Barely a contest: another big developer trounces neighborhoods

After months of fighting the Green Hills neighborhood association loses another battle to developers' definitions of growth, and the Nashville Business Journal makes it sound like supersizing buildings outside of scale somehow equals advancement for all of us. What else could "progress" mean?

The signs of progress are emerging in the days after a county judge ruled against the Green Hills Neighborhood Association, in a lawsuit the group filed this spring.

The neighborhood group sued Southern Land and Metro government, alleging that city planners did not follow proper steps in vetting the project. The neighborhood group wanted a judge to force the matter back before the planning commission.

Chancellor Russell Perkins ruled that Metro government followed appropriate steps. Planning department staff approved Southern Land's plans, which then appeared as one item on a consent agenda, a list of items that are voted on collectively by planning commissioners....

The neighborhood group has about a month to decide whether to appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. Otherwise, the ruling by Perkins will become final.

In my opinion, Green Hills neighbors do not stand a chance even if they win an appeal to leverage a new hearing before the Planning Commission, which is now exclusively developer-friendly. Anyway, they declared victory prematurely back in January. They put up a brave fight, but this one is over. With money and political influence, developers win again. It is still the same old story.

Anyone want to share court costs for filing an injunction against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County?

On my way out of Salemtown this morning I drove by the Metro Water facility and confirmed what Demetria Kalodimos reported last night in a Channel 4 investigation: that MWS construction workers had started removing petroleum contaminated dirt (tainted in places at rates higher than the safe or legal levels) to bury in the 60-year-old basement of their demolished incinerator with PCB, lead and arsenic laced debris.

Taken May 30, 2013, 8:45a

Taken May 30, 2013, 8:45a

As I left, a construction worker was puttering around the heavy duty vehicle like he was going to fire it up again.

If I understand the Chancery Court requirements correctly, the court costs of a temporary injunction against Metro to protect the quality of our watershed and our health in the event of future floods and leaching of petroleum toxins from the basement into our communities are around $300. Anyone interested in splitting the cost of an injunction to try to restrain Metro Water from dumping this soil in their new neighborhood landfill?

On a possible legal challenge to the Mayor's bus rapid transit neglect of North Nashville

Apparently, I am not the only one who believes that Mayor Karl Dean's bus rapid transit proposal leaves North Nashville in the dust of Davidson County's economic disparities. North Nashville leaders more powerful than I am believe it, too; and strongly enough to consider legal action:

A lawsuit against the city could be in store if Metro officials don’t alter a proposed bus rapid transit project so that it steers toward North Nashville, according to a Nashville lawmaker.

“That’s certainly an option,” said state Rep. Brenda Gilmore, D-Nashville, who represents a large swath of the low-income, predominantly African-American area and is part of a group of a few dozen North Nashville residents concerned about the issue. “And there has been some discussion about that.

“Historically, North Nashville has just been neglected,” she added, stressing that litigation would be a last resort and that the group hopes to work with Mayor Karl Dean to address the concerns. “It’s pretty clear that wherever BRT has gone across the nation, businesses, housing and amenities have sprung up immediately. We would like to see some of that wealth spread.”

Gilmore, who plans to reach out to Dean in hopes he will meet with the group, said any lawsuit from the group would have an “economic disparity” focus but didn’t elaborate further on a potential cause of action. She cited legal action in Los Angeles she said led to the re-routing of a BRT line to include a low-income neighborhood there.

Even the possibility of litigation underscores what was bound to be a hurdle for a proposal to place the 7.5-mile East-West Connector from 5Points in East Nashville to White Bridge Road by way of Broadway and West End Avenue.

This route cuts through affluent West End-area neighborhoods such as Richland and Whitland – which happens to include some of the project’s loudest critics – but doesn’t deviate from a straight line to include the low-income area north of Charlotte Avenue.

