Do campaign donations matter to community revitalization?

State Rep. Powell

During and after a town hall meeting held in South Nashville a little over a week ago, I received some email correspondence from Mike Peden about important questions he had for elected officials about the community impact of developments. The companies funding those developments, Advance Financial in particular, have political action committees that dole private campaign donations to candidates for public office. Mike gave me permission to piece together his emails here into a narrative for the sake of underscoring the influence that money has over growth that can undermine our quality of life.

According to Mike, elected officials in attendance included state representative Jason Powell, CM Fabian Bedne and CM Jason Potts. Also attending representing the Mayor's Office was Daniel Wainwright. Mike has an office on Nolensville Pike and he says that he is particularly concerned about the impact of the growth of high-interest payday lenders along the corridor. Given that the town hall meeting encouraged questions about "revitalization of Nolensville Pike", Mike had some questions for Rep. Powell in particular:

I asked him how much money he has taken from the payday loan industry and he refused to answer.  He has, of course, taken several contributions from them.

I spoke to him on the phone a couple of months ago and he told me that he has no problem with payday loan stores, and that he knows the people at Advance Financial, and they are "good people".

Nolensville Pike

Mike tells me that everyone he talks to in South Nashville has a problem with the explosion of predatory lenders. It seems to me an entirely fair question to pose to any elected official who has influence over how a community grows and develops: have they accepted funds from owners of those shops? If they have, it should be stated unequivocally so that voters can determine for themselves whether such influence over quality of life suits their interests.

Not everyone who attended the meeting was happy with Mike for raising questions about the influence of the donations of predatory lending companies on conditions along Nolensville Pike. He forwarded me emails that accused him of having a "political agenda." How is it a political agenda to ask a politician to identify the sources of his financial support which might lead him to support certain developments that neighbors have issues with? It seems common sense to me.

I remember that right after CM Erica Gilmore was elected the first time to represent the district where I live, a Germantown leader told me straight up that several people in that neighborhood donated an impressive amount of money to her campaign to leverage their historic overlay, which she eventually took to passage. People understand that this is how the system currently operates. There is no other agenda in learning about who is beholden to whom. It is a natural question we should be asking.

Jason Powell's second quarter campaign finance report shows a $1,000 donation from the Advance Financial PAC. What is the harm in asking Rep. Powell to be publicly accountable to South Nashville constituents for the wealthy special interests that could influence how he supports revitalization along Nolensville Pike?

In the interest of full disclosure

Several years ago Hope Gardens association president Jason Powell contacted North End community leaders to bring together "champions" whom he said could give life to a plan for a new ballpark in the North Capitol area. The "champions" never really materialized as a bona fide grassroots movement here. The "champions'" Facebook page lay dormant for 2 years before cranking up again with the Mayor's formal announcement several weeks ago. Now, as a prominent Democrat and State Representative from south Davidson County's 53rd District (but still a cheerleader without a grassroots ballpark movement), he celebrates news of the Mayor's Sulphur Dell announcement:

It may very well be a big fly for local property owners, especially since the news media is passing around projections that land values here will soar:

The impact a new ballpark could have on that area will be similar... [to] the ripple effect Music City Center had on SoBro, where property values have in some cases tripled in recent years.

If the project becomes official, look for property values to initially jump around 15 percent, [real estate broker Grant] Hammond said. Once construction is underway, Hammond expects prices to climb again, about 25 percent higher than now. Once completed and the buzz of the new stadium is at its peak, Hammond anticipates values will be up about 50 percent from today.

Hammond, who was planning on selling one of his investment properties in Germantown next spring, said he now plans to hold on to the condo until the first season of baseball in the new stadium.

“It could be a remarkable little ride for Germantown,” Hammond said.

With Germantown already flourishing, the biggest impact might be most noticeable in the area’s other neighborhoods.

“Hope Gardens and Buena Vista are seriously underdeveloped,” Hammond said. “That all turns around the moment they open the stadium doors. Those neighborhoods need some sort of big development to be the spark.”

After looking at the Metro property records, I can certainly understand why State Representative Jason Powell is excited about a new ballpark; he co-owns 3 properties located in Hope Gardens and 1 located at Buena Vista Heights/Jones Buena Vista. These are both neighborhoods that are identified as the biggest gainers from a new ballpark. Hope Gardens itself lies blocks away. String half-a-dozen Prince Fielder home runs together end-to-end, and Hope Gardens is that close to Sulphur Dell.

All of us who own property close to a new ballpark stand to benefit financially from a rise in property values a new development would bring. So, I do not blame the Democrat for acquiring investment properties over the last 4 years with hopes that their values will rise even though he does not dwell here any more. However, those of us who continue to live here have to worry about more than a return on real estate. We have to worry about protecting our families' quality of life from malignant growth and shortsighted planning. We have to demand smart, managed growth and planning for sustainability and respect for community character.

I'll say it again: I acknowledge Jason Powell's right to buy up as many properties as he wants and maximize their value to his heart's content. It is America, after all. I also acknowledge his right as a state legislator to maximize his relationship with the coattails of Mayor Karl Dean, who admittedly is the Tennessee Democratic Party's great red-state hope to beat a Republican somewhere sometime in the future. Bucking Karl Dean on a ballpark would not help a guy still fresh in his first state office (after running and losing here in our North Nashville district) and still flush with political aspirations.

