Planning Commission defers Karen Johnson's bill to allow public process on billboard conversion

Antioch CM Karen Johnson

Earlier this evening Metro Planning staff recommended approving CM Johnson's bill (BL2012-109) that would allow property owners abutting billboards a public process with the Board of Zoning Appeals when a billboard owner wants to convert a conventional billboard to a tri-face billboard. The only person to speak against it in public hearing represented a corporation with a chunk of wealth and heft of influence in Tennessee: Lamar Advertising. He is also the Executive Director of the special interest lobby, Tennessee Association of Outdoor Advertising. Commissioners responded by deferring a decision on the bill until the next commission meeting, saying they want to know more about the legal implications elsewhere of regulation of billboards.

For their part, the staff advised commissioners that state law did not specifically address tri-face billboards, which gives Metro some leeway to require corporations to demonstrate that the conversion to more advertising would not have negative impact on property values.

The billboard merchant opposing Johnson's bill told Commissioners that it violated state law and that a similar measure had been overturned in Johnson City. He also maintained that determining whether billboards have a negative impact on adjacent property values is "subjective at best". This may be true, but not in the sense he meant. It is not subjective because being objective about billboard impact is impossible. The outdoor advertising industry would like us to believe being objective is impossible so that we will surrender and submit to their demands. To the contrary, judging negative impact is subjective because objective studies have not been conducted on the impact of billboards on adjacent properties.

At least no studies had been done until an urban planner in Philadelphia completed one two months ago. Jonathan Snyder's analysis concluded:

In Philadelphia, there is a statistically significant correlation between real estate value (as measured by sales price) and proximity to billboards. Properties located within 500 ft. of a billboard have a decreased real estate value of $30,826. Additionally, homes located further than 500 ft. but within a census tract/community where billboards are present experience a decrease of $947 for every billboard in that census tract. Income for strict sign control cities is higher than that for not-strict cities. Furthermore, the home vacancy and poverty rates for strict control cities are lower. Having strict sign controls does not negatively impact the economic prosperity of a city.

Nobody challenged the billboard lobbyist when he claimed that judging negative impact is subjective, and my guess is that is what he is used to. During Commissioners' comments, former council member Stewart Clifton indicated that property owner feedback might be reduced simply to whether or not they liked or disliked the look and colors of certain signs. He seemed to indicate that the public would not give reliable feedback on property values outside of aesthetic taste. That seemed to reinforce the negative-impact-is-subjective-at-best mantra. Again, nobody was around to challenge this characterization that a public process would produce unreliable data.

Adkins & TNGOP-in-Chief

Commissioner Greg Adkins responded with the deference to big business that he developed a reputation for when he was on Metro Council, arguing that there is no difference whatsoever between conventional bill boards and tri-face billboards. Without the slightest nod to democratic process, Adkins told the group he was going to vote against including public feedback because, "Advertising is advertising". Never mind that tri-fold billboards triple the volume of advertising and risk reducing a community's reputation to advertising space.

When challenged by fellow commissioner Phil Ponder to clarify what he meant by the statement, "Tri-face billboards do not change use", Adkins did a fairly poor job of clarifying. He merely repeated several times, "They do not change use", as if it were self-evident, even as Ponder gave examples of how all advertising is not the same. Assuming that Adkins was not just communicating poorly, I concluded that he had simply rehearsed some pro-industry talking points on use without critically reflecting on the meaning of "use".

Unfortunately, there was nobody available to counter what seemed to be a shared ambivalence for democratic process informing regulation of outdoor advertising, which is dominated by loads of money and by swarms of lobbyists. The staff seemed unprepared to deal with questions about legal ramifications. However, they were not entirely to blame, since it was a public hearing. Nobody spoke during the hearing for the bill. CM Karen Johnson was not in attendance. There were no community leaders present to speak in favor of approval. The meeting became an echo chamber for pro-industry talking points and uncritical questions.