Three things come to the fore in this article:

1. We should all acknowledge the lingering effects of racism and classism on the uneven economic development of west Nashville and North Nashville. Prejudice and class consciousness influence the quality of development, the extension of infrastructure and the flow of money across both ends of town even if individuals may not themselves be intentionally prejudiced against people of color or the working and lower classes. It is not unfounded or unsubstantiated to argue that economic disparities endemic to the ebb and flow of capital benefit west Nashville more than North Nashville. Neither is it untoward to argue that individuals are often prompted and limited by such a system. Karl Dean's transit policy perpetuates the racist and classist system insofar as it makes little attempt to serve the masses of Nashville's humanity in North Nashville. In my opinion, North Nashvillians have a case against this BRT plan.
2. The Mayor never faces tough buck-stopping questions himself. He always farms out the harder, uglier stuff to underlings. Other people take the falls. Nothing ever sticks to him. Likewise, with BRT. One of his two communications shills on the Metro payroll referred the Tennessean to the Metro Transit Authority, even though Karl Dean treats BRT like a signature policy when credit is involved and when bold vision is the tagline. The Mayor, who is the Tennessean's two-time "Tennessean of the Year", should be more accountable to North Nashvillians left behind by his new transit idea. Given the way he ducks difficulties, I'm not betting he will, especially if a suit is filed.
3. In attempting to defend MTA against charges that transit policy is biased in favor of affluent neighborhoods, the CEO unintentionally sustained the point that those neighborhoods enjoy better infrastructure due to their enjoyed wealth. David Lipscomb gets better bus stops because the university has the money to pay over and above what Metro does to provide them. (Recall that Green Hills' Julia Green Elementary got iPads for their 3rd graders after parents raised the funds and Metro matched the donations.) And which stops are likely to be better maintained? Ones that reflect the most basic investments or ones with a bankrolled quality ? Again, the point here, unfazed by MTA spin, is that wealthier west Nashville communities enjoy better infrastructure precisely because they are wealthier. Economic development continues to be uneven and prejudicial, rather than mutual and impartial.

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Officials at Jefferson Street church accused of sexual exploitation and abuse

Sex abuse scandals in religion tend to be assumed to be a Catholic and not a Protestant problem, which some diligent observers insist is an exaggeration. We should not be surprised to hear allegations of sex abuse emerge from various congregations from time-to-time, especially in personal counseling situations, where parishioners are in vulnerable situations and ministers exercise increased influence.

The latest allegations involve Mount Zion Baptist Church, a historic and prominent church on Jefferson Street (which also has congregations in Antioch and far North Nashville):

The claims were made on behalf of four former female parishioners. According to the suit, the women were sexually exploited and abused during counseling sessions sponsored by the church. The lawsuit goes on to claim that this abuse was not an isolated incident. The plaintiffs accuse the church of recruiting woman for exploration, sexual battery and psychological and spiritual manipulation for nearly ten years.

The charges were filed against the church and specifically against Bishop Joseph Walker III who one woman claims participated and aided the abuse.

One of the four women went on TV with specific allegations:

"It's not right. It's not right. That's why I'm doing it, at whatever cost," said Valencia Batson in an exclusive interview with Channel 4 News. "It's not right and it just needs to stop."

Batson said until now, fear kept her from coming forward with explosive allegations against Walker and Mt. Zion Baptist Church.

"Church is not to get sick," said Batson. "It's to get better, to be better."

Friday, the 42-year-old real estate broker filed a civil suit claiming she was sexually abused and spiritually and psychologically manipulated at the hands of the bishop and other church leaders.

"When you're in a position of power, you're not to misuse that power," said Batson. "It is not for you to take control over another person and have them do things for your benefit or your pleasure. That is abuse because you're damaging that other person."

Batson wouldn't speak in detail about the alleged abuse, but claimed it started two years after she joined the church.

Batson and three other women listed as "Jane Does" in the suit claim they would meet with Walker and other leaders for counseling and were coerced into sex at a time when they were most vulnerable.

"There is an incident where I was forced to do something while someone else watched," said Batson.

Still, Batson stayed at the church for 11 years.