But the quaintly walkable tableau that Jason Powell illustrated 3 years ago--as a spokesperson from my community to a Tennessean audience--now rings hollow, given that he presently lives close to the Nashville Zoo and leaves his real estate next to Sulphur Dell:

The neighborhoods, businesses and developments around Sulphur Dell are vibrant, supportive of a new ball park and poised for further growth. Downtown work­ers and residents, in addition to the surrounding neighborhoods of Germantown, Buena Vista, Salemtown and Hope Gardens and condos in the Sulphur Dell area, have the popula­tion to anchor attendance at games.

The location is already well-suited for professional baseball. Imagine grabbing a meal in Ger­mantown or at the Farmers Market, then relaxing at Bicentennial Mall before strolling to the ballpark to catch a game ....

If you build it we will stroll. Well, some of us will stroll. Rep. Powell will not because he no longer lives here. He owns property here. He will be driving to Sounds games at Sulphur Dell.

That is a proposition different than what our neighborhoods will actually face with the onslaught of traffic, the absence of transit plans, the ulterior motives of developers and the shifting goalposts of the community planning process along with the politicians who debase it. At least he has the certainty of greater property value without the challenges of living next to a large entertainment venue. Even so, he also should disclose the fact of his holdings whenever he uses the visibility of his office to tout the new Sulphur Dell.

Whether or not a Sulphur Dell ballpark might be a home run for all of us who live around it is still up in the air. For State Representative Powell it would appear to be more of a walk-off home run.


UPDATE: I guess none of us should be surprised that on opening day of the ballpark (April 17, 2015), Jason Powell is gushing about First Tennessee Park.

Putting himself center: Jason Powell

I think back to those heady days of "Friends of Sulphur Dell" when he was gathering a few friendly neighborhood representatives (ignoring those with questions) and touting his movement as "grassroots," never characterizing it as his own. I suppose it is a lesson in the idea that winners write history, but now Mr. Powell is claiming "the push" for himself. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised by this either:

Elected officials are known for shameless self-promotion, but in this case Mr. Powell should be more honest and concede that he had very little to do with the building of the ballpark. In 2013, it became obvious to all that the real puppet master was Karl Dean. Everything else was pure theater.

Lookouts owner cannot afford ballpark, Chattanooga trying to buy

Even after leasing on land for $1 per year from a nonprofit, private ownership cannot afford to field minor league baseball and own the ballpark:

Mayor Ron Littlefield is seeking state legislation that would, if it becomes necessary, help the city's Sports Authority or possibly River City Co. purchase AT&T Field to ease the sale of the Chattanooga Lookouts to private buyers and keep the Class AA team playing downtown.

"We don't really want to be a player unless it's necessary to save the team for Chattanooga," Littlefield said in one of several interviews on Tuesday and Wednesday about the legislation ....

Most cities in Tennessee and across the nation build stadiums to attract or retain professional sports teams, Littlefield noted ....

The land beneath the stadium is owned by River City Co., a nonprofit that promotes downtown development through the creation of public spaces. With team owners footing the stadium's cost, River City leases the field -- prime city real estate with a commanding view of the city and Tennessee River -- for $1 a year ....

The land back in 1999 was valued at $1.2 million. Latest estimates are its worth $9 million, [River City President Kim] White said. At issue, she said, "is how do we keep that momentum [downtown] going and keep baseball."

Rep. Vince Dean, R-East Ridge, is sponsoring the bill that would allow the city use state sales taxes from Lookouts tickets and concessions sales for the bonds. The bill was in the House Budget Subcommittee on Wednesday.

Because of its cost to the state, estimated by analysts at $275,000 annually, and the fact that the costs of the late-moving legislation was not included in Gov. Bill Haslam's recent budget revisions, the bill ... is being held in the subcommittee as final manuevering [sic] takes place on the state's $30.2 billion annual spending plan. It may or may not make the cut.

When new stadiums are proposed it seems their branding mantra is that they will bring in more sales tax revenues for other services. Is Chattanooga's dilemma in the General Assembly showing that in order to retain a pro sport the mantra shifts to using stadiums' own sales tax revenues to pay for the sport itself?

Wake up and smell the coffee

The Pulitzer Prize-winning author, Annie Dillard, once described "high church" folk like herself as prone to "saunter through the liturgy like Mohawks along a strand of scaffolding who have long since forgotten the danger." Her point: folk falsely rely on an unwarranted, even false sense of security and unawareness that their comfortable assumptions could turn against them and devour them at any moment.

When I hear otherwise reasonable people get appalled at Rick Santorum winning the Tennessee GOP primary yesterday or responding with consternation to news that some GOP legislators, including former CM Jim Gotto, see a UN conspiracy to take over Tennessee cities through community planning, I ask myself, "How can someone stick their head in the sand to the point that they fail to predict the dangers inherent to a red state?"

I mean, come on. Santorum (if not Newt Gingrich) is the perfect magnet for conservative Tennessee voters, and they are legion. It is an undeniable fact, nearly self-evident, that Tennessee is conservative red-meat for Republicans. Surely, the small enclaves of progressives, who clutch together like refugees on rafts, see that. There is always the possibility of collective self-denial.

Moreover, anyone in Middle Tennessee who has watched Jim Gotto on council knows him as a partisan right-winger and Church of Christer: a volatile mix that makes one prone to see the world as black-and-white, as us-against-anyone-who-may-disagree, as take-no-prisoners. Mr. Gotto has been one of the most uncompromising and ruthless politicians I have ever seen. So, his recent flirtation with rolling back local autonomy over planning fits his MO. It also benefits a lot of potential wealthy donors; that point was made when the Nashville Chamber of Commerce supported Gotto's bill before furiously back-pedaling away from that support yesterday.

