Stringing North Nashville along

Last week Mayor Karl Dean decided it was time again to grace North Nashville with his presence. So, he joined Sharon Kay on Jazzy 88 WFSK (Fisk University) for an interview about the job he has been doing.

He framed his customary economic development pitch with the statement that he considers his administration's spending on upgrades to the water and sewer system an important part of what creates economic development. That seemed to be a departure from his standard stump about economic development as providing more opportunities and subsidies for business. He even broached the subject of the increase in water service fees to pay for the upgrades.

As usual, what Karl Dean did not say about his spending on upgrades was more significant than what he did say.

First, just like in his recent speech on his new budget, Karl Dean discussed the Metro Water upgrades as if they were his own initiative, which they they are not. Metro Nashville has been mandated from above to comply with state and federal clean water regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency required the Mayor to commit $1.5 billion to comply:

federal and state officials approached Metro about the need for additional sewer investments. Shortly after, the EPA and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation filed a consent decree in federal court requiring Metro to comply with a list of environmental regulations. By March 2009, the consent decree was approved, setting aside a schedule whereby Metro must submit a long-term plan to address the issue.

So, the Mayor can talk as if he has ownership of the clean water issue, but what are the chances the Dean administration would have "spent far more on water mains, sewer lines and storm water projects than it cost to build the Music City Center" if a government mandate had not been imposed? It was not too many years ago that Mayor Dean attacked the idea of government regulations. It seems disingenuous to embrace spending that he has been forced to accept now.

The other thing omitted from his comments to Ms. Kay had to do with his reference to raises in water fees. Mayor Dean failed to acknowledge that his water fee increases are regressive: Metro charges big businesses less for higher volumes of stormwater they shed than Metro charges smaller operations like, well, Fisk University. Those who can afford to pay more actually pay less in Karl Dean's world.

Hizzoner came off dubiously at other spots like where he said that the wealth he has helped business generate in Nashville trickled down to ordinary people during the construction phase of the Music City Center. Explain that one to me.

However, his touting of the money spent on water and sewer is dishonest if not looney. After the 2010 floods he told us that what saved Nashville from the catastrophe was not the federal government but local volunteers helping people. His mantra is voluntarism even when it warps the truth.

In this case, it was not local volunteers who created the stormwater upgrades. And it was not even the Dean administration's own initiative to start forking over revenues for water despite the credit he expects us to give. Water and sewer improvements are the result of mandates from the federal government that actually caused Nashville to break with a past of soiling its own run-off in order to protect the environment.

If he wants credit for ponderous capital projects like Music City Center then let him claim it, even if it does not sell in places he visits outside of Downtown. But the real record on water infrastructure should not go without saying anywhere.

What goes for NYC goes doubly for Nashville

New York City has a new progressive mayor to replace the neo-liberal Republican Mike Bloomberg, and noted architectural critic Michael Sorkin acknowledges the transition with an open letter to Mayor Bill de Blasio. I excerpt significant parts here because Nashville Mayor Karl Dean tends to mimic the "public-private partnership" approach to governance that Bloomberg exercised and at which Sorkin takes aim, calling it the "post-Reagan turn against government":

It's time to reintroduce communities into the planning process. New York must move beyond the oppositional model of planning that has too long dominated .... Although there is no contradiction in planning both inductively and deductively, our process is too skewed toward money and away from people: the capacity of neighborhoods to meaningfully participate in planning their own destinies—and that of the larger realms we all share—is fundamental. Wisdom doesn't belong to any particular group (although needs are best assessed locally), and a mayor must empower everyone ....

Let the de Blasio planning department pay better attention, return to the task of physical planning attuned to local desires, and more aggressively pursue architecturally significant outcomes. Instead of simply being the adjudicators of the circumstances for construction, our planners should produce more facts, more designs—and should set priorities that are both concrete and truly visionary.

