Metro Council votes to approve Brady Banks' rezoning request despite receiving a neighborhood petition with 400 signatures against it

Admittedly, I don't know a lot about this "Plum Orchard" rezoning ordinance in Brady Banks' Brentwood district because I have not been following it like some in the community have, but here is what I learned about from last night's council meeting:

• There were many more people present in the council gallery opposing his ordinance last night than favoring it. One of them even presented a petition against it with 407 signatures.
• The primary person speaking in favor of it was Tom White, land use lawyer and registered lobbyist for the Home Builders Association. The last time I saw Mr. White, he was defending the controversial proposal to introduce rural Whites Creek to more suburban sprawl. The rezoning request CM Banks is proposing would subdivide Brentwood farmland into 78 suburban plots.
• Former CM and current engineer-to-developers Roy Dale also spoke in favor of the project as he is on this development team. Does Mr. Dale ever work on a project that does not raise questions?
• Reportedly, there are opposition signs against the project "all over" the area around the intersection of Church Street East and Cloverland Drive.
• Opponents said during last night's hearing that they do not oppose development, but they oppose the rezoning, which they say would generate more auto traffic. They support the owners' right to develop the property within the zoning, which would mean tracks larger than the current plan, but still smaller than those in surrounding neighborhoods.
• One opponent said that when he asked CM Banks during a phone call which side he was on, the CM replied that the opponent did not understand that there were "some highly politically influential [unnamed] people involved." The same opponent pointed out that Roy Dale claimed that the development is within walking distance of Brentwood, but that Metro had not provided sidewalks or any other pedestrian infrastructure along the route to Brentwood.
• After the public hearing was over, council engaged in practically no debate in spite of the petition. To his credit, CM Bruce Stanley rose in opposition and reiterated that Metro's infrastructure is "substandard" to suit the plans that developers keep concocting. He also said that a "progressive" development is one that "shows benefit for the entire community, not simply the developer."
• Mayoral candidate and at-Large CM Megan Barry, who is running on the promise "not to lose sight" of neighborhoods in favor of economic development, said nothing about Plum Orchard rezoning and ultimately voted to approve Brady Banks' ordinance. As at-Large, she is technically this area's representative, too, but she did not lift a finger in advocacy for the neighborhood last night.

In the end the council approved CM Banks' rezoning proposal. The moral of this story: 1 lobbyist carries more weight with this Metro Council than does the petition of hundreds of neighbors in the impact zone of developments.

Salemtown needs to stay a place friendly to children

At the last Salemtown neighborhood association meeting, someone other than me (for which I am thankful) suggested to the officers that more social events be planned for families with children.

That request was made after the officers handed out a list of planned social events somewhat bereft of events explicitly child-friendly: a Mardi Gras Mixer, Pink Flamingo Happy Hour, Progressive Dinner, Chili Cook Off, Sip 'N Stroll. Those are all lovely events I'm sure, but they seem designed more for empty nesters or for parents with babysitters on constant call rather than for those of us who are committed to spending time with our children. I have experienced the Salemtown Halloween Block Party, which is apparently on for 2015, too. While it did not deter the number of kids that came through for candy, it was organized more as a street festival for the concert-and-beer crowd. The "kids tent" was a single table under a small awning.

I thought the officers could have taken the criticism more constructively than they did. They basically told the parent that she should participate in the social committee if she wanted to see more kid-friendly events because none of the members of the social committee have children. I believe that the suggestion was made with good intentions, but it did not come across as a constructive suggestion to me.

I should be perfectly honest and say that this was not the first time I have seen coolness expressed by empty nesters toward families with children in Salemtown. Across 10 years it has been a challenge at times and with some exceptions to convince them to either co-sponsor or join in more kid-friendly events. At times parents here have organized events on our own the absence of association sponsorship. We've had outings to parks and water parks. We've gone to get ice cream. We've attended puppet shows at the public library. In the fall we've gone to scout pumpkins at Farmers Market. One of our more popular regular events we organized apart from SNNA in the past was our "Kid Klatch" events. They were generally at Morgan Park, but one time we had a "Jane's Walk" to Bicentennial Mall ending with a picnic and kite-flying.

While SNNA may have a knack for planning adult-oriented events, I believe our association can do a better job of sponsoring and incorporating kid-friendly events. Here are a few suggestions:

• Rather than obliging parents to join a committee if they want to see events that their children can attend, invite the parents to meet with the social committee one-time or in a short series of coffees or lunches, kids in tow, so that the committee can get feedback for planning. Who knows, a couple of parents might take charge of their own suggestions to the committee. It is generally not effective or sensitive to tell people who suggest social events that they join the association's social committee. The reason we have committees is to divide the organizing labor and it becomes unrealistic to oblige every person who makes suggestions to join the committee. The committee would be come ridiculously and cumbersomely large under such logic. The social committee should field ideas on how to make their slate stronger, not dismiss those who cannot or will not serve.
• Put SNNA in front of the parade. If you don't produce social events for families with children, the parents are likely to go ahead and organize them without you. We did 3 years ago when we started to feel less support from the association. I have been to fewer and fewer Salemtown Neighbors social events since 2012, because frankly I want to spend my free time with family members. Until it sinks in at SNNA that they can actually get more Salemtown families to attend by attracting them with kid-friendly events, then I'll not likely attend many adult-oriented ones as I have in the distant past. To put it more positively: find events that parents are already planning and ask if the association can do anything to assist. Get SNNA's name on the event. What can it hurt?
• Use child-friendly social events as a tool to expand membership. I've lived here 10 years. Salemtown, unlike Germantown, has always had bunches of kids around the neighborhood. It is true now, more than ever. Daily in warmer weather I see young couples walking by with strollers. At times I wonder if we are undergoing a baby boom. Other parents on my block have play days for the kids that their kids go to school with. SNNA has to make more of an effort to attract these families and keep them in Salemtown. No one is asking empty nesters to open up their homes for our kids to barrel around their fragile decorations. But SNNA officers need to find a way to reach out to families with children, if for no other reason that it makes the association stronger and more diverse.
• Promote diversity. An urban neighborhood is generationally diverse when it has children as well as young adults, retirees, and middle aged-empty nesters. If Salemtown were a neighborhood exclusively dominated by empty nesters, it would be a tedious and boring place. I'm speaking as a person who did not have his first child until the age of 29; as one who will be an empty-nester once again in less than a decade. Any neighborhood worth its salt needs the presence of some children for enrichment.
• Express mutual interest by showing up once in a while. I have attended events in Salemtown to celebrate someone's promotion, birthday, engagement, marriage, move-in, move-out and a host of other special occasions that were important for me to support. On the other side of the ledger, I don't recall empty nesters showing up to one of my kid's basketball games or her art shows or her theater performances. I am not expressing resentment in that statement. I'm merely pointing out that one hand washes the other. It is unrealistic to expect parents to continue to find a babysitter to celebrate your milestones when you won't calendar and attend to those of their children. Mutuality, by definition, goes both ways.