"All of me was trapped there. My spirit was in that place and I didn't know how to get out," said Batson. "I didn't know how to leave."

"It's a secret society where you don't say anything, but you know what's going on because you're either arranging it or you're participating in it," she said.

Batson said she was afraid to call police, but one time told a church leader about her concerns and was threatened.

The church is denying the charges.

Unsuccessful mega-project developers continue attacks on one another

Jack May, the alpha male of the failed May Town Center concept for Bells Bend, fires a salvo at his former partners:

In an interview and court filings, the wealthy developer is accusing business partners Jeff Zeitlin and William Kantz of resorting to underhanded tactics — including secretly recording conversations with May family members and Metro Council members — in a desperate attempt to cash in despite May Town Center’s failure to win city approval ....

May described the allegations as laughable, and his family has countersued Kantz for breach of fiduciary duty and requests “severe punishment” for “malicious, fraudulent, intentional and reckless acts.” The family has not yet filed a response to Zeitlin’s lawsuit, which was filed about two months later than Kantz’s and accuses the Mays of lying to Tennessee State University and Metro when they made promises aimed at securing support for May Town Center ....

Rather than harming Zeitlin and Kantz, Jack May said, his family essentially rescued them after their own $400 million proposal ... in Bells Bend failed to win approval from the Metro Planning Commission in 2006, at a meeting where, according to the court response, Kantz testified in favor of the project without disclosing he was a partner in it.

“They were about to lose everything,” states the May family’s response to Kantz’s lawsuit. “They had exhausted their funding, had excessively leveraged the purchases that they previously made, and had no detailed plans as to how to proceed ....

So, all of these developers joined the Bells Landing Partnership, and Jack May claims to have provided the capital the other partners lacked and needed:

“We were completely dumbfounded,” May said of the lawsuits. “We have $27 million invested. They have zero money invested.”

The Mays’ response to Kantz’s lawsuit includes a 2007 memo written by Zeitlin in which he recognizes that Jack May is “the majority partner and the final decision maker” and a 2008 letter written by Kantz in which he praises Jack May’s “conclusions, approach and direction.” In the same letter Kantz asks Jack May to reimburse him for $17,000 in political contributions to Metro Council and Nashville mayoral candidates that he made on behalf of the partnership.

Huge developer contributions earmarked for local candidates for office? People testifying for the project as if they were neutral when they had a vested interest? Developers using underhanded tactics against their opponents? This is nothing less than confirmation of the warnings of May Town Center dissidents, who were not just a small group as reporter Brandon Gee writes, but included leaders from all parts of Nashville.

Some had questioned the sincerity of the May Town proposal years before the project's own developers did

Partners in the development team Jack May put together around two years ago to urbanize Bells Bend, build a "second downtown" on farmland, and suffuse the small community with automobile traffic with 1-3 bridges, allege now that Mr. May was committing fraud and exercising irresponsible conduct.

According to [plaintiff Jeffrey] Zeitlin, when he and William Kantz entered into a partnership agreement with the Mays, they were led to believe that Jack May was retired in Mexico and “would help fund the project.”

Zeitlin contends, however, several misrepresentations by the Mays ultimately led to the crumbling of the partnership and the development plan.

According to the lawsuit, the Mays made an “unconditional promise” to gift certain land in Bells Bend to Tennessee State University — land that the partnership didn’t own.

“The Defendants did not make the gift as promised to TSU and did not intend to make the gift when the Defendants extended the promise,” the lawsuit reads. “As a result, the Partnership’s good will and Zeitlin’s interest therein was damaged.”

Zeitlin makes a similar claim involving a bridge that Jack May told the city of Nashville he would “write a check” for, to help boost the proposed development.

The lawsuit also claims that the Mays added partners in breach of the partnership agreement and failed to account for Zeitlin’s capital contributions to the partnership.

The partnership may have been damaged by the alleged dishonesty, but many more Nashvillians would have been damaged had the deal not been narrowly defeated. Many of us on the anti-May Town side warned without fail that this concept was a Trojan horse destined to bring more harm than good.