For the past dozen years, the real power to plan has resided with the city's Economic Development Corporation, which, operating more like a private entity than a city agency, stands outside full scrutiny and control and acts as the mayor's creature. This tilt toward understanding government's role primarily as the facilitator of private initiatives has special consequences for the public realm—a space shared by the city's many publics—and it's time for a more transparent use of public money. There's something dispiriting about celebrating the fact that the beautiful Brooklyn Bridge Park was produced not by the Parks Department but by a special corporation financed by the inclusion of superluxe condos and a hipster hotel within it. Forcing the public realm to effectively produce its own revenues on the spot is a formula for assuring that the best public spaces will be in neighborhoods that can most afford them. The role of planning should be to equalize opportunity and community assets, and any system that either privatizes revenue collection or steers it too locally risks deepening the rift between our “two cities.”

The past two mayoral terms in Nashville drifted away from sustaining agencies in Metro government that advocate for community-based and neighborhood-based interests.

Says Dean: "Maximize tourism and entertainment"

Before Karl Dean took office and started remaking government into a public-private composite, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhoods acted as an arbiter between the community and municipal departments. Now most of the energy is going to the Mayor's Office of Economic and Community Development, an intimate partner of the Nashville Chamber of Commerce, which spearheads much of what passes for Metro policy. The Office of Neighborhoods has shrunk to the standing of PR gadget.

Consequently, Mayor Dean is experiencing blow-back from his seemingly singular dependence on economic development, and he is having to stave off questions concerning his spending on public infrastructure. There are perceptions that the Mayor is the Mayor of the more privileged parts of the city, but not of the entire city. Nashville has it's own reputation of being "two cities" to live down, but the leaders are not living it down gracefully. Take last week's Nashville Ledger:

Dean is quick to point out that the bulk of his spending plans have focused on basic infrastructure needs, such as sidewalks and paving, as well as projects that provide direct services to residents, including new police precincts, libraries, schools, parks, greenways, bikeways and open space ....

His capital spending plans have also invested $373 million in schools and allocated more than $40 million to improving Nashville’s walkability.

And a capital program begun in 2010 will spend more than $1 billion on a backlog of water, sewer and storm water infrastructure projects throughout Davidson County that were needed to preserve safe, clean drinking water.

But Hizzoner overplayed his hand. If I were Mayor and taking some heat for spending more on subsidizing big business than on serving the community, I would point out if I could how much more I have spent on sidewalks, library buildings and schools than the previous "Neighborhoods Mayor". To me it is telling that Karl Dean does not.

As for the spending on schools, what Mayor Dean failed to mention was that chunks of the $373 million went to aid his program of privatizing public schools by helping charter corporations and corporately-partnered "academies" effectively designed to limit public education for all.

Also, keep this in mind about the water infrastructure: it had been violating the Clean Water Act and getting negative attention from the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation for years before Nashville made a concerted effort to upgrade components that predated Abraham Lincoln's administration. The Mayor was forced from the top-down to make changes to Metro Water infrastructure to avoid costly and embarrassing EPA fines that threatened the Nashville brand. There also might be a couple of Metro Council members who should get credit for their efforts at shepherding water upgrades and sensitizing constituents to the need for changes.

If Hizzoner really is not getting the benefit of the doubt on policy that seems focused on handing entitlements to wealthy special interests, then he has earned the reputation. The current planning process is overrun and corrupted by Mayor Dean's exclusive commitments to business over community. Developers continue to enjoy greater advantages over communities than ever before. Wealth tips the balance of power.

If reintroducing communities into the planning process and taking the spotlight off public-private partnerships goes for New York City, the idea goes doubly for Nashville. We have seen a 2-term stretch in which Karl Dean has acted like a mini-Mike Bloomberg and asserted business models over a more democratic community process that should have more influence over growth and development than currently allowed.

Unchecked Exxon

What am I missing here? According to the New York Times, the Exxon Mobile Pipeline Company in the far west MetroCenter area "has not been out of compliance" in the past 3 years, but their last inspection was over 4 1/2 years ago. How do we know that Exxon hasn't been polluting the Cumberland or the local stormwater run-off if the last time they were inspected was nearly a half a decade ago?

HT: Freddie O'Connell

Is the Cumberland a Canary, Too?