I offer these suggestions in a spirit of engagement, because I firmly believe in enhancing the quality of life in Salemtown. Yes, our sociality is enhanced by Mardi Gras mixers, but it is also enhanced by puppet shows.

Salemtown Neighbors Neighborhood Association is 10 years old this month

Around this time 10 years ago a dozen or so Salemtown residents hatched plans to form the neighborhood's first association. In late February 2005 we met for the first time at Morgan Park Community Center with Metro Planning officials and we were off on this trek.

There has not been much pomp and circumstance so far in 2015 over this important Salemtown anniversary, but those of us who have been here from the beginning deeply understand the hard work that went into the formation, organization and growth of SNNA.

I am proud to have been a part of that work. Happy 10th, SNNA.

The naivete of simply solving anything where power is concerned

From a local news story on where the mayoral candidates stand on gentrification and developer-driven growth:

"When the conversation can exist between a neighborhood and developers, good things happen at the end of the day," [Jeremy] Kane says, adding that the gentrification problem could be solved simply through better communication.

Well, yeah. But the trick is getting developers to the table in order to willingly negotiate and compromise on rezoning deals. Another trick is getting them to go beyond anything but what they are strictly required to do, which is a problem that plagues the question of affordable housing.

In my experience, I can think of a small number of developers who were proactive enough to launch the communication with the community. Many developers did not bother until they faced some outspoken community concerns or resistance to their plan (see, "We were moving smoothly until some guy blogged on us"). Once the threat of derailment due to transparency and organized opposition becomes real, they discover communication. I can think of only one who initiated conversation even though he was not seeking rezoning and thus did not have to. That is not a promising track record for those of us who want to make sure that the growth that occurs in neighborhoods compliments the character of the community in question.

So, the challenge is to broker power fairly, which is step beyond mere communication. However, I do not blame developers strictly for not seeing this. I also blame politicians in general and council members in particular (especially when the latter do not frame community engagement as the central part of the planning and zoning process).

"I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse."

Better communication depends on the willingness of developers and politicians to meet with neighborhood organizations and hash out mutual understanding. It's a predetermined or prearranged developer willingness to meet halfway, to lose a few things in order to win most of what they want. But since very few developers actually do that they're going to need more than a simple invitation.

They're going to need an offer they can't refuse.

Two points on the local aftermath of Charlie Hebdo

On the one hand, Mayor Karl Dean refused to attend the predominantly African American town hall meeting in North Nashville last August focused on local apprehensions and tensions in the wake of the Ferguson, MO protests over the shooting of Mike Brown. On the other hand, Hizzoner made every effort to attend a predominantly white rally this month called by the "honorary French consul" in Nashville to protest the shooting at Charlie Hebdo headquarters.

Photo credit: Sister Cities of Nashville

I don't even know what an honorary French consul does, but she only pulled together 75 people for her rally. Hundreds packed into Mount Zion Baptist Church last August.

As he co-captained the rally and march with Amélie de Gaulle, Monsieur Dean told the press:

When basic freedoms are attacked, when journalists pay with their lives for exercising their profession, for speaking out, for exercising their right to give their opinions, citizens can't walk comfortably.

So, basic freedoms matter in France, but not in the protests of Ferguson, MO? Not in the press coverage of the suppression of protest against St. Louis County police? Not for a Nashville community shaken by the brutal responses to Black Lives Matter?

The contrast in the Hizzoner's selective attendance of protests points to the reality once again, that Karl Dean prefers not to be the mayor of all of Nashville, but to play the plenipotentiary for the local aristocracy.

_____________________

There has been remarkable reaction to the Tennessean's choice of editorials on terrorism in France. I want to focus on one that has not received much attention. A little over a week ago the paper's vice president, Stephanie Murray wrote a column that can be easily reduced to three points:

1. "The Tennessean strives to protect free speech and the First Amendment every single day. It is our duty. And it is our passion."
2. "But at the end of the day, we work for you. We work to ensure democracy is an open process with citizen input. We strive to hold officials accountable."
3. "And that’s part of the reason why today, I ask for your subscription. Please help support quality journalism in Middle Tennessee by purchasing The Tennessean."

We have heard this kind of logic before. George W. Bush told Americans to exercise their freedom and support their country by "going shopping." In the Tennessean's case, Stefanie Murray encourages the further commercialization of constitutional freedom in the purchase of her company's product. It's not that far removed from telling us to go shopping.

Mainstream, corporate journalism acts like it should enjoy a special place (remember "the 4th estate"?), but also it also treats its content as a product sold in the marketplace, even as it pays its labor force very little for the value they add. For all of their self-promotion as being community-minded and dedicated to open process, back in 2007, the local papers trotted out lawyers and PR flacks to blunt organized neighborhood dissent to their mythology that the First Amendment guarantees long, cluttered rows of unregulated news racks.

If they really wanted to support the democratic process, they would not bring in legalistically-minded professionals and lobbyists, but would negotiate and compromise with citizens directly on the commercialization of information. Instead, mainstream journos tend to confuse the grey zone of commerce with the unalienable right to transparency, fair dealing and openness.

Black's Law Dictionary defines unalienable rights as those rights "incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." So, how is it that our freedom of speech hinges on the purchase of a commercial product, in this case an advertising circular moonlighting as a newspaper? And frankly, if you buy without question the logic that Tennessean reporters and editors exercise freedom beyond the reach of political influence of their Gannett corporate check-signers, then you have already surrendered your freedom of critical thought to self-delusion.

Money exercises influence. Public relations sugarcoats that influence. Wealth may not be able to threaten freedoms as provocatively and visibly as terrorism, but may erode them more persistently, more efficiently and more effectively.

And frankly, it is a smarmy hucksterism to use a tragedy so explicitly to sell more papers. There is too much at stake in the historic struggle to defend freedoms to fall for Ms. Murray's sales pitch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONDITIONS

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

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


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

What kind of revolution did Dr. King claim? One of community projects or one of social justice?

Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores and thereby speed the day when every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight and the rough places plain.

-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1967)

In college I was a supporter of the law that made Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday a national holiday. Even then, I understood that there would be a price to pay. Governments and corporations tend to co-opt popular observances for their own self-serving ends.

I continue to be an avid observant of MLK Day, but I am constantly reminded of how its institutionalization has muted and snuffed out most of the radicalism of Dr. King's message. "I Have a Dream" often replaces the nightmare Dr. King said that he found in the nation's slums. Some want to focus strictly on integration (which Dr. King called "a struggle to get rid of extremist behavior") while they ignore what Dr. King called "genuine equality" which involves "hard economic and social issues" and "survival of a world within which to be integrated."