Occupy SouthComm: Nashvillian of the Year has overlooked skeleton in his closet

A month ago, I expressed my concern that SouthComm writers had a bit of a double standard when it came to populism: arms-length with Fairgrounds preservation minions; full embrace of Occupy Nashville. The one-sided love climaxed last week with the Nashville Scene's declaration of Night Court Magistrate Thomas Nelson, "Nashvillian of the Year, 2011".

Now, I applaud Judge Magistrate Nelson for turning back overzealous Tennessee highway patrol officers in their overzealous attempt to punish and violate protesters. In my upcoming Best and Worst Metro Services post I mention Night Court as one of the higher points of service delivery precisely because of Nelson's actions.

But SouthComm's relatively untempered allegiance to Occupy Nashville and those who have served it in government has tunneled them into a narrow passage on such an ambitious award as "Nashvillian of the Year". 

Today SouthComm writers appear to be walking back their supreme vote of confidence in Judge Magistrate Nelson, given a letter to the editor that disclosed a less-than-flattering picture of Judge Magistrate Nelson's handling of arbitrary and capricious bail he set for some demonstrators who were doing nothing more than holding an overnight vigil. Were they holding it on state property? No. They were holding it at the Metro Courthouse, which begs the question: if Occupy Nashville had occupied the Courthouse rather than Legislative Plaza, would the Nashvillian of the Year have granted a request to jail them?

Mike Jameson wins well-deserved General Sessions judgeship

Here come the Judge:

They ain't got Jack

The developer who tried to push-poll North Nashville into support for May Town Center while promising us "jobs, jobs, jobs!", is on the lam from his former partners who are looking to sue him for failing to keep his promises:

Nashville investor William Kantz is trying to sue Jack May over his handling of the failed $4 billion May Town Center project — if only he can find him.

Kantz is one of four original members of the partnership that owns property in the rural Bells Bend area that is home to the proposed development ....

Kantz alleges that May, who spearheaded the controversial project, seized control of the partnership and added members in violation of a partnership agreement and failed to deliver on promises made to members ....

While May has residences overseas and has been known to be spend extended periods of time at them [a lawyer says] ... May’s present travels are suspiciously convenient.

I have to wonder how irresponsibly May Town Center would have been developed if approved and what kind of low-wage, menial jobs would have actually been provided to North Nashvillians.

My message to Erica Gilmore on Mike Jameson

Several days ago I sent the following email to CM Gilmore on the subject of Mike Jameson's candidacy for General Sessions Court Judge:

I write to ask you to please support Mike Jameson to fill the General Session Court opening for Judge.

With his extensive legal background and law practice, as well as his service to our community as a Metro Council member, Mr. Jameson is more than qualified to sit as Judge in Davidson County courts.

I first got to know him 10 years ago when he was my council member in East Nashville (we moved to Salemtown in 2004). Mr. Jameson has never failed to impress me as one of the more thoughtful, intelligent, respectful, balanced, fair-minded, and principled leaders in Nashville. He also won my admiration by fighting good fights that others shied away from. I cannot imagine him ever failing to do the right thing.

When it comes time to vote on a replacement to GS Court, I hope that you will cast yours for Mike Jameson.

Thank you for your consideration of my views.

BREAKING: Night Court Judge researches and rules that he can find no authority to charge Occupy Nashville with curfew violation

Around midnight Friday/Saturday, the Twitter stream reported that Tennessee Highway Patrol conducted another raid of Legislative Plaza to arrest Occupy Nashville protesters who refused to let last night's raid deter them from returning to occupy the plaza in dutiful defiance of Governor Bill Haslam's arbitrary 10pm nightly curfew. Several reports from on-site revealed that a Nashville Scene reporter, Jonathan Meador, was cuffed and taken away, too. When a fellow reporter inquired about the detainment of Meador a THP officer replied, "You want to be next?" One observer reported that while rounding up protesters, THP allowed well-dressed TPAC ticket-holders to pass through the plaza after the curfew was in effect.

