Size matters?

One of the more unfortunate ideas to be recently advanced in Metro Council is that of amending the Metro Charter to cut the size of council simply because few other cities have a council this size.

Those who have made the case for a smaller council outside the council tend to refer to its hilarity rather than to explain carefully how decreasing the size of the legislative body won't just lead to more streamlined rubber-stamping of the strong executive (who will actually have to spend less time lobbying for votes) and to more abbreviated levels of comedy. All you have to do is look at the current Keystone crop of at-Larges and their pet projects and their obsequiousness to Hizzoner to have a good idea of how a smaller council would function. It would be 24 at-Larges who are just as jealous and territorial as the current crop. Changing the size does not guarantee a change in the dynamic. It just means less messy democracy.

Nonetheless, the council member sponsoring this bill, Emily Evans, is broadcasting herself as a champion of "the public", and she plans for a petition drive if the bill does not pass. I won't sign her petition until she convinces me that it is in my best interest to do so.

On top of that, she's engaged in email blast brawls with former CM John Summers, who opposes significant shrinkage.

I--like many of you--was not privy to this debate (the thread was forwarded to me by Mike Peden). I have been unwilling to give Summers or Evans passes on their mistakes in the past, so I can understand why they would not include me in their grandstanding. Why they might not include you is something you might ponder.

First, former CM John Summers writes:

It’s simple math, you make the Council districts larger, you increase the number of people one Council member has to represent, YOU get less representation.   You have more neighborhoods, farther apart lumped into fewer districts.

Larger districts will make campaign contributions more important.   That increases the influence of developers who are the primary donors that fund Council campaigns.   That means it will be harder for neighborhood friendly candidates to get elected.

I rarely disagree with Councilwoman Evans on issues, but on this one I very much disagree.   She believes to convince voters to change term limits, she has to offer them fewer districts.   And sbe believes longer terms will make the Council more independent of the mayor.  I served under two administrations (Fulton and Boner) without term limits and it made little difference.   Both of those Councils were dominated by the Mayor ....

In the abstract fewer Council members sounds good to many people. Everyone wanted to get rid of Luyde Wallace. But you’ll eliminate as many good Council members as you will not so good.

This is a bad idea. It’s bad for neighborhoods. I hope you will e-mail the Council and express your opposition to reducing the size of the Council.

I doubt Ludye Wallace would like to read that one. As much as I don't care for Mr. Summers, I'd judge his argument against Ms. Evans a strong one. I even agree with him about Mr. Wallace.

Next up, CM Emily Evans responds from the affluent 37205 zip. I did not see Mr. Summers listed among those in her blast audience, so I'm not entirely sure he got her message. Curious:

John has really jumped the gun on this one...and left out a few very important facts.

Shrinkage sponsor

First of all, John and I have never discussed this issue in any meaningful and in depth way so there is no way he can credibly tell you what I do or do not believe about the size of council and term limits. So, let me make a few points:

1. This amendment is designed to increase the term limit from 2 to 3. I strongly believe that term limits are detrimental to this city and its long term prosperity. Term limits makes it near impossible to address long term and difficult issues like mass transit and poverty. Why? because you need more than 8 years of work to solve these things. A total of 24 members. That's right, 60% of the council is term limited in 2015. Any issue, I don't care which one, will start at zero in September 2015 with a new council and a new Mayor. How can that be a good thing? PS: I am not running no matter what.
2. This Council action does nothing but put the question to the voters. John and anyone else on this list is welcome to vote no and convince others to do so.
3. This amendment was approved (a first I believe) by the Charter Revision Commission 5-1.  That Commission includes Dewey Branstetter, son of charter author Cecil Branstetter, long time Metro Law head, Jim Murphy, Hal Hardin, Susan Short Jones and Lorinda McLaughlin largely because they too recognized the damage such an onerous term limit does.
4. I am asking for a deferral tonight so I have time to get in front of community groups and neighborhood associations to discuss why I think it is important to let the voters consider this question.