Maybe someone like Karl Dean or Diane Neighbors should have done more to upbraid him when he was spouting off in his tenure as council representative on the Planning Commission. And "progressive" Metro Council members should be grilled on how they let Gotto get away with running unopposed for the powerful position of Planning Chair in the first place. (Perhaps because he busted his butt for the same developers and developers' lawyers and developers' lobbyists that "progressives" rubbed elbows with?)

So, I'll not feign righteous indignation at yesterday's GOP primary results or at the antics of our red-state General Assembly. The worst mistake we can make is responding as if these are people who will listen to reason spoken down to them from atop pedestals of forgetfulness and false security. We live in a dangerous state. It is a Machiavellian state, a Hobbesian state-of-nature where battles for supremacy knock down the scaffolding pretension constructs.

The second worst mistake we can make is the favored strategy of the Democratic Party, which seeks compromise with partisans who are not interested in compromise and who do not have to compromise since the voters here have given them absolute control of the state and significant control of cities like Nashville. Taking the middle road and becoming half-way conservative will not satisfy right-wingers. They'll just shift the goal posts to prompt liberals to shift half-way again. Giving them too much credit is fatal. They swarm like a plague of locusts, and with indifference they will destroy everything around them in the name of redeeming it for a divine kingdom on earth.

I do not want to seem to too hard on progressive rationalists. In fairness, I'm a recovering Southern Baptist who watched the plagues of fundamentalists swoop in and mow down green fields of moderates' lives, leaving little but stubble and despair, even for those who hadn't a liberal bone in their body. I see the same pattern manifesting with wave after wave of Church of Christ CMs who come through the the Metro Council bent on making Nashville a cultural battleground safe for their constricted litmus of Christianity and for their tight band of politics.

But if some want to believe that moderation can happen here or that they can work with the current leadership to produce progressive results, I wish them luck. They're going to need it.


UPDATE: Jamie Hollin notes the hole the Nashville Chamber of Commerce dug for itself:

We should all take some measure of comfort in the fact the Chamber is incapable of getting bills through ....

equally beneficial to citizens, they left the sponsor, Rep. Jim Gotto and by extension–Red Tape Brigade–Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, high and dry. Leaving sponsors out to dry is a no-no in politics. I suspect they will be suffering from retribution or it will at least cost them in other ways.

Mayor promises to cut Metro subsidy to Nashville Predators

The Nashville Predators are already soaking taxpayers to the tune of $10 million in sales taxes from non-hockey events that the state quietly authorized them to take. Mayor Karl Dean swears he did not know anything about the soaking, but he now promises to fix the situation:

Dean has said he plans to reduce Metro’s subsidy of the Predators, which is worth an estimated $7.8 million this fiscal year.

The new state legislation, sponsored by Sen. Thelma Harper, would take revenues from the state portion of the sales tax collected at non-hockey events at Bridgestone Arena, as well as the $2,500-per-game privilege tax paid by visiting hockey players, and put those funds in the hands of the Metro Sports Authority. But the legislation is just a placeholder “caption bill” at this point, and an equivalent bill has not been filed in the House yet.

Metro Finance Director Rich Riebeling said the administration hasn’t discussed the details of the proposed change with the Predators yet. He said the city “needed to get a bill filed” before the General Assembly’s session got much further along.

The Predators and their sister company, Powers Management, which operates the arena under contract with Metro, would still be able to use the state money. But the arrangement being proposed – similar to one in Memphis – could offer more transparency for taxpayers.

Hizzoner will have to cut quite a bit of Metro's hockey entitlements to the welfare queens down at Bridgestone to make up for the revenues that Metro has missed and will miss because of the state's irresponsible agreement. Remember the good old days when former Mayor Phil Bredesen promised us pro sports would lavish sales taxes even from non-sport events on our budget if we built an arena & attracted a hockey team?

The "Keep Karl Dean in Office until 2016" Act

According to the Tennessee Leger Twitter feed the bill designed to extend Mayor Dean's last term of office (and use the higher visibility of the Courthouse as sweet leverage for higher office in 2016) was calendared today:

Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, including any provision of a metropolitan charter to the contrary, the terms of the mayor, vice mayor and metropolitan council to be elected in August 2011 shall be extended to November 2016, or until their successors are duly elected and qualified in accordance with the provisions of this section. If any term limit would apply under a charter provision to a mayor, vice mayor or council member whose term is extended pursuant to this act, notwithstanding such provision, such official shall continue serving in such office as mayor, vice mayor or council member until a successor who is elected at the November 2016 regular election is duly elected and qualified. All candidates elected at the November 2016 regular election shall take office on December 1, 2016, and shall serve until their successors are elected and qualified.

Observers of Karl Dean's first bid for Mayor will recall that he was often marketed as the reluctant candidate who had to be talked into running. Ironically, the favorite attack tactic of unnamed sources in the Courthouse after his election was often to accuse his critics on Metro Council of aspiring to higher office.

I bet Hizzoner is not reluctant to be Mayor a little longer into the 2016 campaign season. The Courthouse will be his Middle Tennessee home-court advantage when he runs for Governor or US Senator.

May Town team breaking down and confirming suspicions of some

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. Here is part of the account:

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.

This is not the first time questions have been raised about the business dealings of Jack May or the advantages he enjoyed with the help from others. In 2008, we learned that long-time office holder Democrat Gary Odom was able to obstruct the Governor's Office from closing a tax loophole that allowed business partners who were related to each other to escape taxes in the billions on property and in the hundreds of millions on profits. Odom helped the May brothers make a killing on their business. A reporter observed, "May and the rest of the Bells Bend development crowd gave campaign cash to Odom, who then gave it to Democratic lawmakers running for reelection, who then voted to make Odom their new leader in the House."