However, state troopers failed to get the arrest warrants for Occupy Nashville curfew violations that they sought from the same Night Court Magistrate who refused their requests Thursday night. According to Occupy Nashville, Magistrate Tom Nelson told THP:

I have reviewed the regulations of the state of Tennessee, and I can find no authority anywhere for anyone to authorize a curfew anywhere on Legislative Plaza.

The protesters are being released, and according to their Livestream they are planning to reoccupy the plaza this morning. Their Twitter stream also noted that the Magistrate's ruling may have far-reaching implications for other public spaces across Tennessee.

What interests me about these events is that state troopers have no grounds to de-camp Occupy Nashville overnight since the Magistrate continues to refuse to permit arrests. Any future detainment of protesters constitutes THP harassment. Also, it seems that Governor Haslam has blundered into a huge new set of problems over the legality of his curfews formulated specifically against the relatively small Occupy Nashville group. This is turning into a David versus Goliath story.


UPDATE: Bill Hobbs, who was present to observe the raid, relays observations to the Nashville Scene that indicate that the state troopers may be starting to cross some boundaries:

I was there and witnessed troopers treating people - protestors and press - rudely. I was attempting as a freelance photojournalist to photograph police cuffing protestors and was deliberately interfered with by officers carrying video cameras who quickly jumped in front of me multiple times. A few minutes later, one put his hand on me, shoved me back a foot or two, asked if I was "media," (I said yes), and then he told me if I crossed "that line" again, I'd be arrested. There was no visible line.

UPDATE: Video of the THP pleading their case for arrest earlier this morning before the Magistrate and then getting denied:

Aftermath of today's 3 AM red-state Tennessee raid on Occupy Nashville: judge finds "no probable cause" for arrests

As expected Republican Governor Bill Haslam gave the orders for what one reporter described as "a large force" of Tennessee state troopers to make a daring pre-dawn raid on maybe 2 dozen nonviolent Occupy Nashville dissenters asleep in their tents. The Tennessee Highway Patrol commandos descended upon the camp and cuffed and carried away the occupiers who brazenly sat down and sang, "We Shall Overcome." According to the Occupy Nashville Twitter feed: there were around 100 THP troopers with dogs and SWAT teams.

THP put on a rather sad display of early-morning detention and attempted arrest and further detention of the protesters in what looked like an attempt to snake-charm Commissioner Tom Nelson, who seemed to be having none of it. Commissioner Nelson found no probable cause for the arrests, likely because there was none. Governor Haslam intends to expend taxpayer dollars now posting sentries at Legislative Plaza overnight to keep any nonviolent protests from staying at the plaza past his bedtime.

As if these events were not troubling enough to those of us who value our fundamental civil rights in a free society, there is another bothersome coda. In the Associated Press follow up to the story, the Occupy Wall Street group in Oakland is falsely smeared:

Protester Albert Rankin said Thursday that the group intended to face arrests with "no hostility whatsoever" to avoid a repeat of violent shutdowns of protests in other cities this week.

"There were some shouts here and there, but for the most part, it was very peaceful," Rankin said of Friday's arrests in Nashville.

There is at least the veiled suggestion here that Oakland occupiers had something to do with the militaristic crackdown by the Oakland police department. But an earlier AP story on Occupy Nashville provides even more context for the west-coast victim-blaming:

Protester Albert Rankin said earlier Thursday that the group would face arrests with "no hostility whatsoever," wanting to avoid a repeat of Oakland, Calif., where an Iraq war veteran suffered a fractured skull in a scuffle with police, and in Atlanta where SWAT teams arrested protesters.

"We always remain peaceful here," said Rankin, 25, who has been unemployed for a little more than a year. "If we can get enough flower donations, we're going to give flowers to the police as they come to arrest us."