Jeremy Kane volunteers for MLKDay

We continue to see the muffling of Dr. King's message in 2015 in Nashville, especially from candidates running for office. Metro Council candidates are promoting the national day of service, even though voluntarism has little to do with MLK's self-identity: "if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice." Mayoral candidates are joining in volunteer activities without talking about what they would do if elected to curb the excesses of income inequality that lead to what Dr. King called "spiritual death."

Emphasizing a day of service gives politicos and corporations a shelter free of the undue risk of "genuine equality" and the weightier matters of social justice. Public-private partnerships are perfect vehicles for softening the sharp edges of MLK's message while seizing on the glow of his mass popularity. However, they are of no help in joining Dr. King to go out into a hostile world and boldly challenge the status quo. Public-private partnerships are the status quo. By not taking bold stands they have the air of safe neutrality. However, in the same sermon where Dr. King spoke of going into hostile world, he observed with Dante that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.

Ultimately, the co-opting and switch of the MLK brand from economic justice to community service is ironic. Dr. King died in Memphis while supporting sanitation workers striking for wage increases and better working conditions. Not only do community service days do nothing to advance the cause of better pay and safer work for employees, but some clean-up and trash-pick-up volunteer efforts create more work for sanitation employees who haul it off to landfills generally located in poorer communities. Projects can be more of an obstacle to survival in a world within which to be integrated.

I participate in community projects and I encourage others to do the same at any point in the calendar. But let us not confuse and water down Dr. King's revolutionary message with the idea that community service projects authentically commemorate his work.


UPDATE:  I'm not the only one thinking this way. In Philadelphia today 6,000 organized in "a more assertive, confrontational vision of King's legacy" intentionally departing from the national day of service:

"While we recognize the importance of service, Dr. King was not assassinated because of his charity work. He was assassinated because he challenged the status quo," said the Rev. Mark Tyler of Mother Bethel A.M.E. Church, a leader of the new MLK D.A.R.E. coalition. "We only do honor to his memory if we continue to fight the same fight."

Metro Council stops the Mayor's Fair Board appointment and a council candidate takes it personally

I, like many, received an email blast last week from Save Our Fairgrounds, one of the few groups that has organized and defeated Mayor Karl Dean soundly on one of his major sell-off plans. The blast warned of Hizzoner's latest bid to appoint Eric Malo to the Fair Board. SOF called our attention back to 2011, when Mr. Malo advocated demolishing the Fairgrounds racetrack, which he pinned as the culprit for the pollution of nearby Browns Creek. He also supported selling off the public property to private interests for construction.

The irresponsible claim that the racetrack is the cause of the pollution of Browns Creek, whose watershed parallels railways, crosses under roads and intersects interstates, is enough for me to wonder whether Mr. Malo can fairly serve on the Fair Board. After 4 years, I am still waiting to see some of the negative energy vented at the Fairgrounds turned into a positive collaborative watershed alliance between Mr. Malo's group and other community groups. Something like the Richland Creek Watershed Alliance is what I have in mind. If I had read somewhere that Mr. Malo had taken part in real watershed preservation since 2011, I would have a launch point for parting with Save Our Fairgrounds on his appointment.

However, there was nothing in the present coverage of the council debate last Tuesday (I watched the debate myself) to make me think that Mr. Malo had made moves beyond Karl Dean's plan to some larger vision. The council defeated the mayor's appointment to the Fair Board, and I have no problem with that. It is actually refreshing that the council debated one of the mayor's board appointments for once. They typically rubber stamp them.

As if on cue, another player from the 2011 unpleasantness, Colby Sledge, insinuated himself into the council decision not to appoint the mayor's man to the Fair Board. Mr. Sledge is now running for the council seat of district 17, and I guess he sees the board appointment as important to his current campaign because he tweeted:

What was the petty political agenda? Seriously? A grassroots group--opposing the mayor's plan to tear down first the Fairgrounds and then the attached racetrack and sell them to private developers--organized once again to oppose one of his appointments to the board charged with oversight on the basis of that person's support for the mayor's plan. They petitioned the council harder than Mr. Malo's supporters did. It is politics, but how is it petty?

It is surely nothing like the pettiness of Mr. Sledge (who again lives in council district 17) in inserting himself four years ago into the district 24 race to try to torpedo Jason Holleman's campaign because CM Holleman opposed tearing down the Fairgrounds. The pettiness was compounded by the already expressed sentiment that no one outside of Mr. Sledge's anti-Fairgrounds group, Neighbors for Progress, should have a say in what happens to the Fairgrounds.

But Neighbors for Progress, who launched a website that no longer exists to promote a tear-down petition that only garnered 500 signatures (after thousands were projected) and turned out 35 speakers at council public hearing as the other side turned out 3,000, appeared to be astroturf.  I have my doubt's that Mr. Sledge's group was ever anything but marginally "grassroots," particularly since under his leadership, the group's agenda seemed to shift with whatever tactical moves the Mayor's Office was making at any particular point of popular resistance, including Karl Dean's advocacy of Sarah Lodge Tally over CM Holleman in 24.

Maybe Colby Sledge could not muster any more popular support for Mr. Malo than he could for demolishing the Fairgrounds and then the attached racetrack. Thus, his "friend" lost a board appointment as a statement about the future of the Fairgrounds. But there was never a need to personalize this as candidate Sledge has. Maybe he should direct his anger at council "progressives" like Ronnie Steine, Megan Barry and Jerry Maynard, who could not line up the votes to appoint.

As for CM Steine, he could not line up votes because he was too busy concocting false analogies: Mr. Malo's past opposition to the racetrack versus council opponents of Music City Center construction who nonetheless support it now. Well, if any of the latter wish to seek an appointment to the convention center authority and CM Steine wants to organize community opposition to them, you won't hear complaints here. Good luck with that, councilman.

The irony here is that the council followed proper procedure, stunt-free, to defeat the mayor's appointment of Mr. Malo to the Fair Board; CM Steine has a track record of pontificating on following council process. He also has a knack for breaking with process when convenient for him to do so.

So, spare us the crocodile tears, Mr. Sledge.

Again, this was not about Mr. Malo. The mayor lost this appointment because he tried to place someone who previously echoed his own will-to-demo and penchant to sell off valuable Metro resources. Loyalty tends to trump rationality in his administration. This was also about Mr. Dean and his preference for running end-arounds on democratic process. The track record is clear: the convention center, a Hickory Hollow flea market, the Fairgrounds, the Sulphur Dell ballpark. Those are just the ones that come off the top of my head. (For what it's worth, there are rumors circulating that the Fairgrounds question was deliberately kept out the Nashville Next planning process to avoid the recurrence of embarrassment in the Mayor's Office; I guess there was not as keen an interest in sparing Mr. Malo disappointment).