When the Bells Landing team did not get the vote they wanted from the Metro Planning Commission after Jim Gotto (a GOP advocate for the Mays) called to end debate after a long public hearing in order to vote, they requested special consideration from Planning for another vote. May Town Center opponents squeaked by with a single-vote win, but if they had so lost, the chances were slim that they would have garnered the same reconsideration. Luckily, according to one witness present at the meeting to vote on a re-vote, the developers backed down when they saw they did not have the votes present:

Observers said Jack May stood in the audience talking on his cell the phone before the meeting and seemed to be scanning the commissioners present. There did not appear to be sufficient votes present in favor MTC. Immediately before the meeting started, he walked over to the staff table and asked that his proposal to reconsider be withdrawn. Shortly afterwards, some two dozen opponents from Bells Bend adjourned to the parking lot for strategy discussions.

After the 2009 Planning Commission vote, editorializing stories curiously appeared in a local African-American paper making claims about community support without reference to data. Likewise, some on Mays' team selectively applied polling data on the question of developing Bells Bend without reference to the whole picture. Advertisements went out indicating that Jefferson Street would be revitalized by May Town Center, but according to one neighborhood leader, Jack May seemed to distance himself from the ads during a West Nashville community meeting sponsored by Emily Evans.

These events have been characterized by bobbing and weaving by developers from the beginning. We shouldn't be surprised to see that, as the Bells Landing team fractures (we may never know the exact constitution of the team), they begin charging one another with deception. Many of us who opposed May Town Center insisted all along that we were being sold a bill of goods rather than a viable community plan.

The frantic quest for any jobs without qualifiers likely creates jobs without security (if any jobs at all)

Tennessee Democrats continue to disappoint as they strive to do no more than compliment TNGOP:

In a phone interview, Sen. Andy Berke agreed [with Governor Bill Haslam [that lawmakers should focus on job creation].

"The number one issue in Tennessee right now is jobs," Berke said. "We're at 9.8 percent unemployment across the state, and we've got to push for answers. We'll continue to talk through the various issues we heard about today, so that we can renew a focus for the next legislative session."

Berke also mentioned the idea of an entrepreneur tax credit—a bill he introduced earlier this year—as an approach to encouraging economic development.

"People are hurting, and we've got to fund ways to move away from the distractions you see too often in the legislature and focus on our most important initiative, which is economic development," he said.

So, we're going to give "microbusiness" breaks so that they have more money and we can hope that they create jobs that will sustain employee's livelihoods. It does not seem to matter what quality of jobs they create as long as even a minimal degree of economic development occurs. At most the expressed expectation is that the bill will help generate at least one new employee at unstipulated compensation at each microbusiness that qualifies.

But the bill also seems to have a loophole: microbusinesses have a choice between creating a new job or two or generating a new investment or two. Investments include items like purchasing buildings, paying legal fees, and advertising and PR. In fact, no new jobs have to be created at all for microbusinesses to get the tax break. But it looks like the Democratic Senator is at best hoping that incentives gained through creating some TV spots or paying for lawyers will encourage owners to create jobs for Tennesseans.

All in all this bill disappointingly appears to be GOP-lite: give more breaks to industry framed with wishful thinking or unmerited faith that owners will hire more people to jobs that may or may not be sustainable. Sen. Berke's bill is good for the small business owner, but not necessarily good for the little guy (without respect to gender). I understand that Democrats in a red-state have to take what they can get, but let's stop pretending that this bill is about jobs. Jobs may or may not happen in trickle-down scenarios. When owners are given money back they do not necessarily generate jobs with it.

In the meantime, working class people need jobs that help them pay the cost of living. They also need jobs with salaries that help them pay for childcare so that they can go to work. They need security in this insecure market; the kind of security that Democrats strove to achieve after the Great Depression last century. Today's Democrats fail to address those security needs because they are focused exclusively on untrammeled economic development as the ultimate elixir, just as Republicans are.

About those TEPid endorsements

I doubt very seriously that Tennessee Equality Project places much stock in my opinions of their political moves, but I'm thankful to have a blog to be able to note the curious logic of some of their endorsements. According to the Tennessean, they endorsed Karl Dean for Mayor (no surprise given that they held a campaign fundraiser for him long before his re-election campaign even launched). The curiosity here is that Karl Dean has made no effort to have Metro government join TEP's lawsuit against the state's suppression of the Metro non-discrimination ordinance (even more curiously, Tennessean blogger Michael Cass made it sound like the ordinance was initiated by the council under the influence of TEP when it seems to me that there were at least a couple of CMs leading the charge in the wake of Belmont).

This Metro contractor discrimination brought to you by your Tennessee Chamber of Commerce

Odd that private lobby groups, like the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce, so invested in bringing in more jobs from corporations outside the state have been so instrumental in pushing legislation sailing through the State Senate that increases the chances that companies that have progressive hiring policies might avoid us. Local author of a council bill that would have required Metro contractors to provide workplace protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity reflects on current events:

It wouldn’t be as embarrassing if any of the arguments in support of the legislation held even a drop of water. They don’t. It’s been a campaign for the record books contrived on homophobia.

I am glad Nashville, for a limited time only, was able to show the world we are an inclusive city notwithstanding the acts of the majority of our state’s legislature. Options are being considered.