While the Tennessee Governor may appreciate it, the insinuation in this report is despicable. I followed the Oakland protests for hours before and after the police assault on Twitter, Livestream, YouTube, and in the local TV media. The Iraq War veteran, Scott Olsen (whom the Associated Press cannot even bring itself to name) was not involved with a scuffle with police when he was hit in the forehead by some form of large cop ammunition (widely reported as a tear gas canister). He was standing several yards away. And when other protesters rushed to his aid, Oakland cops lobbed a grenade at Mr. Olsen's prone body to make them disperse. The AP failed to verify their perspective with YouTube video evidence. Do you see a "scuffle"?





I don't know if Occupy Nashville rep Albert Rankin's words were twisted by the AP to fit their slant on Oakland, but I hope that Nashville occupiers are more conscientious and discreet with the media in the future so as not to discredit protesters in other cities when they defend their own goals. Oakland cops have a legacy of brutally cracking down on protest movements, including a 2003 protest against the Iraq War. I doubt very seriously that passing out flowers to the militant Oakland PD thugs would have made a difference for Scott Olsen who seemed nonviolent to me.

As for Occupy Atlanta, protesters there sat down and then were cuffed and hauled away. How is that so different than Occupy Nashville's experience? These unfortunate comparisons serve to justify rights-violating officials like Bill Haslam, Kasim Reed, and Jean Quan more than they defend Occupy Nashville.



UPDATE: News media video from this morning's raid on and removal of Occupy Nashville looks remarkably like coverage of Occupy Atlanta's experience (h/t Justin Mundie).





I also saw some occupiers here resisting and not going along "peacefully", although they did remain nonviolent.



UPDATE:  New video on Occupy Oakland in the wake of the police brutality that counters these assumptions of it being a violent movement:

Same developer behind Vista Germantown sued by West End HOA for design "failure"

Apartment complex Vista Germantown continues to rise like a behemoth over the dwarfed Madison Street intersection of Germantown under the direction of a partnership that includes Bristol Development Group. BDG already brought a checkered reputation to the Germantown project, and allegations made by the condo residents of the Bristol West End homeowners' association, if true, do not endear us to the developers:

The homeowners association at The Bristol West End is taking the condo project's developer, architect, engineering firm and geotechnical service to court, alleging an "inexcusable failure" in the project's design.

The HOA claims a serious design flaw in a suit filed last week by the HOA against 17 defendants in Davidson County Chancery Court.

According to the suit, cracks began to appear in various common areas in the project in late 2009, four years after the building opened its doors to residents.

Bristol Development Group already had two strikes against it around these parts. First, Madison Square HOA grew frustrated with the company over the future Vista Germantown site, and they asserted that Bristol neglected to keep an abandoned warehouse boarded up or the grass cut to codes requirements until squatters set the building on fire. Second, a bank saved Bristol from the embarrassment of bankruptcy by taking over their faltering Velocity project in The Gulch with a "friendly foreclosure."

For Germantown's sake let's hope that allegations like those on West End do not crop up around the Vista Germantown project after completion.

A BZA engineered for LED

The Tennessean catches up on a story that's been brewing since the Board of Zoning Appeals reversed Zoning's disapproval of a request to install a brightly animated LED billboard:

The Metro Law Department sued in Davidson County Chancery Court on Tuesday to reverse the Board of Zoning Appeals’ ruling earlier this year that Richardson Outdoor Advertising can build a 50-foot-tall digital billboard to replace a standard board at Bell and Murfreesboro roads ....

The Metro Codes department initially denied a permit to Richardson Outdoor Advertising last spring. The denial relied on a legal interpretation that digital billboards must be at least 2,000 feet from other billboards.