Karl Dean's decisions express a disdain for democratic process when it does not line up with his growth agenda. Checking this board appointment is not petty. It represents one of the few instances where grassroots organizing keeps the mayor from overreaching and padding the incomes of wealthy developers.

Previously unpublished photos of the May 2010 Nashville flood indicate urbanizing Bells Bend was and is an idea fraught with peril

Recently, Bells Bend advocate Sumter Camp sent me 2010 flood photos that he has had stored away for almost 5 years. With the 5th anniversary of the Great Nashville Flood a few months away, it is worth reconsidering the impact of the flood on various communities.

Parts of the May properties, which were originally proposed to become a "second downtown" sprawling across the Bend would have been underwater if the Planning Commission had approved the build. Given that buildings and other impervious surfaces displace flood waters, the 2010 flood waters would have likely pushed further into the Bend if May Town Center had been allowed. As Nashville Next sets new goals for infill that have the potential to drive lower income people out of city neighborhoods, we should expect increasing pressures to urbanize our vanishing agricultural villages like Scottsboro/Bells Bend. The flood is a cautionary tale instructing us to organize and to push back against such pressure.

Advocates for protecting our agricultural areas like Bells Bend share complimentary interests with urban activists who demand affordable housing and rent controls in city neighborhoods. They should be building bridges to one another for the sake of common cause.

The caption descriptions are paraphrases of Sumter's own descriptions. I am grateful to him for giving us yet another look back at the 2010 catastrophe.

Cumberland River at the bottom with the right-hand bank
just outside of the last curving row of trees.
The power lines cross the southern-most corner of the May property.

Looking the opposite direction of the preceding photo.
John Tune Airport is at upper right. Charles Bass Prison is just below it
and to the right (water in between all of the pods).

Southern end of the Bend looking west. Old Hickory Blvd runs from right to left
just above the centerline of the photo. Partially flooded I-40 lies beyond.

Recap of last night's North Nashville town hall meeting on concerns about police after Ferguson

Last night I left my daughter's school orientation events early to attend the "town hall" meeting at Mount Zion Baptist Church on Jeff St. I arrived 30 minutes before it was supposed to start. That was a good thing because the pews of the sanctuary were nearly full by 7:15. They had an overflow crowd in their fellowship hall in the basement to watch a video feed.

There was a panel of African American community leaders and Metro Police Chief Steve Anderson. Those are the folks who did most of the speaking. Police commanders and other cops filled the choir loft while the candidates for mayor and other elected officials not on the program sat in audience at the front.

Meeting organizer, Bishop Joseph Walker, told the audience that the Mt. Zion meeting is the first time in the US that the protests over Michael Brown's death have moved out of the street and into a building for discussion with police and other leaders.

I sat next to a woman from South Nashville who told me that the event had been announced in church at Mt. Zion last Sunday. As far as I know, the mainstream news media did not announce it until Wednesday. What kind of crowds would have shown up if the announcement had gone out across the city over the weekend?

The predominantly white mainstream print and broadcast media looked like it was in full force, so you can probably read or listen to major details and talking points any place today. I'll stick with my own impressions here.

The first thing I have to say about the meeting was that it was a bona fide town hall complete with comments and questions from the audience. It was not a faux community meeting along the lines of the Mayor's bus rapid transit plan or a planning meeting where the only way you can have your questions answered is if you write them down on a permission slip. It was not a NashvilleNext "lounge" designed to lure hipsters and Millennials. It was unadorned, free-style, old-school town hall, which was fine with me. Democracy is messy business.

Beyond meeting logistics the takeaway for me is that Chief Steve Anderson was the main focus of the meeting. I was there until about 8:45 and Chief Anderson took the brunt of questions from the panelists and from the audience on what Metro cops would do if faced with the same events as they unfolded in Ferguson and on how Metro Police are working internally and with the community to prevent racism and brutality.

His department received praise, criticism, questions and notes of caution.

He handled himself serviceably. And I got the impression from audience and panelist responses that people were satisfied with his answers. Chief Anderson opened his comments with a list of mistakes he thought Ferguson police made, the most important one: failing to diffuse the situation two weeks ago when Mike Brown was shot dead (to be specific, he was shot six times, twice to the head) by a cop and kept in the street for hours afterward. The chief also said that not releasing shooting officer Darren Wilson's name immediately was a lapse. "Within the hour there should have been a statement," he told the audience. He described the way that the police handled the aftermath as appearing to be a conspiracy. He argued that they should have been more transparent from the beginning.

However, his ostensible list of mistakes did not include any mention of use of military equipment by police in protest situations. I was troubled by that.

In his comments on how the police would handle protests after police shootings, Chief Anderson told the audience that his department would meet with community leaders before the protests in order to cover organizing and coordination. He said something about "wanting to be with" peaceful protesters. He said that he would allow protesters to break "some of the law" by marching in the streets as long as community leaders understood that the police would maintain order at the end of the day.

Again he had the opportunity to address the use of military weapons on innocent protesters, but did not.

Finally, after a representative from Pacify Nashville read off a list of military weapons that Metro Police could use on the community, Chief Anderson spoke to the problem; but only after he read a list of the ways that military equipment had been used in the 2010 flood and in other emergency situations to help people in distress. It came across to me as dancing around the problem. The real issue here is that the weapons are designed for the battlefield. The possibility of using them against strikes and marches flips social protest to war. They were not designed for less grisly pursuits.

The police chief said that he would not use military equipment in the community "unless absolutely necessary." He only elaborated by saying that police would use it to protect property and life. Then again, the St. Louis County cops would probably argue that they only used it because it was absolutely necessary to protect Ferguson property and life last week as they were gassing residential areas from armored vehicles. The Pacify Nashville rep asked him point blank and the police chief seemed to be reserving the right to use them. Can you imagine a natural disaster where sound cannons like the ones used to drive away Ferguson protesters would be needed by the Metro Police? I cannot.

You can jump to a list, culled by the New York Times a few months ago, of the $4 million in military toys Metro Police has to play with. It is one thing to have an armored truck for use in authentic hostage situations; it is quite another to own a $600,000 "mine-resistant vehicle" and to reserve the right to use it to protect property during social protests. When was the last time Metro Police had to deal with mines?

In the end, I was left with the impression that we are just supposed to trust that the police won't viciously use the military weapons according to the purpose for which they were made. Is trusting the police good enough for the North Nashville community?



UPDATE: Pacify Nashville posted a video of the question they posed to Steve Anderson as well as his response. You will see that as Pacify Nashville read the list of military weapons in the question, gasps and shouts from the audience became louder. After Pacify Nashville asked Chief Anderson to define "strikes and riots" as situations that allow military weapons to be used, the audience applauded in response before the Chief's reply.





Clearly there is great concern in the community about weapons that allow police to scale up police brutality with military weapons. Military weapons do nothing to promote community policing and civil contact with neighborhoods. If there is a committee formed between the police and local citizens in the aftermath of Ferguson, it needs to come up with proper guidelines on the acquisition and use of military weapons by police departments. At some level, Metro Police will have to demilitarize if they want to earn the trust of the community.