I look forward to the forthcoming data showing all the increased production of jobs and tax revenue as a result of its passage (at least the jobs saved as a result). The proponents of HB 600/SB 632 owe us that much.

The easy thing to do in this situation is to blame the Republicans. While they deserve a large part of the blame, they could not do what they do if it were not for a red-state culture that promotes or soft-pedals the regressive tendencies of growth and enterprise in Tennessee in the first place. But anyone who expects more from TNGOP is a socket-set short of a full toolbox.

Keep in mind that both the Nashville and Tennessee Chambers of Commerce, two of the more locked-in, mainstream lobbies, oppose the Metro initiative. That makes this prejudiced legislation legitimate. These bills are not just the anomalous products of fringe right-wingers on family and traditional values councils. They were belched from the very center of the wealthy business interests who fight every single regulation that comes down the chute, including ridiculously easy ones like requiring government contractors to obey some rules that nobody outside government has to follow.

On that score, Democrats share some of the blame, and not just those voting for the state bills. Social progressives, in particular, who refuse to see any inconsistency between their embrace of untrammeled, unregulated, unbalanced growth and the private sector's will-to-power that rejects obligations share the blame, too. Maybe if some Davidson County Democrats had fought for a few other healthy constraints on the "business community," the latter might not be so emboldened to do what they will. Naively given inches, they take miles.

GLBT community organizers have done nothing that I can see to work with other groups fighting discrimination and the ill-effects of growth on poor and minority communities. They have gone their own way and hitched their wagons to politicians who seemed to side with them even when they would not fight for others. As the Metro ordinance goes down at the hands of the General Assembly, they have no broad coalition to call upon for assistance. Don't pity them, because they've been good about taking care of themselves. Let them believe they can get along fine without the rest of us.

In the end, until we start approaching Chambers of Commerce as powerful special interests who lobby against workplace reform (that is to say, until we put them in check instead of deferring to their networking opportunities for individual achievement) they will continue to be brutish. Let's hope one day red-state Tennessee, excluding most Republicans, wakes up and reels in some of the latitude it gives these bullies.

About Tennessee Republicans' attempt to micromanage Metro Nashville

An Enclave reader writes to express dissatisfaction with the failure of the press to draw out the hypocrisy of a Williamson County Republican's attempt to kill Metro Nashville's non-discrimination ordinance from the top-down in the General Assembly:

Did you know State Representative Glenn Cassada opposed the Metro anti-discrimination ordinance against GLBT and wants to overturn it?

Did you know Cassada doesn’t live in Davidson Co?

Did you know Cassada has worked for the Pharmacy giant Merck/Schering Plough in the animal health division of for the last 23 years?

Did you know Merck/Schering Plough has its own diversity program for both employees and suppliers (http://www.merck.com/about/how-we-operate/diversity/employee-diversity.html)

Did you know Merck/Schering Plough celebrates it number 9th position in the Top 10 companies for GLBT employees (http://www.merck.com/careers/life-at-merck/diversity-recruiting/home.html)

Did you know the company Cassada works for has its OWN supplier diversity definitions (http://www.merck.com/about/how-we-operate/diversity/definitions.html)?

If it is not bad enough that Tennessee Republicans look dishonest on this red-meat issue, the Out and About blog points out that they are on the same side of Tennessee history as the 1920s Knoxville Ku Klux Klan.

Could Wedgewood-Houston SNAP to it?

According to the Nashville neighborhoods e-list, Colby Sledge (one of the leaders of South Nashville Action People, which supports the Mayor's plans to privatize the State Fairgrounds) wrote an article inviting residents of Wedgewood-Houston to a meeting:

Are there any limits? SNAP moves too easily with Mayor Dean from relocating the flea market to dismantling the race track

The aspect of the debate over the Mayor's plans for the Fairgrounds that I find most perplexing is the unwillingness of some community leaders to acknowledge that he has linked demolishing the race track and moving the State Fair and flea market after the racetrack is gone. I do not blame community organizations for choosing certain strategies to pursue without others.

Former journo speaks at public hearing in favor Mayor's plan
of moving Fairgrounds flea market out of his neighborhood

However, South Nashville Action People, the Mayor's primary base of neighborhood support, overplayed their hand in November when they told the Metro Council that they supported the Mayor's plan to move the flea market to Hickory Hollow mall to make way not just for a park and greenway at the fairgrounds, but for commercial development on par with those of Green Hills or East Nashville.

Former journalist, current Democratic Party public relations specialist, Colby Sledge stood during the public hearing then representing SNAP and a group called Neighbors for Progress and spoke in favor of the exile of the Expo/flea market out of his neighborhood to Antioch. Never mind the hardship that move might put on the flea market businesses. Never mind that practically every one of those small business owners opposed the lease without respect to the racetrack question. Never mind that as neighbors they may not be allowed to have a say in SNAP's decision making process. Never mind strong Antioch neighborhood opposition.

When the Mayor dropped his Hickory Hollow plan under pubic pressure and had Antioch CM Sam Coleman withdraw the lease bill, Hizzoner prompted a new bill focused exclusively on demolishing the Fairgrounds race track, but permitting the Expo and State Fair only one more year. Sledge did not miss a beat. The same guy who stood in front of the council and told them he thought Antioch would benefit from a flea market that his association was so willing to jettison out the backyard, ditched his concerns about the Expo/State Fair and put on a deep green environmentalism, insisting that he supported the Mayor's plan to bring a flood plain park to the Fairgrounds.