The BZA ruled in June against the denial, but I could not find any media reports on the roll call. The Zoning minutes only tell that the vote was 4-2 but they are not transparent about how members voted. I called Zoning and finally received a list of names of the members who voted to overrule the zoning and allow LED signage:

• David Harper
• Chris Whitson
• Mercedes Jones
• Stacey Garrett

The Nashville Business Coalition used allowance for LED billboards as a litmus test for candidates 4 years ago. A sign industry influence broker and NBC member held a post-election fundraiser for the Mayor to pay back some of his campaign bills. A little later NBC darling Chris Whitson was endorsed by the Mayor and approved by the council for an open slot on the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Has the BZA been moving toward opening the door to LED billboards? To some it seems so. Earlier this year a neighborhood leader attended a BZA hearing on an applicant's attempt to make an appeal for an LED billboard. She came away with two primary impressions. First, the applicant appeared to her to be testing the waters to see if a LED appeal could pass. Second, she wondered if some BZA members might actually be intent on permitting LED appeals based on their leading questions directed at community opponents:

• Why don't you want LED in residential area?
• What make you think having LED billboard nearby will affect the property value?
• The applicant is suggesting to lower the height and dim it at night, will you reconsider your opposition?

She wondered specifically about the propensities of David Ewing (voted against the appeal in June) and David Harper. Her perception proved right in at least Harper's case in the the latest appeal.

Whether or not Metro Law can turn this appeal around, the handwriting may be on the wall with regard  to the BZA's future intentions on LED billboards. The BZA does not appear to have been built to regulate or control Vegas-style signage dominating people's vistas. When a board is engineered to make it easier for industry to ignore community quality of life and do whatever they want, what choices are the rest of us left with?

Briley's advice to the outgoing Metro Council regarding David Torrence

Former CM at-Large David Briley is concerned about the council's replacement of a clerk so close to the last meeting of this council's term before a new council takes over:

So, how does the city figure out who will take the job seriously when it replaces the Criminal Court Clerk? Making sure the process is open to everyone interested is essential. Having the Bar associations review the applicants is a good step. Appointing an independent group to establish some desirable qualifications, then review and rank the applicants could help. There’s probably no single answer to this question but there are plenty of ways to subject the process to more than just political deal making.

As it currently stands, the Council is on a path to select a replacement for the Criminal Court Clerk about 30 days after his anticipated resignation. That Council election could occur on the last scheduled meeting of this Council’s term. At least 15 of the Council Members voting at that meeting will not be returning for the next term. If history is any indicator, the number will be greater. None of these departing Council Members will have to justify their vote to a constituent. They will all have moved on if there is a problem. Having the Metro Council select a replacement for the Criminal Court Clerk on its last meeting of a term is a dangerous, political thing to do.

Briley also provides a checklist of suggestions after the jump. It bears noting that while the departing CMs do not have to be accountable for their vote to constituents, they also do not have to pander in order to keep their seats.

Higher risk of gang racketeering part of the vicious cycle of privatization

For the last four years I have tried to preach about the higher risks and lower returns of privatizing government services even in the face of the popularity of the non-profits who often benefit financially from the public-private deals cut in the halls of Metro government.

Maybe it is going to take news of even more insane non-profit-based crime for more people to question the cozy patronage between politicians and their non-profit clients. For neighborhoods dealing with youth gang crimes, this ought to be scary enough:

According to the federal indictment, Galaxy Star founder Lonnie Greenlee allowed the Bloods to use the nonprofit's building as a sort of headquarters, where gang members organized, coordinated efforts to acquire guns, plotted a takeover of East Nashville's drug trade and even nearly beat a man to death.

Among the allegations in the indictment was that Galaxy Star worker Rodney Britton provided fake community service hours in exchange for money. Sometimes Greenlee arranged the deals, records show. Other times, it was his son, Lonnie Newsome.

I am not so naive to think that malfeasance could not happen under a government service provider, but it is reasonable enough to assume that checks and balances provide for better regulatory oversight than do services built on voluntarism. Oversight is bound to go lax where volunteers are involved. Because community services depend on volunteers and not on government workers with budgetary obligations to elected officials, obligation to the taxpaying voters is removed and the chances of abuse increase.