While Metro Planning trains neighborhood leaders, in other places neighborhood leaders do the training

For all of its hype, Metro Planning's attempt at developing a community-influenced county-wide plan, called "NashvilleNext", has always felt like a do-over to me. Years ago when we worked producing community plans (like North Nashville's) it seemed like Planning Director Rick Bernhardt was attempting to involve the community. I have never understood the reason for leaving behind the community plans that many of us gave a great deal of time and energy to develop.

When the planner in the NashvilleNext video below talks about how she and others have worked the past year with community meetings to bring us to the current NashvilleNext plan, I'm left with the sense that if they can so easily replace our community plans with NashvilleNext blueprints based on gimmicks like post-it notes and spinning wheels, why can't they just abandon the NashvilleNext plan behind once it is written? Sticky notes are easily misplaced.

And what troubles me deeply about video on the NashvilleNext plan is that community leaders have to be trained to be "better engaged". Leaders are already by definition plugged in, aren't they? Rather than finding out from leaders what they need, it seems like Bernhardt's department is doing a total about face.

 

Compare Metro's classroom-style treatment of neighborhood leaders to a neighborhoods conference recently held in Oregon, where neighborhood leaders trained other neighborhood leaders.

The risk of simply allowing Metro government officials to "train" Nashville's neighborhood leaders is that the expectations of the latter may not be effectively communicated to the former. The power equation causes government leaders to manage the expectations of neighborhoods rather than respond to them with good service. Neighbors are more than trainees, and planners should approach them with their own open, teachable hearts.


UPDATE: The Nashville Civic Design Center did not mean to say only what appeared in their Twitter stream about Metro Planning's intentions in NashvilleNext "trainings," but part of the problem of feeding Twitter their messages from other social media applications is that the 140 character tweet truncates and distorts the message. The casual observer scanning their Twitter feed might be left with the impression that, again, planners are educating the community about themselves:

While a purely innocent in intention, the tweet does communicate a flawed message.

Whites Creek lost a battle but not yet the war

You can bet that these 43 lots are only Phase I.

Community opponents of Ole South development's plan to sprawl 43 suburban-style homes across previously tree-canopied rural properties held a brave stand at yesterday's Planning Commission public hearing, but they had the weight of law and zoning against them. As an outsider-looking-in with a little experience with planning process, it struck me as a long shot to stop Ole South from building a cluster subdivision approved by the Planning Department without any requirement to rezone.

And Ole South did not even bother to have one of their owners speak at the public hearing. Tom White, real estate lawyer and lobbyist, took care of the developers presentation and rebuttal (and Mr. White reserved his right vocally to end the public hearing with a rebuttal several times during his presentation). For their part, dozens and dozens of community opponents rose to speak against the subdivision to a commission that has been described to me as "the most developer-friendly commission in Nashville history".

Commission Chairman James McLean dished a not-so-veiled warning to opponents that he would stop the public hearing if speakers started repeating themselves because the commissioners wanted to get home at a reasonable hour. As if regular folks out in the gallery had not taken time out of their busy schedules, away from their families to sit for hours through other planning business that did not involve them in order to have their 2 minutes to speak their minds at what was ultimately the end of the meeting. As if commissioners have more important things to do than to hear the expressed interests of a Whites Creek community that is watching their character change without much control--beyond the hearing--over it. Given that most commission business involves relatively uncontroversial, unemotional work on planning, I thought Mr. McLean (who is himself a developer) showed little patience, humility or humor with that warning. Who isn't busy in their own personal lives nowadays, Mr. Chairman?

But the opponents stood out by emphasizing plural concerns, admitting and shortening their comments when they sensed that they were repeating what had already been said. The difference in the public presentations for and against could not be more stark. The emphasis from supporters of Ole South was strictly on the legal side of the argument: the company had complied with what zoning requires and they had toed the line Metro planners and CM Walter Hunt set for them, so at bare minimum they deserved to build their cluster lots. Their basic message was that they achieved the lowest common denominators developers have to, and they saw no need to strive for anything higher than their bottom line.

For their part, the opponents of Ole South appealed to a wide range of arguments to make the basic case that they expect development (no one whom I heard expressed NIMBYism), but they wanted something higher than what developers were offering. They appealed to their history, to consistency with the village-like character of Whites Creek, to the idea of quality in building materials, to the common sense notion of fairness that they ought to have the same planning opportunities as other communities, to environmental protection, to a unique and attractive culture comparable with few other places (Bells Bend, Leipers Fork were mentioned), to tourism, to the culture of land and green space and to their diverse community. Their appeals were thick and rich compared to the rather cold, calculated and cynical statements by an attorney who seemed to me ready to pull a trigger on a lawsuit if Ole South did not get commission approval.

Keep in mind that Tom White is the same lawyer who told the Tennessean that the suburban sprawl plan had plenty of community support for passage. The turnout of opponents at the public hearing proved that false. Tom White is also same lawyer who argued at last week's Whites Creek community meeting that he believed commission support for the plan was "highly likely".

This particular statement from the Old South side proved to be true, but not before questions were raised, mostly by commissioner Stewart Clifton, who acknowledged CM Hunt's interest in approving the plan while also asserting his interest in making sure that Ole South was consistent with the properties on the same side of the streets it would sit on. CM Hunt seemed to want to refer the commission to a completely different development rather than consider the streetside consistency. Mr. Clifton wanted to defer until he could get some answers from planning on whether creating 43 plots was consistent with the adjacent properties. Chairman McLean denied Mr. Clifton a vote on a deferral, called for a vote on CM Hunt's motion to approve the Ole South plan (amended to prohibit duplexes) and the commission voted 4-2 to approve.

It is worth noting that Mr. Clifton pointed out that 3 commissioners who "should be" voting on the Ole South bid were not present. One of those was Andree LeQuire, who had sent a request announced to the commission for a deferral of Old South's plan because she wanted more information about the water and sewer infrastructure Ole South was planning. Chairman McLean waved all of that off before holding the vote to approve.

But there is another significant, but understated fallout from this hearing. During Mr. Clifton's questions, Planning Director Rick Bernhardt noted that the commission had asked for urban character infill regulations but had not requested rural character infill regulations from planners. It was acknowledged that Ole South's approval hinged on old, outdated zoning regs and that there was a lack of infill regs for agricultural communities. After the vote, Mr. Bernhardt asked the commission whether they wanted Planning to pursue those regulations and I did not hear much of a response. Might this be where a concerned Whites Creek community can wage their next battle for growth consistent their community character? They lost this battle, but there still seems to me a war to wage in defense of their way of life. Ole South's holdings in Whites Creek are much larger and perhaps Metro Planning needs more prompting for infill regulations before the developers completely suburbanize backcountry.