Sledge sent a new message to council via e-mail, which his former co-worker at the Tennessean, Michael Cass seemed enthusiastic to commend to us. The gist of Sledge's message:

I noticed that last night [Dec. 7] the Coun­cil passed on sec­ond read­ing a bill to pro­vide for free park­ing for envi­ron­men­tally friendly vehi­cles in down­town park­ing meter zones. I hope that you will show the same sup­port for our envi­ron­ment in your upcom­ing vote con­cern­ing the demo­li­tion of the race­track at the fair­grounds. The race­track cre­ates air, noise and water pol­lu­tion — all of which can be not just reduced, but elim­i­nated with the clos­ing of the speed­way. Even bet­ter, the race­track would be replaced with a 40-acre park, instantly adding to the pub­lic green space avail­able to our residents.

One coun­cil mem­ber was reported as call­ing the park­ing bill the “low­est of low-hanging fruit” for mak­ing Nashville a greener city. Reach one branch over, and you’ll find your next oppor­tu­nity: close the race­track that pol­lutes our city, and cre­ate a park for our fam­i­lies while restor­ing a pol­luted creek that flows into our drink­ing water.

The earnestness with which Sledge preached the welfare of Antioch has given way to a rather convenient environmentalism, a rearrangement that reporter Cass failed to note (Cass was in attendance Nov. 16 when Sledge spoke at the public hearing). The departure and dissociation are just too convenient to be believable.

Again, I do not take issue with organizations choosing their battles but, perhaps to avoid the appearance of opportunism, Sledge should have advocated the park all along and he should have refused to stand against the flea market so publicly. Now watching SNAP not advocate for the flea market, I get the sense they intend to bide their time until Mayor Dean prepares in a few months to dump the Expo and State Fair somewhere else. Then we will see Colby Sledge step forward once again sans environmentalism advocating the need for trendier businesses in what remains of a privatized fairgrounds.

What kind of definition of progress includes eradicating small businesses in a community to make way for either industrial park (the current private zoning), an office park (if rezoned), or chain boutique stores (if rezoned)? What kind of progressivism rips up parking lots just to put more down to accommodate a different set of jobs? SNAP is not even mentioning the possibility of keeping the Expo longer than Mayor Dean's timeline. What kind of progress is it that uproots people under the auspices of shielding others from the noise pollution that many of us wouldn't blame them for wanting to eradicate or at least minimize in the first place?

Because SNAP leaders like Colby Sledge seem willing to treat the fairgrounds with total abandon, because they are likely to throw the baby out with the bathwater, I cannot support them in backing the Mayor's latest initiative. After informing myself about the plans, I am certain of Karl Dean's end game and in my opinion it has little to do with community quality of life, little to do with progress beyond the narrow bounds of maximizing real estate, little to do with environmentalism or preservation of history. While I do not support keeping the racetrack in and of itself, I fear that abdicating to obliteration will mean one less barrier to running off the Expo and the State Fair, one less obstacle to parceling out what's left to private interests who will be much less obligated to the community than the courthouse is supposed to be.

I can choose either to support Colby Sledge's neighborhood and watch the Mayor sell off 100 acres of parkland while developing only parts he has to as green space or to oppose his neighborhood and hope that every acre will remain Metro park land to be developed as such some future day. To me it is the second cause that is the best one, even if by no means perfect.

That said, I'm willing to support SNAP to get race enthusiasts to make accommodations to support the quality of life. But I cannot go any further until they guarantee support for the businesses already at their doorstep. I'm not willing to advocate taking race enthusiasts out of the equation and thus freeing the Mayor to do whatever he wills to the Fairgrounds, which belongs to all of us in this county.

Nashville Neighborhood PAC drew a distinction without a difference

The leadership of Nashville Neighborhoods Defense Fund makes a point of telling us that if we really want positive change for neighborhoods, we have to participate in their mission to fund candidates for office who will pursue such change. The problem is that the NNDF PAC does not always endorse candidates who make an appreciable difference for neighborhoods. A case in point was their shilling for CM Sam Coleman (Democrat) over CM Jim Gotto (Republican) in the race for the 60th legislative district won by Gotto last week.

I do not take issue with the PAC's conclusion that CM Gotto has been unsupportive of neighborhood concerns. Jim Gotto is one of the most pro-development, growth-accommodating CMs that I know of. However, I have yet to see how Sam Coleman has distinguished himself as a progressive community advocate. As CM, Mr. Coleman:

• championed foolhardy attempts to allow guns in Metro parks
• co-sponsored ethically dubious meals-for-deals legislation
• seemed anti-immigration and supportive of English Only
• sponsored a bill to ease restrictions on cellphone towers in neighborhoods
• ignored neighborhood opposition to relocating the West Precinct police station to a flood-prone car dealership, voting to support the re-location, which the Mayor's Office reconsidered after the May flood inundated the site.

CM Coleman also attempted to discourage opposition to a bill to allow LED signs in residential neighborhoods. Curiously, in e-mail correspondence sent to the Nashville Neighborhoods e-list, NNDF based their opposition to CM Gotto in part on the rationale that he sponsored LED sign legislation:

Note that the NNDF co-founder did not list a single council initiative that Sam Coleman lead in counterpoint to Jim Gotto's shenanigans.

Regular readers of Enclave remember that I have not been shy about excoriating Jim Gotto or the Republicans. But we should not buy the latest PAC scheme to airbrush Sam Coleman into something he never was just because he ran as a Democrat. I cannot think of a single progressive initiative on behalf of neighborhood quality of life that CM Coleman initiated during his tenure on Metro Council, and the NNDF endorsement is puzzling.