CM Jerry Maynard is one slick at-Large

An e-mail I received from a fairgrounds preservation supporter indicates that ethically troubled CM Jerry Maynard was using council rules to kill a bill for the Mayor. When Maynard's effort failed CM Adkins did what he could to try and force a vote without consideration:

The Mayor’s extraordinary effort began when Council Member Jerry Maynard signed onto BL2010-770 in Budget and Finance committee for the purpose of having the bill defeated. He signed the bill without talking to the primary sponsor, Council Member Duane Dominy. Then Council Member Greg Adkins attempted to pass a Motion to Table the sponsor’s request for indefinite deferral. It ended when the Council voted against the Motion to Table 19-18-2.

Whenever journos start accusing CMs like Mike Jameson of "obscure parliamentary maneuvers" the least they could do would be to acknowledge CM Maynard's own slick moves are based more on power than on principle. I will be posting more on that e-mail shortly. Any moral high ground supporters of the Mayor's plan might have claimed after CM Dominy introduced his bill involving CM Sandra Moore's district without talking to her was lost in CM Maynard signing on without talking to Dominy.

The cloak-and-dagger tactics seem to occur on all sides with the Mayor giving an executive boost to those on his side.

More fallout from the Tennessean's publication of misinformation

CMs Michael Craddock and Jamie Hollin respond to a previous Tennessean op-ed written by CM Greg Adkins and MCC booster Tom Lee in which convention center critics were labeled and libeled by Tennessean editors as "hiding in anonymity":

Recently, an article entitled "Many debating convention center hide in anonymity," Jan. 14, written by council member Greg Adkins and Tom Lee, an attorney, derided the opponents of the convention center proposal as "Internet mud-peddlers … (who) have slandered the character of their opponents."

This piece presumes only the opponents of the convention center are hiding. This is a fatal flaw in our opinion.

We wonder where these fellow members of the bar have been when it comes to standing up for a professional colleague, Kevin Sharp. He is far from anonymous on this issue and has been very professional and civil.

Yet, he has suffered disgusting and personal attacks by the very proponents Adkins and Lee compare to Theodore Roosevelt ....

One claim the proponents have made repeatedly is that the General Fund is in no danger.

However, Goldman Sachs just informed the council that if the projections of HVS are off 25 percent between adoption of the proposal and 2017, then the debt service reserve fund will be depleted and it will require a General Fund contribution of $5.29 million in 2017 alone.

Kick in another $30.54 million over the following six years. Any surplus revenues collected would go to replenish the debt service reserve fund before any money went back into the General Fund. This danger is very real.

One thing to note is that today's opinion page response was the perfect chance for the Tennessean to be accountable and to note that their choice of a headline could have been the primary reason for the false information that MCC critics hide in anonymity. However, they failed to take responsibility for their part in the misunderstanding. As far as I know they've made no effort to publish a correction in hard copy. It is worth noting that the paper's editors also have endorsed the Music City Center, so they have a vested interest in spreading trollish aspersions about MCC opponents.

Tennessean headline accuses MCC critics of hiding in anonymity

In a five-column headline plastered across today's op-ed section of the Tennessean, a copy editor wrote and had published the misleading view that those of us who criticize the plans for a new convention center "hide in anonymity." Here's the screen shot for this morning's online edition:



After reading the headline, which also conflicted with the points made in the opinion piece itself, I availed the Tennessean Twitter stream and expressed to the editors that I am a critic and not hiding in anonymity as the headline maintained. The unnamed Tennessean tweetmaster replied that the authors were not editors but a council member and MCC booster.

Knowing that most titles are written by editors I tweeted back, asking for clarity:

So, editors did not entitle the editorial? Adkins and Lee provided the title, "Convention center critics hide in anonymity"?

Please confirm because when I blog about this I want to attribute responsibility to the correct authors of the title itself.

Here's the reply I got back from the Tennessean:

The writers are not Tennessean employees. That is guest commentary. (confirmed)

It still did not seem right to me, so I tried one more time:

So, I will be speaking factually when I attribute authorship of the title itself to CM Greg Adkins and Tom Lee?

Time passed and I checked another website covering the opinion piece only to find out that one of the authors was contacted and he maintained that Tennessean editors had indeed come up with title. Shortly thereafter the Tennessean updated its Twitter stream to say that an editor had supplied the title and the authors were not responsible.