Swimming Lessons

She pretty much told CM Charlie Tygard to go jump in a lake for all of his recent posturing to the media against swimming in the Cumberland. CM Emily Evans plans to join several other Nashville leaders in a June 19 swim across the Cumberland in order to raise awareness about water quality.

Question the swim meet if you like but I like CM Evans' deftness and moxy in calling out her colleague for making himself rather than clean water the center of attention. Here's an email reply she copied to Michael Cass after Tygard copied his to Cass:

since it is my turn in your ceaseless quest to generate controversy and division within the Council, I will respond to some of your concerns ....
It is a requirement of the EPA permit issued to Davidson County to raise awareness and educate Davidson County residents on water quality. Thanks in no small part to you we will probably raise more public awareness about the health and importance of the Cumberland River than any class room visit MWS shall do all year. In short, the Cumberland River swim can be seen as part of the mission and the mandate of Metro Water Services. (I think nothing drives this point home more than the participation in the swim of Paul Davis from TDEC.)
Much of the time dedicated to this event has been volunteer time from Cumberland River Compact and interested individuals. I was under the impression that you supported the missions and aims of non-profits like CRC and affiliated organizations like Harpeth River Watershed, but I guess not. I have informed Chief Halford that I would be more than willing to reimburse the fire department for fuel costs. In the interests of consistency, I will extend that offer to include any fire trucks that come to my district for various summer celebrations like July 4th. I hope you will do the same ....

Without the Cumberland River, this city would not be here. For decades we polluted it. When cow carcasses floated downstream from Neuhoff, your fear was justified. Much has changed and a lot of it has to do with the dedication and work of Metro Water Services, TDEC and the EPA with funding support from Council and the Mayor. I do not understand why you would begrudge them a little acknowledgement of that effort. I personally think all involved have been underappreciated in this regard ....
Lastly, Charlie, I am aware of the drowning death at the quarry and I cannot tell you how sorry I am that the victim's family and the Bellevue community has had that to endure. However, I cannot believe you would attempt to politicize that tragedy as you have done today. I would encourage you to spend your time teaching others about the importance of water safety rather than asking folks not to swim.

Dolphin kick to the chops.


UPDATE: City Paper ignores Tygard's grandstanding and focuses on Evans' goals and resolution to improve Nashville's water source.

Midnight at the Oasis: More Fallout from the Spring Hill Mirage

The Metro Council Member most qualified to evaluate proposals for Metro Water Service fee hikes did as I expected she would and came out against any proposed fee increases that don't go directly back into MWS programs. In fact, she argues that many such fee increases are illegal.

She also replied at Progressive Nashville to their proposal for funding mass transit (for more context and PN perspective see Jim Grinstead's comment below), and she divulged a piece of information that I think is much more interesting in further demythologizing the "tax-free" nirvana that the anti-tax mob sees in Spring Hill, TN. She writes:

using water and sewer rates to pay for [general fund services] is a violation of state law and possibly the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Spring Hill TN has been directed by state auditors to return $3 million from the water and sewer fund to the general fund.

We know all about those high-minded claims of "no property taxes in growing Spring Hill!" And it was plain to some that past the pep rally, Spring Hill was using fees and state grants to create the illusion that public services were free. Now it is clear that city fathers (and mothers if there are any) weren't above doing some illegal things in the name of avoiding raising property taxes.

I don't see how the Tennessee Tax Revolt can keep promoting this fallen suburban poster child in their war against urbanism and the delivery of public services. They're going to have to look somewhere else for heaven.


UPDATE: As if on cue, the Tuesday morning Tennessean has more on Spring Hill's imploding budget. Looks like no room to cut services:

Spring Hill officials will have to make a decision soon on the property tax. They have been putting together budgets that include and leave out that tax, said Mayor Danny Leverette.

"My personal take is that the with the economic situation the way it is, the sales tax is not going to be enough as far as everyday operating expenses," he said.

Leverette does not want to resort to layoffs, the avenue some governments have traveled. Metro Nashville, for instance, will lay off 200 city employees.

"We could have to cut back our services, which are bare-bones right now," he said. "We are also looking at increasing water and sewer rates, other permits and regulatory fees."