Another CM pointed out that the NNDF needs to focus less on negative advertising on behalf of potential allies and more on raising money and fighting for neighborhoods. I would say that if the PAC wants my support that is the least they could do. Stronger endorsements would not hurt either.

Tennessee Republican lawmaker says she did not know that blackface was offensive and "Some of my greatest friends are black"

Gospel-singing, white General Assembly legislator Terri Lynn Weaver posted a picture of herself and a pastor on Facebook. In that photo, captured by WSMV before being being scrubbed off her site, the pastor is shamelessly dressed as an old-school "Aunt Jemima," which was a Jim-Crow era mammy caricature.

Rep. Weaver initially responded to media queries defensively, seemingly insulted that someone (like State Senator Thelma Harper) would accuse her of being racially insensitive, even as she resorted to the cracker cliché about her best friends being black. That was yesterday. Today the General Assembly's Black Caucus called for Rep. Weaver to appear before the House Ethics Committee and she is apologizing, although she is pleading ignorance and defending her intentions.

Once again red-state Tennessee is embarrassed by Republican stupidity as the story is national via Wonkette:

doesn’t everyone have a pastor who dresses up as offensive caricatures like this. And in response to the furor over this offensive stereotype, the woman is now defending herself in the most stereotypical way possible. Yes, that’s right: “I’m the least racist of anyone. Some of my greatest friends are black.” Problem solved.
Yes, stand strong, white lady! There was probably no other costume for her pastor to wear, anyway. 

Besides that wince-worthy moment where another white person justifies their insensitivities with the virtue of friendship, it is remarkable that another Tennessee conservative who claims to embrace "values" feels comfortable with disparaging caricatures of our bygone Jim Crow era. It is beyond regrettable. It is valueless.

If you like the local Democratic Party, you'll love today's primary in Tennessee House District 58

Nothing either Mary Pruitt or Steven Turner has done or said in the past 3 weeks since I declined to participate in today's Democratic Party primary circle jerk has made me rethink my stance.

Mary Pruitt will still do nothing for 58 or anyone else. Steven Turner may have all the energy in the world, but if it exclusively helps wealthy donors and developers who finance the county party, what good is that, broadly considered, for local communities? Some local Democrats would have you believe bread crumb economics is good for all of us. I say better to have done nothing at all.

Both Pruitt and Turner spoke to the last Salemtown Neighbors business meeting. Neither one said anything to make me think either would be in tune with neighborhood issues and balanced growth. Mr. Turner continued to court the geeks by emphasizing broadband and internet access (without regard to campaign donors who would profit from virtual expansion), and the rest of his talk was straight out off website memes on economic development. Ms. Pruitt failed to answer a simple question on how she would act as an advocate for neighborhood concerns about an expanding state highway bordering Salemtown, dodging by saying in effect that she would listen to any concerns we had.

My only litmus test in the 58 primary has been that either candidate show me how they stand for neighborhoods in their district over self-interest and moneyed influence. Both have failed.

There is no amount of fear-mongering or fabricating oversimplified choices between "the good" and "the ideal" that convinces me that there is an authentically redemptive choice here.

Mary Pruitt does nothing. That's clear. It's not clear to me that what Steven Turner might do would be good, at least not a common good. My guess at this point is that Mr. Turner has enough momentum in a rapidly changing district to win today. If so, I hope my neighbors who value balanced growth, sustainable development, and consistent progressive governance are not disappointed one day if Mr. Turner helps leverage community choking growth legislation that serves special interests and his wealthy campaign donors. I hope I'm wrong. I hope one day I don't have to say I told you so. I hope we all don't have to look back one day and say, "Nothing would have been better than the something they plan for us" (don't find that logic persuasive? Apply it to Bells Bend and state-sponsored sprawl).

Davidson County Democrats do not seem to be interested in balanced growth and sustainability issues unless you can add value on them, so they don't care either. Democrats here are basically useless on matters of economic sustainability, democratic input at the legislative level, and substantive community development.

I would not discourage anyone in this House district from going to the polls today if they see it their civic or patriotic duty. I would encourage them not to delude themselves into thinking that things could get better just because anyone is better than Mary Pruitt.

Today's election is not about District 58 or you or your family or our neighborhoods or anything else they want you to believe. It is about rival younger and older factions in the local Democratic Party, pure and simple. There is no good, there is no perfect. It's party-style snake oil. If you're into partisan politics, by all means, go vote for Pruitt or Turner, but do not try and convince me that the choice of a winner has not already been made: it's the local party apparatus, the sluice of campaign finance. The rest of us have already lost.

However, I still might have to go vote against Eric Crafton in the Juvenile Court race.

UPDATE: The unofficial results tonight with 172 of 173 of precincts reporting are:

• Mary Pruitt -- 1,308
• Steven Turner -- 1,158

Compare the nearly 2,500 votes cast today to how most of the 3,660+ votes were cast 4 years ago:

• Mary Pruitt -- 2,012
• Jason Powell -- 1,414

A lighter turn-out seemed to make little difference this year in the ultimate goal of beating Mary Pruitt. Even though Jason Powell got more votes in 2006 than Steven Turner did today, the latter lost by less of a margin than the former. If Mr. Turner had energized a couple hundred of perhaps more liberal voters or community activists to the polls, instead of appealing to business interests and the Democratic Party faithful, he just might have done what Mr. Powell couldn't do with more votes.

Senator Henry has paid campaign "volunteers"?

I noticed Douglas Henry campaign supporters distracting traffic at Hillsboro Village this morning. A few minutes ago Mike Peden e-mailed me a dispatch from further south on a similar group and some troubling background:

Senator Henry has had people at the intersection of Thompson Lane and Nolensville Rd all week, wearing blue t-shirts and waving at people with signs.

I stopped and spoke with one of them this morning. They are working through a temp service and being paid by the hour. The man I spoke with didn’t know who Mr. Henry is or what he is running for.

It seems pretty pathetic to have to pay pretend supporters ....

In these times of high unemployment, I would not begrudge people for getting paid where they can, but Senator Henry passing off relatively low-paid employees (who probably don't get benefits) as enthusiastic campaign volunteers does seem pathetic.

Dear 58: early voting starts today and I will not be joining you

The Tennessean's local beat journo Nate Rau asked for my opinions yesterday on the state House race between Mary Pruitt and Steven Turner, some of which you can read here. I have fielded several queries on why I have not taken a stance on this election, given my expressed dissatisfaction with Ms. Pruitt and Mr. Turner's seeming embrace by local progressives. This post is my attempt at a more full explanation.

A recurring (and perhaps the strongest) argument for voting for Mr. Turner is that Ms. Pruitt has been "absent from the legislative process in any meaningful way." Indeed, the constituents of 58 have been underrepresented by Mary Pruitt. She did not give any indication that she fought for security measures on Bicentennial Mall after a Germantown woman was raped not too long ago. She showed up to the Hope Gardens' community meeting on the Greyhound bus terminal relocation, but she did not make it plain in word or deed that she would be the community advocate in the face of Metro insularity. She chooses to remain invisible.

However, Turner campaign supporters are hard-pressed to explain exactly how he would be a better option other than "anyone would be better than Mary Pruitt." Given what I have read of Mr. Turner and heard from him, I have reservations about voting for him.

Let's assume that Steven Turner would be more proactive than Ms. Pruitt and that he take leadership positions on House committees, crafting legislation. If he is proactive and prominent in working for the Democratic Party establishment and the wealthy business interests who fund their fights with Republicans, how is that an improvement for all of us in 58?

I attended the North Nashville community meeting Erica Gilmore called on the Music City Center proposal a few months ago. Mr. Turner stood at that meeting to express unqualified and enthusiastic support for building a convention center. He did not bother to acknowledge community concerns about obligating Metro's General Fund (which pays for everything from brush clean-up to adequate policing) as a safety net for construction overruns.

However, the prospect of tapping into the Metro budget to prop up a convention center exposes infrastructure like parks and street and alley maintenance to risk. Steven Turner came across as callous on an important neighborhood issue, although his passion for MCC is entirely consistent with the priorities of local business interests. Support for a convention center is not necessarily a deal-killer for me in the voting booth, but I was not mobilized by Mr. Turner's appearance. He seemed more committed to growth than to softening the blows growth makes on communities.

My concern arises from precisely that kind of appearance. Let's grant that he may be more proactive on committees, with legislation than Ms. Pruitt has been. That may be good for the Tennessee Democratic Party, but to whom will he be beholden? I have yet to find a case where Steven Turner would balance his advocacy for commercial interests with a defense of neighborhoods.

His website collapses community development into economic development while referring to local businesses and young professionals. He makes no mention of balancing growth and infrastructure and quality of life in neighborhoods.

His commitment to education refers to "modernization." I do not know what that means, but it sounds like the kind of public school privatization that Davidson County Democratic leaders like Mayor Karl Dean support.

And would Steven Turner lead a House fight to build 2 or 3 bridges from West Nashville neighborhoods to Bells Bend to sprawl urban developments and retail across rural greenspace? I know next to nothing about his commitments to conservation, but would he be so bold as to undermine every other neighborhood's community plan by striking blows at those of West Nashville and Scottsboro-Bells Bend under the guise of "creating more jobs" in North Nashville?

So, the idea that just putting anyone more proactive than Mary Pruitt in the 58 House seat does not motivate me to participate in the Democratic Party's primary. This primary strikes me as inside partisan baseball: should we replace an entrenched do-nothing Democrat with a Democrat who may be exclusively in the pockets of developers and corporate big shots? Either way the people who win are not the people of 58. So, I intend to exercise the grace of doing nothing during this primary.

Mike Turner, coal bearer

There's an old British expression meant to convey the futility of some action. A futile action is said to be like "carrying coal to Newcastle." In the 15th century that English town became famous for its coal mines and export of coal. Hence, carrying coal to a place rife with coal is a monumental waste of time.

Democratic state legislator Mike Turner is carrying coal to Newcastle by introducing a bill to allow Nashville's Mayor to appoint the Director of the Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency instead of the decision being left up to the MDHA Board. Turner's attempt is both empty and disingenuous as it seems to suggest that the Mayor has no control over MDHA. On the contrary, the Mayor's Office appoints MDHA Board members, so there is already some control. Perhaps the Mayor should consider appointing board members who critically question the MDHA Director rather than rubber-stamping decisions. The attempt to give the Mayor more control is empty symbolism and a distraction to solving what is wrong with this administration.

Now, if you reject the Newcastle metaphor as archaic, I've got another one for you. Mike Turner is simply carrying Karl Dean's water. However, giving Karl Dean appointment control over the MDHA post is only carrying his water in a sieve. It is a monumental waste of time that fools the local mainstream media who seem charmed by that crap.

Because "The 2nd Amendment" Sounds So Right When Slurred through a Bitchin Beer Buzz

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Difference Makers - Doug Jackson
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Jeff Goldblum