It is difficult to convince people of these risks because we are predisposed to view community service groups as intrinsically good and free from the taint of abuse. We often project our own warm feelings associated with donating and volunteering on to non-profit providers. And Metro politicians want this because it allows them to cut budgets, to buy influence, and to curry deniability in these critical moments. Nonetheless, we continue to privatize government oversight at peril to our own local communities.

Former council member sues CM Jamie Hollin and others in part over hyper-local blogging

If you thought that Pam Murray would go quietly after not demanding a recount in her East Nashville recall election last year, think again:

In a suit filed late yesterday in Davidson County Circuit Court, Pamela Murray, who represented District 5 from 2003 to 2009, accuses current Councilman Jamie Hollin of making false statements on a website and in various media about where she lived and worked in an effort to unseat her. The suit also names 11 other members she says were part of Hollin’s “We the People of District 5” group

For his part CM Hollin expressed sadness to the news media that Murray would sue her constituents after an election. On his district blog he expresses his gratitude that the lawsuit is not affecting the co-defendants' participation in community meetings:

I am especially proud of the attendance by those individuals recently named as defendants in a lawsuit recently filed by my predecessor. It is indeed gratifying to know that such a frivolous act had NO impact on their participation in the political process, their service to community and the City of Nashville. Clearly, one can inference to be drawn from the lawsuit was that it seeks to prevent citizen participation in the democratic process. That goal failed miserably, which makes me very happy. My hat is off to you!

It is not clear to this layperson that Ms. Murray has a case given her previous status as a public figure and the inherent nature of hyper-local blogs as expressions of opinion, and thus, expressions of free speech. If she had been a private individual about whom someone was maliciously fabricating myths divorced from facts, then it seems to me she would have an argument.

Besides, how does Ms. Murray have any credibility to bring a defamation lawsuit when she accused CM Hollin of drug use and stalking when he was a lot less public than she was?

Witness alleges that slain teen and suspect were members of rival youth gangs

A court witness describes Donquise Alexander, the 14-year-old charged in the shooting death of 14-year-old Vincent Lewis, as a gang member and runaway. According to the witness, Lewis was a rival gang member and drug peddler, which is not the picture previously painted as a kid working honest jobs for relatives to save up for a car.

Details emerged during a Wednesday hearing for the teenage boy arrested in the July 8 slaying of Vincent Lewis Jr.

A 13-year-old witness testified in Juvenile Court that the teen was a member of the Crips gang, had run away from home and planned to rob Lewis, a member of the Bloods, who sold marijuana.

As a group of boys smoked marijuana, the 14-year-old pulled a 22-caliber rifle on Lewis, told him "come out of your pockets" and hit him over the head with the gun, the witness said.

The witness, also a member of the Bloods, said that although they all were members of different gangs, they were friends, and the suspect did not intend to kill Lewis.

Metro Police Detective Deniz Ismailovic said Lewis was shot 10 times in the leg, stomach, hand and head. Police found the gun nearby, wrapped in a Titans blanket, beneath cinder blocks.

Up until this shooting, the teen gang problems of Salemtown's past has been receding over time. It is worth noting that the suspected perp is a runaway and the victim lived in East Nashville. The crime in this case came in from outside.

Neighborhood files last-resort class-action suit against frat boy sackings

What nightmares youthful indiscretions can cause in other people's homes:

Tired of years of public urination, assaults and vandalism, residents near UC Berkeley's southern edge last week sued dozens of the university's fraternities.

The lawsuit, filed in Alameda County Superior Court against more than 70 groups and property owners, contends that the fraternities make life miserable for neighbors by encouraging underage drinking, littering sidewalks and streets, partying all night and shooting pellet guns at residents. The suit asks for unspecified monetary damages and an end to the noise and destruction.

"Every resident of Berkeley has the right to live in a peaceful and safe neighborhood," said lead plaintiff Paul Ghysels, who lives in a 100-year-old house next to a fraternity on Durant Avenue. His wife grew up in the house, he said, and the couple does not want to move.

Here is video footage neighbors produced of some of the frat wreckage; it also documents police involvement and lack thereof: