McLean did not weigh in with an opinion. The deck seemed stacked against opponents to me.

I was generally impressed by the arguments of the opponents during the public hearing. I thought that they did a better job than they did at last year's public hearing and their arguments seemed tight and reasonable to me. There seemed to be a lot less of the high-hat language of sign clutter and visual pollution. Instead, opponents seemed to engage practically the impact that the ordinance would have in their neighborhoods. They challenged the Planning Department to find out whether LEDs could negatively affect property values and to launch studies to see whether LEDs in fact made a difference in church attendance before making blanket zoning decisions across Davidson County. (However, let's not forget that this is the same Planning Department that recommended the May Town proposal last year with no independent traffic or economic study because they claimed they did not have the money to study).

But things seemed to turn against opponents when the commission gave Mr. Tygard more than 10 minutes to speak after he asked for "latitude" because he was the only proponent to speak during the public hearing. No churches, non-profits, or community centers showed up. CM Tygard used large chunks of that time to impugn the opposition as too emotional, a previously-used meme which was repeated later by a couple of commissioners in their discussion, including Stewart Clifton. And yet, Mr. Clifton turned around and seemed to suggest that proponents of LED signs may not have shown up because they were intimidated by the well-organized opposition; that suggests that the pro-LED response was driven by emotion, does it not?

Regardless, I think the charge of relying on emotion was a brash attempt to discredit the strength of the opposition. And the commissioners and bill sponsor who raised it failed to give any examples. It was a red herring. Mr. Clifton iterated that the commission should not be swayed by how well-organized or how large the opposition was but should judge the reasonableness of their arguments; not that he spent much time doing that himself. Emotional arguments occurred on both sides of the issue, and they can be best dispensed with by focusing on the well-crafted arguments.

In my opinion, the commission's deferral serves all sides in the controversy. Mr. Clifton asserted that appeals to popular opposition are better put to the Metro Council than to the Planning Commission. He maintained that the commission should make its decisions strictly on "land use" rather than popular will. That's fine to a point, but why does the commission have public hearings? And why have I heard so many times from various commissioners that feedback from the neighborhoods makes a difference to their decisions? At least one commissioner disagreed with Mr. Clifton, maintaining that consideration of public opinion brings practical factors into the discussion so that land use decisions can be better informed. However, I do think that the deferral allows the commission to shake off the popular pitch forks and to come to a mutual decision in a "workshop" free from public pressure. They promise that they intend to find a way to prohibit council from running trick plays with the ordinance to continue to allow spot zonings for LEDs. We'll see.

And while some opponents seemed frustrated with the delay in a vote, I saw it as a net gain given the unfortunate scheduling of the Metro Council public hearing so close to the July 4 holiday when many opponents would be distracted with travel and family plans. The deferral buys the opposition more time to continue to organize, to motivate council members to vote against Tygard, and to turn out massively for the council public hearing. While I don't underestimate the power of a commission vote against the bill (which would raise the council's approval bar to a supermajority or 2/3's vote), I think the opposition needed more time than 3 weeks to prepare. And I would frankly be shocked if the commission voted against Tygard. The public opposition seemed to stagger them some. It may be a close vote, but it looks like to me they are going to recommend the LED-billboards-for-neighborhood bill with conditions. They just seemed ready to get out of the harsh light of public attention to do so.

If opponents win this fight, they'll have to do so in Metro Council, even though I think Commissioners Gee and LeQuire deserve kudos for putting up their own opposition. Gee told the commissioners that he supports the LED task force's recommendation that the ordinance should not be passed unless there is enough money in the budget to enforce it. If he can find a way to convince the commission to make that condition an iron-clad limitation on council, I don't see how this ordinance wins in a tight Metro budget year.