In the end, this proposal was CM Walter Hunt's to lose. As ugly as the Whites Creek community meeting was, as impressive as the turnout to the public hearing was, CM Hunt seemed to have Metro planners (in fairness, Planning's hands seemed tied) and commission votes on his side. He did not need to do much compromising with constituents to get approval. Having a land holdings lawyer pounding away on what was legal from the podium is also effective leverage, given that Metro is likely not looking to get caught up in one more lawsuit. While CM Hunt promised to have a historical survey of the properties conducted (no traffic study has been done), I was disappointed myself that he did not at least extend an offer to opponents to start working to revise their outdated community plan, which is a reasonable request regardless of Ole South.

Moreover, take a look at how CM Hunt's campaign for office has been the beneficiary of donors with direct interests in land development, construction, new housing starts and housing market. Follow the money form some of the donors I culled from his campaign finance records since 2011:

• Robert Colson, real estate broker and property auctioneer ($100)
• Tom Cone, Sr., owner of Cone Oil convenience stores ($1,000)
• Roy Dale, engineer to developers ($250)
• Howard Eley, Jr., highways and ramps contractor ($250)
• Joe Hall, lobbyist for cable telecommunications assc. ($200)
• Ronald Ligon, Realtor ($500) and Susan Ligon ($500)
• Alexander Marks, developer ($250)
• William Massey, Jr., electrical contractor ($100)
• Jim McLean, developer and Planning Commission Chair ($100)
• Gregory Richardson, developer ($500)
• John Ring, developer ($500)
• Glen Wallis, Realtor ($100)
• L.H. Hardaway, Jr. construction company owner ($100)
• William Freeman, real estate investment company owner ($100)
• James Smith, developer ($250)
• Bernard Werthan, developer ($100)
• Feller Brown, realty and auction company owner ($100)
• Odell Binkley, waste management ($100)
• H.G. Hill Realty, PAC ($100)
• Tennessee Realtors, PAC ($250)
• Precision Plumbing, Whites Creek ($1,000)

That kind of money is more incentive to shepherd subdivision plans through rather than incorporate community concerns if one is not required to. This list is something for the rest of us to keep in mind should CM Hunt run for at-Large council in the future. He may be our council member someday.

But there is also something else to keep in mind as far as I am concerned. One of the supporters of Ole South said during last night's public hearing, "Whatever Walter Hunt wants, Walter Hunt should get." That prospect itself is troubling given campaign finance, because it won't be just what Walter Hunt wants. It will also be what his most influential campaign donors want.

And those of us without the money (or the community organization) to keep up with his donors will likely be left behind.

Association starts discussion of parking problems in Salemtown

Last fall, I underscored the coming storm over street-side parking in Salemtown (where the lion's share of parking is on public streets), based on the bottlenecks that were already appearing in Germantown.

At last month's Salemtown Neighbors business meeting the subject was brought up and discussions began about possibly leveraging reserved parking on public streets for residents.

I'm all for this and I would sign a petition to reserve parking on my street (I am told Metro requires 75% of residents to sign a petition to get reserved parking). The only caveat I would add is that Salemtown should not wait for anyone or for anything to do this. We certainly cannot wait for CM Erica Gilmore, who pushed the Sulphur Dell ballpark plan through without any consideration for or concern about impact on neighborhood parking.

There was some discussion about working in tandem with Historic Germantown. But, why? If all we need block-by-block is 75%, then why wait for Germantown? HGI often goes its own way without consulting Salemtown. Can anyone show me how working with Germantown on parking in Salemtown would help our case?

Let's get this done before the hulking apartment complex, Werthan Flats, opens and we have our own bottlenecks to deal with. Let's get this done before developers start asking for rezoning for restaurants and mixed-use in Salemtown, at which point we will have them, their lawyers, their lobbyists and their cash flows to fight for reserved parking. Let's get this done before it's too late.

Contentious community meeting held in Whites Creek

"I've lived here a long time. I get it. Anything Nashville does not want gets dumped on us in northern Davidson County."

-- Whites Creek resident to Ole South developers

Tonight at the KIPP school building in the Whites Creek area, Metro Council member Walter Hunt held a community meeting between concerned residents and developers of a proposed vinyl-clad suburban development on Green Lane and Whites Creek Pike. I counted over 50 people in attendance for the hour I was there. And the meeting was still chugging along when I had to leave.

Walter Hunt

CM Hunt opened the meeting by saying that Ole South developers and land owners approached him about 2 weeks ago about building on 11.8 acres of rural, tree-covered property. He told the group that he stipulated that homes should not be marketed for more than $200,000 because $300,000 homes would not sell when built next to cheaper properties. Walter Hunt is chair of the council's Planning and Zoning Committee, which gives him an influential seat on the Planning Commission, which is set to consider this proposal on February 27. Suffice to say he wields some influence in that position, and developers likely show him deference.

Tom White, well-known local land use lawyer and registered lobbyist for the Home Builders Association of Middle TN, followed CM Hunt. He mainly emphasized that since this is not a rezoning request no councilmanic action was needed. He said that Planning Commission approval of the "cluster-lot development" is "a high likelihood". In fact, he insisted at least 3 times by my count, and it eventually drew the ire of at least one resident, who said that it seemed to him that the deal was done and that the neighbors attended for nothing. He also wondered aloud (rhetorically?) whether the public should bother attending the February 27 public meeting where it was on the agenda.

Someone--I can't remember whether is was the land-use lawyer or CM Hunt--responded that residents can still attend the planning meeting and "say whether they like or don't like" the plan. But again, Mr. White reiterated that in his opinion, approval was "highly likely", because Metro planners see that the proposal fits the land use.

At one point Mr. White told the group that 90% of each home's exterior would be "masonry products" (like brick or cement fiberboard) and less than 10% vinyl. Later when a builder was discussing the exterior materials he said that the lawyer had misunderstood him. In fact, only the front of the homes would have masonry materials (and only 80%). The other three sides would be constructed of vinyl siding, a disclosure that drew visible expressions of shock and groans in the crowd. One resident responded that the 3 vinyl sides took away any excitement he might have had initially for the plan. "We don't need that," he told the builders.

Other questions launched from the floor at the development team included how the design was going to handle stormwater and what would happen if the homeowners association planned by the team did not take care of the open spaces (Metro would take them over). People were talking over one another to the point where CM Hunt stepped in and told the group to wait until Q&A to ask the team questions that could also be written down and presented at the Planning Commission meeting. Someone in the audience replied to CM Hunt, "We're not stupid, you know."

Community leader Alicia Batson told the development team that the group is concerned about protecting their "absolutely beautiful" pastureland and their watershed, which is the cleanest in Davidson County. She told the group that she had done her own research and found out that the average selling price of new construction homes in the county is $336,000 (2013) and that the average for the Whites Creek area is $296,000 (2013). To CM Hunt's earlier point she said, "The homes you say aren't worth much are going to increase in value if more expensive real estate is built around them." She said she would like to see Whites Creek develop more like Leipers Fork has.