Someone immediately edited the online edition with a new title (the delivered hard copies, which have a larger readership, remain unchanged):



Likewise, I quickly pointed out that the new headline was not accurate since many of us who debate the issue are not hidden in anonymity. A few minutes later then headline was again altered:



We should at least acknowledge the Tennessean's intention to correct its online copy when an error is pointed out. However, that doesn't change the pejorative influence that the editors' headline created on the large numbers of those who already consumed the story online and in hard copy.

And as Bruce Barry points out, there was something a little odd about the Twitter exchange:

After an odd back and forth on Twitter with Mike Byrd in which The Tennessean inanely tweeted that the writers of the op-ed are not its employees, the paper's editors finally came to understand that they bear responsibility for the absurd headline that they (and not the piece's authors) wrote .... Nonetheless, they still make the basic online journalism error of not noting the correction in the piece itself.

There's no room for pro journos to criticize bloggers when they can't exercise their own craft with precision. Misrepresenting critics and opponents of the Music City Center when they constitute such a large number of people in Davidson County is unforgivable even with the corrections.

Council Indefinitely Defers Bill to Meddle in the Health Department's Regulation of Chain Restaurants

Remember when CM Greg Adkins cast the tie breaking vote to give a micromanaging and probably Charter-violating bill to committees in order to give it a chance to be considered and discussed before being defeated? Well, Metro Council indefinitely deferred the bill tonight effectively, as CM Bo Mitchell argued, protecting the bill from probable defeat after going to committees. Oh, the games people play.

Council President Pro Tem Greg Adkins Redefines "To Regulate" as "To Punish"

Apparently, the writers of our Metro Charter should have held off several decades and talked with Council Member Greg Adkins before writing that the Metro Board of Health should exercise administrative functions pertaining to the regulation of privately owned institutions for the purpose of sanitation and public health. CM Adkins, who while filling in for Vice Mayor Diane Neighbors broke the tie to move an anti-regulation bill on to second reading, obviously has a better grasp of how the Health Department should function than did the writers. After all, this is what he just told the Tennessean tonight:

In this day and age of where we are with the economy, I don’t want to punish restaurants in any way, shape or form

Well, perhaps Metro should also stop doing those health inspections and scoring restaurants on hygiene and food storage. If regulation amounts to punishment, why ask the Board of Health to apply and enforce any rules?

Greg Adkins should have made a more presidential argument for his tie-breaker (which could eventually constitute a veto of Health Department rules, if this bill passes all three readings) than "regulation equals punishment."

Charter Fight Tonight at Metro Council Meeting

CM Erik Cole pulled Tim Garrett's bill to deny Metro Health's rule requiring restaurants with over 15 locations in Nashville to post the calorie count of its fare. Generally, bills are not pulled off the consent agenda on first reading.

Opponents of Garrett's bill (Cole and Jason Holleman) argued that the Metro Charter establishes the Health Department to appoint a board of medical professionals and citizens to write rules regarding the health and safety of Nashvillians. Garrett's supporters argued that Metro Health was "usurping" the power of Metro Council to vote on these rules. Michael Craddock called the rules an attack on personal responsibility and he criticized the burden that the rules would put on business.

Here's what the Charter says about the Council's authority and power:

The council is authorized to legislate with respect to the powers of the metropolitan government granted by article 2 hereof, except as otherwise provided in this Charter; and by ordinance to provide for the organization, conduct and operations of all departments, boards, commissions, offices and agencies of the metropolitan government, when the same has not been provided for by this Charter.

Here's part of what the Charter says about the Board of Health:

The board of health, through its chief medical director, shall exercise all the administrative functions of the metropolitan government pertaining to ....
The physical and mental health of the people .... The regulation of publicly and privately owned institutions for the purpose of sanitation and public health .... The enforcement of reasonable rules and regulations promulgated as herein provided.

It seems to me that the Charter already provides that Metro Health can regulate business for the purpose of public health, so claims that Metro Health is usurping Metro Council are exaggerated.

President pro tem Greg Adkins, who is filling in for Vice Mayor Diane Neighbors, first called for a voice vote to approve or deny the bill on first reading. CM Adkins is a co-sponsor of Garrett's bill. Another CM called point of order and asked for a roll call vote, which CM Adkins granted after getting agreement from 5 CMs. The roll call vote was split 14-14-1 on first reading, which left it to the Chair to break the tie. CM Adkins voted to approve Garrett's bill on first reading.