When Alicia ended by saying of the proposal, "We don't need this here," applause broke out. I looked around the room. Nearly every person I saw was either applauding or nodding their heads. They all looked to me like they were on the same page in opposition to this plan for sprawl.

Another neighbor picked up where Alicia left off and told the developers and council member that the design needed to be an attractor to families and needed to be a positive force in improving Whites Creek schools. And she did not miss a beat. "We have got to get a community plan done," a point no doubt meant for Walter Hunt, who has failed to help them produce a community plan. Again, applause ensued.

A young couple who had lived in East Nashville said that they relocated to Whites Creek especially for the more rural setting with less dense space for their family and pets. One of them pointed at the developers' plans and said, "I don't want that anywhere near our house."

The builders seemed uncompromising in spite of all of the pleas the neighbors were making. Whites Creek residents seemed to be acknowledging, in some cases welcoming, development as long as it is suited to the character and priorities of their community. I did not detect NIMBY by any measure. They seemed to find this product unsuitable, and they wanted something consistent with Whites Creek. I am not very hopeful about compromise in the Planning Commission process because of developers' inflexibility.

In one case they came off as arrogant. Many in the group seemed particularly resistant to the Ole South builder's claim that he plans $200,000 houses because he believes in gradual price gradations between neighborhoods.

"You've got to have a transition. $150,000, then $175,000, $200,000 and so on. You've got to have a transition," he claimed in response to a room of shaking heads and audible disagreement.

"No. That's not how it works," a woman in the crowd insisted.

Before she could get her next words out he exclaimed, "Oh my gosh, woman, I've built 9,000 houses in Tennessee. I should know."

That the builder seemed to be putting the "Ole" in "Ole South" by his dismissive, sexist pillory did not seem to sit well with the gathering. All around me I heard expressions of "Woman?!" and "How rude" and "He didn't need to insult her."

While he offered up a raggedy apology, I thought, "This guy is not concerned at all about his chances of winning this fight." He went after her even after CM Hunt had already lectured the group about being diplomatic. I did notice that Mr. Hunt failed to encourage the builder himself toward a show of respect and tact. If I were Mr. Hunt's constituent I might be insulted by that failure as well.



UPDATE: In his comment below Mike Peden says that previously Ole South dumped similar $200,000 vinyl-sided [see "editorial note" below] homes in an Antioch subdivision "full of $300,000" homes. That would contradict Ole South's claim last night that it builds incrementally up from the lowest priced homes in the area. Why didn't the builder start with building $350,000 homes in Antioch if they honestly "have transition" when they build new homes?

• Editorial note--Mike P. sent me the following clarification on the Antioch homes after I posted this update.

The homes Ole South built in the Apple Valley subdivision are all brick (we bought one of them), but they are much lower quality than the homes that were already there. One of our neighbors asked Old South if they would modify the house they built next door to them so it would better match the other homes in their cul-de-sac, and Ole South refused. They have 4 homes under construction now on our street – the homes are built from kits – everything is delivered to the site and then assembled.

• Additionally, an anonymous commenter challenges Mike's claims that the homes in Antioch were listed at $300,000.

UPDATE: Tennessean business/real estate reporter Getahn Ward wrote a promotional piece on Ole South's planned development last month and he quoted Tom White as saying that he was not expecting any community opposition. It does not seem to me that the lawyer had a factual read on the pulse of the community. And did the reporter merely take Tom White's word for it without actually checking and verifying the question of opposition for himself?


UPDATE: Embarrassing. Last summer Ole South only cleaned up their blighted properties in Whites Creek after neighbors called a local news station for more leverage. They were apparently running down the Whites Creek community months before they ever hatched their plan to sprawl on it. You know who is conspicuously absent from this video tape on deteriorating conditions in his district? CM Walter Hunt.





I have said it over and over on this blog. If developers want to build credibility with a neighborhood (granted, maybe they don't care to), then they should not run afoul of those neighbors during times they are not developing. Like when they are just maintaining properties they own. If Ole South is an irresponsible neighbor in maintaining empty lots, can you expect them to suddenly become responsible in clearing lots and building houses?

Whites Creek leaders mobilize to slow suburban sprawl across their rural community

I received emails from concerned leaders in the farming community around White's Creek Pike above Briley Parkway in far North Nashville. They are alarmed about a high density suburban-style development slated for consideration at Metro Planning. They tell me that CM Walter Hunt is sponsoring a community meeting Wednesday (Feb. 19) at 6:00p at KIPP Academy Nashville (3420 Knight Drive) to discuss the plans with the developer.

I took a closer look at the area above Briley Pkwy, bounded by Whites Creek and I-24 on the sides. I was immediately struck by the contrast in a satellite view between the backcountry appearance north of Briley relative to the suburban sprawl that lies below Briley and to the east and to the west.

Nashville's shrinking metropolitan farmlands

Remarkably, this relatively unspoiled green space is not very far from our home in urban core Salemtown, but the contrast could not be more stark.

Nonetheless, the leaders deserve our support because if the community planning process is compromised for any neighbors it is compromised for all neighbors.

An excerpt from an alert sent today from leaders to the community:

A new subdivision is coming to Whites Creek - 43 houses on 11.8 acres (1 house per ¼ acre) on the northeast corner of Green Lane and Whites Creek Pike (the entrance to Whites Creek from Briley Pkwy).

Cornerstone Land Company, the owner of the property, has been buying land throughout Whites Creek, now owning 128.5 acres. They are seeking a subdivision permit from the Planning Commission for 11.8 of these acres and have contracted with Murfreesboro developer, Ole South Development. Since this pristine, tree covered land is zoned R10 (1 house per ¼ acre), they could develop the remaining 116 acres into 464 more homes. We must act now!

Whites Creek, north of Briley Parkway, is a beautiful, rural area. If this development is approved, high density, suburban housing will be your first impression upon exiting Briley Parkway onto WCP....

Our council representative, Walter Hunt, has the power to stop this development and put a moratorium on future developments until our community has the opportunity to update our community design plan the way other neighborhoods in Nashville have. Councilman Hunt has allowed ours to go unrevised for over 10 years. We have the oldest plan in Davidson County!

Please keep this on your radars. If Metro muscle tramples over the interests of Nashville's rural residents (who simply want the same community planning opportunities most of us enjoy), they may need our support.

Green Hills neighborhood association declares victory over developer; developer counters with new design

Southern change gonna come at last

A developer pulled plans for a skyscraper in suburban Green Hills after the Green Hills NA filed a lawsuit against the company. GHNA declared victory in an email sent out the day before yesterday:

We want to update our neighborhood supporters with some positive developments related to our lawsuit over the proposed Southern Land skyscraper project.

As you will recall, we filed a petition back in November to have a judge review the legality of the approval granted by Metro Planning. On Friday (January 3), through our legal counsel, we accepted a motion by Metro attorneys to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that Southern Land has withdrawn their proposal. This motion came about because Southern Land formally withdrew their proposal for a 22 story tower. Metro Planning has thus nullified its original approval of the site plan.

While this is a victory for the Green Hills community, we fully expect Southern Land to return with a different proposal. We plan to vigorously oppose any aspect of a new development which we feel violates the Green Hills UDO or other portions of the zoning code. Furthermore, we feel we’ve sent a strong message to Metro Planning that Green Hills citizens are closely monitoring how such projects are approved.

This is just the first step in what we knew from the start would be a long marathon. We feel confident that our arguments are valid, but know we will have to present our concerns again before the Planning Commission or in court.

We continue to appreciate your support. Donations to our legal fund are critical to arm us for the battles ahead.

With sincere thanks,

The GHNA Board

Not missing a beat, Southern Land countered with announcement of a shorter concept. Now it has 16 stories:

The plan for a 16-story Green Hills tower that Southern Land Co. plans to submit in the next six weeks will include the same office and retail components as the last proposal, a vice president for the Franklin-based company said.

"Overall the general mixed-use plan has remained about the same and we're just kind of tweaking how it all comes together," said Michael McNally, vice president of multifamily development ....

McNally said the project would lose around 20 apartment units, landing at about 285 units. But it would still include about 60,000 square feet of office space on three floors over about 15,000 square feet of ground-floor retail, he said. The project includes two restaurants, and will still have about 600 parking spaces.

McNally said construction could begin by spring or summer and be finished in 2016.

Will the new plan be worthy of neighborhood association support?

Let's make a list of the ballpark meetings held

Some people have mentioned about process, and I just wanted to make sure that everyone knows this. That we began this process several years ago. Several studies have been done. Several town hall meetings have been completed. Neighborhood meetings all around the baseball stadium area along with meetings with organizations, nonprofit organizations as well as property owners, business owners all along the surrounding area where Sulphur Dell currently is. There is nothing but positivity from all of the neighborhood associations. In fact all of the neighborhood associations with the exception of one has endorsed the Sulphur Dell project. The one neighborhood that did not endorse it, they did not say they were against it. They just did not vote to endorse. So, we have the endorsement of the neighborhoods .... because we met with them, we discussed it.

--Jerry Maynard's comments yesterday to Metro Council
on community support for a new ballpark

I keep up with the ins and outs of my neighborhood association. Unless they held an unannounced community meeting with Jerry Maynard and his team of supporters of the Sulphur Dell development project, I can say with certainty that he never met with us, never discussed it with Salemtown Neighbors. For Rev. Maynard to insinuate that he has met with us is pure fabrication based on my experience.

I'm curious at this point. Can anyone out there confirm that they attended open meetings on the plan in the neighborhoods where questions and comments were addressed after which the membership approved of the ballpark plan? By the way, comments with proper names carry more weight than anonymous comments do.

(The point bears repeating that the specific Sulphur Dell plan was not publicly announced until the end of last month at the Farmers' Market. At that meeting there were numerous critical and concerned questions asked from those attending, and I recognized several residents from area neighborhoods besides Salemtown. At least a couple of Germantown residents vocally expressed concern about fireworks.)

Please help me generate a list of community meetings held on this plan.

RIP, Ernest Campbell, civil rights academic and long-time Germantown preservationist

I just learned that the former Vanderbilt sociologist who contributed so much to North End preservation died last Sunday at his Germantown home. This is sad news about a man who was a catalyst in our community, a professor who cut a figure in US civil rights history:

While at UNC, the Campbells welcomed the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to their home when the civil rights leader visited Chapel Hill. Campbell studied the educational aspirations of white and black students in North Carolina in the early 1960s and received a call from the U.S. Office of Education asking him to serve as co-director of a project resulting from a mandate in the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 to study the effects of discrimination on race, sex and religion.

The scholars focused on education achievement and race, and the resulting large-scale study of nearly 800,000 students documented huge differences in test scores and achievement by race. The research additionally documented that the Southern region lagged significantly behind the rest of the nation in terms of education, especially in regard to race. The resulting study was dubbed the “Coleman Report” after its principal author, James S. Coleman, and was published in 1966.

Germantown has changed drastically in the decades since Ernest and Berdelle Campbell launched the preservation initiatives there. Those of us who live around them enjoy the fruits of their legacy, and rest assured that some here will not fail to recall their contributions to and influence in North Nashville.

Thank you, Ernest, and goodbye.

Salemtown's neighborhood association votes unanimously to oppose Metro Water's new landfill

Salemtown Neighbors president Freddie O'Connell told me earlier this evening that the association approved a motion to express opposition to the new North Nashville landfill Metro Water Services is putting on our doorstep. The group plans to send letters to Metro officials (including the Mayor's Office) and other area neighborhood associations asking that the toxic incinerator debris and contaminated soil be hauled out of our community. This is the first organized community opposition to the rationalized dump that I am aware of. I am pleased that my neighborhood is attempting to demand the right thing and advocating for public safety.

A largely forgotten Southern history

Myles Horton & Paulo Freire at Tennessee's
Highlander Folk School. Highlander was
an organizational midwife to the
Civil Rights Movement.

I am a recovering electoral politics nerd, so I am less interested in what The New Yorker's George Packer has to say this week about the slipping grip the South has on partisan brinksmanship in Washington than I am in his comments on broader cultural politics:

Solidity has always been the South’s strength, and its weakness. The same Southern lock that once held the Democratic Party now divides the Republican Party from the socially liberal, fiscally moderate tendencies of the rest of America. The Southern bloc in the House majority ... has no chance of enacting an agenda, and it’s unlikely to produce a nationally popular figure.

As its political power declines, the South might occupy a place like Scotland’s in the United Kingdom, as a cultural draw for the rest of the country, with a hint of the theme park. Country music and nascar remain huge ....

Southern political passions have always been rooted in sometimes extreme ideas of morality, which has meant, in recent years, abortion and school prayer. But there is a largely forgotten Southern history, beyond the well-known heroics of the civil-rights movement, of struggle against poverty and injustice, led by writers, preachers, farmers, rabble-rousers, and even politicians, speaking a rich language of indignation. The region is not entirely defined by Jim DeMint, Sam Walton, and the Tide’s A J McCarron. It would be better for America as well as for the South if Southerners rediscovered their hidden past and took up the painful task of refashioning an identity that no longer inspires their countrymen.

In the gaps that open between doctrinaire red-state conservatives and torpid social progressives there is an understated legacy of left-wing populism in the South that needs to be rekindled for the sake of social change regardless of who has control of Congress.