Had John contacted me before sending the email below I am certain he would have produced a more thoughtful argument. So, instead of sending me your objections - which at this point are premature -could you please help me schedule a time to visit your group, Neighborhood Association, etc and make a presentation about this proposed amendment? I think I have a good case and would appreciate the courtesy of making it. If you disagree, so be it. But at least give me the chance John wishes to prevent.

It is worth noting that both Mr. Summers and Ms. Evans included a recently deceased neighborhood legend in their email blasts, Germantown's Ernest Campbell. I guess when one is really invested in a charter squabble, sensitivity is a casualty.

I would be curious to see how Ms. Evans herself can explain to associations how cutting their representation on Metro Council actually creates more democratic opportunities for them to influence council members from the grassroots.

It only makes sense to accept the argument that democratically organized groups would have stronger influence on a smaller council if one also accepts the argument that the organized money thrown at CMs by the wealthy would also have greater influence on a smaller council. A smaller council would be a wash for associations from that angle.

If neighborhood associations want greater influence with a smaller council, they are going to have to work on stronger relationships with like-minded associations. Otherwise, their influence will shrink with a smaller council. It stands to reason. It is the simplest explanation, barring the rationalizations of the smaller-is-better crowd. A charter change would mean even more groundwork for neighborhood organizers to task.

Meanwhile, there is still that nagging trump card: the Mayor would have an easier time executing his or her will over a smaller council than s/he does now. In the absence of a "neighborhoods Mayor" that is not good. I don't buy this bill of goods.


UPDATE: Over at her Facebook page, CM Evans is defending her support in the face of criticism from constituents. One comment that questioned whether she should be wasting her time on a charter amendment instead of representing her district stood out to me:

Our NA board and neighborhood advocates that I have heard from overwhelmingly advocate keeping the status quo as far as the number of district councilpersons in Metro. Emily, whether you are right or wrong, the combination that these neighborhood advocates are your root support group and the fact that votes for a smaller council have failed consistently over the years tells me that these efforts will fail, and will be a waste of your precious time that we have remaining with you on our Metro council. Our NA's 2 highest priorities are a downzoning for our neighborhood and the redevelopment of the 70/100 split. Other NA's also want to see this redevelopment. The very fact that we have not advanced as far as these issues is an ammunition in an argument against a larger council. Our fear is that in the next election we will get a pro business candidate who could care less about these issues. You have been a great councilperson and you can really achieve something with the 70/100 redo, but this council size thing will go down as one more failed attempt.

Why can't Emily Evans wait until she gets out of office and then organize people to lobby council to work on a referendum resolution?

Wallace and Summers Lurking about Council Tonight

I spotted former District 19 Council Member Ludye Wallace in the gallery during tonight's meeting. I've heard that he has been attending other meetings. He does not seem to want to bow out gracefully. It really is bad form to show up. He needs to give his successor, Erica Gilmore, more respect by staying away for a few months until she gets into the rhythm of being Council Member. He's like a shadow hanging over these proceedings. Someone needs to tell him that absence makes the heart grow fonder.

I also saw former Sylvan Park lightning rod John Summers, who at least had some reason beyond back-slapping to be there: he was speaking in favor of--get this--a car wash rezoning bill. That's right. The same John Summers who assisted in defeating last session's car wash exemption bill was speaking up for the same developer on a different car wash rezoning bill. Mr. Summers said that the car wash developer sat down with residents, and together they came up with an alternative site for building the wash.

However, when Mr. Summers made a reference to the old bill at the microphone, Vice Mayor Diane Neighbors stopped him quick and told him to stay on the bill currently before the session. He argued with her a bit, but he backed down and stayed within his allotted time to speak.

This Type of Mistake Gives Self-Important Mainstream Editors More Fodder Against Bloggers

A couple of days ago a commenter to V-Squared wondered in print:

Don’t you wonder if Briley had voted differently on the numerous unmaintained newstands littering certain sidewalks in Nashville that the Tennessean endorsement [for Karl Dean instead of David Briley] might have gone a different way? Somehow I have to think the two are connected.

The only way that comment makes any sense to me is if the commenter assumes that David Briley voted for the news rack regulation bill (that Mayor Purcell vetoed), and if he or she assumes that the Tennessean was using Mr. Briley's supposed support of newsrack regulation against him.

If such is what the commenter (and, in his re-posting, V-Squared Captain AC Kleinheider) intended, then the comment is in error. Here is the roll call vote on the passage of the news rack regulation bill:


David Briley clearly voted against the news rack bill and his own campaign manager, Mike Jameson, who was the bill's primary sponsor. So, if Mr. Briley would have voted differently, then he would have voted against the Tennessean, which opposed the regulation. How would that have gained him an endorsement?

We can criticize the Tennessean for a lot of things, but their endorsements so far do not necessarily suggest that they are using the news rack regulation as a litmus test for endorsements. While they endorsed Diane Neighbors (who abstained from voting without an explanation) against Carolyn Baldwin Tucker (who voted for the bill), they endorsed John Summers (who voted "yes") for at-Large and they did not endorse Buck Dozier (even though he abstained from voting without an explanation).

Indefinitely Deferred: Brakes Put on Passage of Car Wash Exemption Bill

Car Wash Exemption co-sponsor, Charlie Tygard, moved for indefinite deferral tonight of the controversial resolution that would allow new car wash developers to build without consideration of neighborhoods or the council member representing the district. Mr. Tygard said that he wants more time before 3rd and final reading to meet with the Nashville Neighborhood Alliance and with neighborhood association leaders about their opposition to the bill.

Exemption opponent John Summers attempted to table the Car Wash Exemption Bill altogether after Mr. Tygard moved to defer it. "Tabling" or "laying on the table" allows members to stop consideration of a bill without debating it.* The Chair declared Summers out-of-order, because the motion was to defer, not to vote on the bill. In an unexpected twist, exemption proponent Harold White immediately moved to table Mr. Tygard's deferral of the resolution. Council members defeated Mr. White's motion to table, 15-20. Then they approved Mr. Tygard's deferral by voice vote.

It appears that all of the neighborhood organizing since the public hearing has made a difference in slowing down the movement of this bill. It is common knowledge in local politics that council resolutions that make it to 3rd reading are usually guaranteed passage without much resistance. Rather than stopping to rest on their progress, neighborhood leaders and exemption opponents should seize the opportunity and the time they now have to help other leaders make the case to the Metro Council that BL2006-1178 serves only a small special interest group and that it is definitely not in the larger community's best interests.


* My copy of Robert's Rules of Order says that "tabling" is one of the most misused motions in meetings as it is often used to kill a motion and because the motion would not appear again on a future meeting unless it is taken off the table during the meeting in which it was tabled. Tabling is one of the few instances where a majority, instead of 2/3's of the legislative body, can take away members rights, which in the case of tabling would be the right to debate the motion.

Telling Moments from the Car Wash Exemption Debate on January 2

You should do yourself a favor and watch the two specific video files in the council archives that show the car wash exemption bill public hearing and the ensuing council debate. You should see these highlights for yourself:

• There was only one proponent to speak in favor of the car wash exemption during the Public Hearing. His name is Joe Meeks and he is one of the property owners intending to build a car wash. After his speaking time ended, Ludye Wallace (Dist. 19) came up to him, said something, and shook his hand. That may or may not be significant, but Ludye failed to show opponents such partiality.
• Mayoral candidate Buck Dozier (at Large) attempted to end Council debate on the car wash exemption bill immediately after the bill's two co-sponsors, Diane Neighbors and Charlie Tygard responded to the Public Hearing feedback. Dozier called for "the previous question"--which effectively ends deliberations and prompts a vote on the bill--before any bill opponents had the chance to speak. When the council voted on Dozier's motion, there were enough "no" votes to kill it and keep deliberations going. Buck Dozier has not yet disclosed any ties to car wash developers, even though he has built a substantial campaign war chest in his run for Mayor. Given his attempt to cut off debate, I am bound to ask whether Dozier is as committed as original sponsor Amanda McClendon to a "full and honest" debate. If we ever do find out his financial ties, this vote might hang like an albatross around his mayoral hopes.
• During council debate car wash exemption proponents kept referring to the Planning Commission's approval of their bill. However, when Ludye Wallace asked a Planning official whether he thought Tygard's defense of the bill was "true," the Planning official did not exactly leap forward with a glowing endorsement. He brushed Wallace off and he stated that the bill lacked conditions that the Planning Commission had recommended, including one "to address the needs for parking restrictions on automatic car washes." That official said he was in the middle of e-mailing Tygard about that omission when Ludye called on him. What a futile attempt to get rubber stamped that proved to be.
• Despite the fact that during the Public Hearing opponents of the exemption bill outnumbered proponents 3-to-1, Harold White (Dist. 14) barked to his fellows, "I do not believe that one group of two people coming from White Bridge Road to be against [the exemption bill] represents all of Davidson County." And one self-interested car wash developer does represent the County, Mr. White?
• John Summers (Dist. 24) cut to the chase in his opposing comments:

  [The car wash exemption] bill is here because there are some people that want to be able to put in a car wash where they want to put in a car wash. And rather than sitting down and working with you as the district Council Member and working with neighbors ... and working with other property owners and trying to find a compromise, they just want to be able to go down to Codes and get their permit.

Metro Council Ignores White Bridge Neighborhood Association

One of last night's council votes that passed under the mainstream media's radar was on the resolution that would exempt car washes from a previous bill that required certain businesses to get neighborhood approval. The council voted to approve the resolution on 2nd reading after a public hearing. One proponent, a vendor, spoke in favor of the bill; three opponents, including the White Bridge President, spoke against the bill.

Some White Bridge neighborhood leaders interpreted last night's exemption bill to be a means of sneaking previously denied businesses "in the back door." Council Member John Summers charged during the debate that that was exactly what was happening in one of his neighborhoods, which had rejected a car wash proposal. According to Summers that proposal came from the friend of exemption bill co-sponsor, Charlie Tygard.

For his part, Tygard argued that the businesses that could go into these commercial properties could be worse than a car wash (he mentioned over-21 video stores and halfway houses). And he argued that the car washes that were going in were going to be "upscale." He failed completely, along with co-sponsor Diane Neighbors or any other proponent of the bill, to address opponents' concerns about huge increases in traffic congestion. Summers stated during the debate that Metro Traffic and Parking would not commit to do anything to limit traffic overflow from the arterial streets into the neighborhoods.

At-large member Diane Neighbors apparently has her own public relations problems on this issue. Reportedly, she made earlier promises to neighborhood leaders about deferring this bill indefinitely. I have heard from a Nashville Neighborhood Alliance source that once again Diane Neighbors promised to defer this bill during last night's council meeting. However, after the public hearing closed she moved for approval (the bill will need to be voted on a third time at a future meeting in order to become law). Diane Neighbors gave no indication of motivation in her remarks, other than ex-council member and original bill co-sponsor Amanda McClendon never intended for car washes to be included in the original resolution providing for neighborhood support.

In my judgment, the absence of neighborhood leaders beyond the White Bridge Association allowed bill proponents to minimize and to marginalize the opponents of the bill. The council has shown itself to patronize business leaders at the expense of neighborhood associations. Yet, how many neighborhoods would welcome the congestion that car washes bring if they are given a choice? They had a choice--and probably their last opportunity--last night, and either the political will in the public is lacking or the larger inter-neighborhood alliances failed to mobilize their affiliates.

Can't-Lose Scenario

Is Mike Jameson a magic man? Either way he's in the catbird seat: either Lower Broad gets a historical overlay to bar future run-amuck development and it gets a scaled-down and greener Westin OR Council rejects the overlay and Jameson bails on the Westin, keeping Lower Broad as is. Just about every party involved in either scenario wins, except for the Westin if Jameson bails; but if Westin loses it is hardly a loss for Nashville (and do you want to make a bet that if they lose they come back to the table with a substantially altered alternative?). The Metro Council is over a barrel on this one. This is no retread of John Summers faced off against large numbers of his own constituents over an overlay; the Broadway merchants still benefit economically from a historic overlay because they have a huge hotel next door, which neutralizes their incentive to protest. Council members have to take this overlay very seriously and they are not going to vote for the Westin if the council member representing Lower Broad bails. This is a textbook example of how local governance sets up parameters for development for the sake of the larger community: it is a consummate give-and-take. Well played, Mike Jameson, well played.

Initial Impressions From Tonight's Council Meeting in Midstream

It looks to be a long meeting tonight, as Council has spent most of their time so far on amendments to be put on next year's ballot. Some initial impressions from those discussions:

• I saw John H. in attendance in the gallery and it was fun to watch him double over and crack up over Ludye Wallace's shoulder when Ludye lost track of the exact bill for which he was speaking in favor. I had to laugh myself when Ludye stopped and said, "Which one are we on?" But I laughed more heartily watching John. I look forward to a good write-up over at Salem's Lots, especially a review on how the new council chambers look.
• Some council members fail to understand the idea that we have a consolidated city and county government. Both Ludye and at-large member Carolyn Baldwin Tucker seemed to struggle with the idea that the council represents Davidson County rather than simply Nashville, which makes a difference when one is voting on a proposal to let voters decide whether the council can replace its own members. Remedial lessons in consolidation might be called for.
• John Summers actually had the gall to request that the sergeant-at-arms make absent council members come back from their breaks in other rooms for a vote that he deemed important. You recall that Summers seemed to pull an Elvis and left chambers back in January when his own controversial Sylvan Park overlay came up for consideration. While the chair overruled his motion because a quorum of members was present, it seems to me that a council member who was absent when the single most important bill he ever sponsored came up should restrain himself forever more from requesting that his fellows be forced back in.

The Story within the Story

In this week's Nashville Scene, William Dean Hinton provides some details about what Council member John Summers was allegedly doing while absent from Council Chambers back in January when his Sylvan Park zoning bill came up for consideration (an embarrassing story I told you shortly afterwards). According to Hinton, Mr. Summers might have been out in a back room bartering votes. Hinton's story cites an unidentified Council member, who confirms that Summers trades votes, and it cites a Whitland resident who claims that Summers cut a deal with fellow Council member Buck Dozier in a trade of support involving Summers's Sylvan Park/Whitland zoning bills and Dozier's electronic-billboard bill (with a player to be named later). Hinton speculates that the alleged deal did not work out well for Dozier, who came up one vote short on his electronic-billboard bill while Summers was out of the room supposedly dealing for votes. Hinton also provides e-mail evidence that indicates Summers' willingness to push limits on the state's open meeting laws.

All in all, the story on Summers is a dog-bites-man story that doesn't surprise those who watch John Summers operate. Nonetheless the question of whether Summers is violating the law is not insignificant. But the real story within this story, the man-bites-dog angle of Hinton's piece, is the possibility that a member who is actively running for Mayor may be dealing votes behind closed doors (an euphemism that includes e-mail correspondence). Mayoral candidate Buck Dozier denies that he made deals with Summers in the Hinton story, but if he actually is it would be one more strike against him in his bid to lead Metro (as if it weren't bad enough that he seems willing to legalize Vegasesque flashing billboards around my neighborhood--with no planning whatsoever--for the sake of a few more campaign contributions).

Summers Makes Own Bed And Takes It On The Chin

We are not surprised in the least by these results, and not because we believe that the winners had a just cause, either. There was no way that the tally would ever prove anything beyond which side could take advantage of a flawed voting process. All Council member John Summers can do now is defer the bills; otherwise, they will go down. But he's talking now with grandeur, like "his analysis" of the vote is going to make a dramatic difference with others. He doesn't seem to understand that he is not a neutral party and that his "analysis" will not be trusted. He continues to do disservice to the cause of conserving historic neighborhoods. He really did set the conservation cause up for failure in Sylvan Park, and he should just let go of this issue now and move on to other things.

Last Night's Silliest Moments

Besides Ludye Wallace's failed attempt to defer the ballpark bill last night based on the dopey reason, "two more weeks won't hurt anything," there were few really silly moments like in past council debates. However, a handful of other Council members did provide some material that left me shaking my head.

First, John Summers rose yet again to oppose the ballpark, but he based his opposition on a survey he said he conducted in Sylvan Park a couple of years ago. Hasn't this guy been in enough hot water with surveys of his neighborhood? My worst fear in the case that Mr. Wallace might have had his deferral pass was that Mr. Summers might come back two weeks from now with the announcement that he was working with Metro Legal to conduct a new mail survey of Sylvan Park attitudes about a new ballpark in order to put neighborhood controversy to rest.

Second, Carolyn Baldwin Tucker was locked into the term, "Memorandum of Understanding." While her peers adopted the abbreviation "MOU" in "PUD"-like fashion, Ms. Baldwin Tucker insisted on repeating "Memorandum of Understanding" so many times in her 5 minute talk against the ballpark that I stopped listening to what she was saying just for the sport of counting the number of times she repeated it.

Third, Eric Crafton compared Metro's commitment to pay the Sounds $500,000 per year in the lease agreement with his own hypothesis of building a house on Belle Meade Boulevard, paying for everything, and then charging Metro Nashville a small amount of cash per year to lease it to him. Umm, Eric? We are not inclined to buy season tickets (or any tickets for that matter) to watch you live or do whatever it is you would do in your Belle Meade dream-house.

The Biggest Losers In Tuesday's Metro Council Meeting

Those would be the well-intentioned and honest folks within the group of proponents of the Sylvan Park conservation overlay (you know who you are; I sure as hell cannot figure out which of you are) who originally pounded the pavement of the neighborhood to distribute and collect ballots. These people probably struck out believing in the fairness of their efforts and putting their faith in Council member John Summers, whose performance through this process has been somewhat short of admirable (not to mention the behavior of the opponents--who came off looking more like a rabble of Philistines and less like a well-organized, disaffected wing). Whether or not the overlay is passed, the good-hearted souls among the proponents deserved a better fate.

And as Bruce Barry over at PiTW maintains, the new "independent" poll is not likely to be an instrument of anyone's better fate.

The Tiny Truths Of "Cat-Herding"

The ballpark deal seems all but done, and not simply because, as the mainstream media puts it, bills that get through 2nd reading usually pass making 3rd reading all but formality. Opponents still have opportunities to kill this bill (the deferral of the Sylvan Park conservation overlay bill at its third reading indicates that) and both sides seem entrenched and unmoved from their positions. I think that margin in the vote taken last night is more evidentiary. I first interpreted the slim vote (15-16) defeating an attempt to defer the ballpark bill one meeting as an indicator that the Council was almost evenly divided on the ballpark. That possibility did not bode well for ballpark supporters, given all of the time and deliberation put into the matter over the past year. I was surprised then, when the bill passed by a relatively wide margin (21-12). Some minor changes may be made before 3rd reading, but the margin passed signals to me that it will be passed on 3rd reading, too.

--------------------------

After proponents of the ballpark bill argued that the $250,000 increase in maintenance costs per year of the proposed ballpark would not be taken from education or the hospital (particularly given education's multi-million dollar budget increases) Council member-at-large David Briley took exception. Briley, one of the more vigorous opponents, got public confirmation from the Metro legal official present that the extra "$250,000 would be taken from the general budget" to cover the increase. Briley repeated emphatically and without qualification that money would indeed be taken from education and the hospital. What he failed to mention and what proponents failed to drive home: if the Sounds stay at Greer, as much as $5 million extra dollars would have to pulled from education and the hospital to bring Greer up to ADA compliance. As vigorous as Briley's opposition is, so go his exaggerations about the cost impact to other Metro services. The fact that a new ballpark would save Metro $5 million makes the extra $250,000 per year a wash. That puts me back where I started: grudging support of a new ballpark.

--------------------------

Twilight Zone episode of the night: Sylvan Park Council member John Summers simply disappeared at the time that the Sylvan Park overlay bill came up for third reading and passage. After introducing and reading the resolution, Vice Mayor Howard Gentry looked around the room and asked, "Has Councilman Summers left the building?" The next sequence slipped further into weirdness. Rip Ryman rose and moved to defer third reading of the overlay to June. At that point Summers re-emerged and asked Ryman to withdraw the deferral so that he could make his own motion to defer. Ryman sat stone-faced straight ahead making no acknowledgement of Summers. Summers then moved to table Ryman's motion. Ludye Wallace stood to say correctly that Summers' motion to table was out-of-order since a member who wants to table a motion cannot rise for any other reason. Summers was eventually rescued when someone else moved to table Ryman's motion and tabling passed. At that point Vice Mayor Gentry with some irritation announced, "I have already read the caption [on the original Sylvan Park bill] and Councilman Summers was out of the room so I hope he read the motion. I need a motion from him." Summers stood and said, "I'm going to make a similar motion on Whitland." Gentry stopped him and replied, "We are on the Sylvan Park motion. Can we please discuss the motion on Sylvan Park?!" Summers said, "Yeah, but I want to say that I'm going to make a similar motion on Whitland." After taking some parting shots at overlay opponents, Summers moved to defer the Sylvan Park ordinance indefinitely (Council approved). When the motion to defer the Whitland zoning came up, Summers used some of his time to repeat anecdotes about dissension in Sylvan Park. Clearly John Summers is allowed way too much time to speak; but I wish I could have been a fly on Gentry's desk at that moment just to glimpse his nonverbals up close. After the motion to defer the Whitland ordinance was introduced, Council member Wallace then asked how Sylvan Park and Whitland residents would be notified of the new vote. Vice Mayor asked Summers to address the question; Summers redirected: "I hope that opponents will respect the results of this vote." Vice Mayor cut him off repeating that Wallace's question was about notification. Gentry ended the episode in frustration, saying, "I can't give an inch around here today." This episode is just further proof that dealing with this Council is akin to "herding cats."

--------------------------

Comic relief of the night unfortunately came early rather than late:

Ludye [Wallace] was on the Council then [in 1977 when Council was deliberating the plan to build Greer Stadium]. In fact, you've been on every Council haven't you, Ludye?

--Larry Schmittou, who was being honored at the beginning of Council Meeting for being inducted into the Tennessee Sports Hall of Fame

Metro Council Votes To Defer Sylvan Park Conservation Overlay Indefinitely

Council member John Summers moved to defer indefinitely the bill that would have changed Sylvan Park's zoning at tonight's Council meeting. He told Council that the deferral would allow Metro to mail out ballots to residents to gauge support and opposition to a conservation overlay, which then could be made clear to the Council. The bill had been up on third and final reading before Council supported the deferral.

Does Six-Figure Funding Automatically Lend Objectivity and Credibility?

I was struck this morning by the counterpoint of two Nashville City Paper articles only columns apart from each other. One the one hand, Belmont University, a partner with the local music industry, conducted a study that found a multi-billion dollar impact by the music industry on Nashville. On the other hand, Council member John Summers catches criticism for conducting a poll to determine support for and opposition to a Sylvan Park conservation overlay, using proponents of the overlay to gather the information.

It seems to me that if one is going to criticize the use of proponents to gather info in one study (Sylvan Park), then one must also criticize the use of a proponent to gather info in the other study (music industry). To put it another way, if an independent source should have gathered info on attitudes to a conservation overlay because proponents are too embedded to be objective, then we should not accept Belmont's findings as objective without a more independent review of the data. Belmont might be too invested in the outcome of its study of the music industry to be objective.

Belmont sunk six-figure funding into its study, while Summers relied on volunteers. But let's be fair about this. That difference should not give Belmont's situation more credibility than the Council member's situation.

Simply Gruesome

There are so many things wrong with the local print coverage of the latest lurid Sylvan Park episode in last night's Council chambers, not the least of which are a lack of some of the more revolting details in the debate and the total absence of a tally of which Council members voted "aye" and "nay."

Some of the more horrid, and yet, ignored details:

• One overlay opponent during the public hearing referred to "John Summers and his lackeys," leading to an interruption and scolding by Vice Mayor Howard Gentry.
• Some overlay proponents painted overly romanticized, halcyon pictures of old Sylvan Park with farm animals running around and children riding horses to school; one overlay opponent publicly scoffed at those admittedly maudlin portraits and derided proponents by offering to buy some sheep and goats cattle* and let them loose to roam the neighborhood.
• Lisa Ferris (who according to one rumor may be a candidate for Metro Council) showed little parliamentary restraint during her address as she went over her time in her remarks and had to be cut off by the Chair.
• Area Council member John Summers told the Council that Lisa Ferris had taken out a building permit on her house, thus "grandfathering" it in as an exception to the conservation overlay, if passed on third reading. He said that all opponents are free to grandfather their houses in.
• In true "yes, they are-no, they aren't" fashion that would make a kindergartener proud, opponents continued to insist that all houses would "be regulated" by the overlay, while Summers continued to argue that only those built prior to 1945 would be. Who knows what the truth is.
• Two proponents insisted that their names were included on the opponents name list as presented to the Council, even after they demanded that their names removed. Summers said that there were people on the opponents' resident list who do not even live in Sylvan Park.
• Proponents speakers included neighborhood leaders from Richland-West End and Cherokee Park, both of whom stated that conservation overlays had been positive for their neighborhoods, and that many of their concerns beforehand have yet to materialize. This seemed to be the biggest strike against the opponents: they had no neighborhood leaders from elsewhere to testify that fears about conservation overlay in Sylvan Park had materialized elsewhere. That would have really bolstered their case.
• Council member Buck Dozier complained (along with opponents) about Council member Ginger Hauser's call for the "Previous Question," that brought the Summers bill up for a vote with no further Council debate. (Dozier, who voted against the bill, seemed to get a figurative wink-and-nod from an overlay opponent who said from the public podium, "My kids went to school with Buck.") But parliamentary procedure allows for bill opponents to stop the previous question and defeat the bill. And there is still the third reading of the bill, where this debate could be picked up again.
• I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard opponents say, "The largest conservation overlay ever," as if it were some kind of indictment. Geez, get off that one; will ya? Somebody's got to be the biggest.

See all the heinous stuff you miss if you rely on the morning papers for details about the Sylvan Park spat?

*Upon further review of the Council meeting, the derisive opponent actually offered to buy cattle. When he originally spoke, I guess I was picturing livestock lesser than cows, steers, and oxen roaming Sylvan Park. Sheep and goats seem sufficient to convey his mockery. Hell, even chickens and ducks would do. The choice of cattle seems like oversell. But nonetheless, I stand corrected.

Metro Council Approves Conservation Overlay For Sylvan Park On Second Reading

After 2 1/2 hours of contentious and at times mean-spirited public comments on Council member John Summers' bill to apply the largest conservation overlay in Nashville, Metro Council approves 23-10 on second reading.

Things Seemed To Turn Nasty All The Way Around Sylvan Park

William Dean Hinton's story in this week's Nashville Scene on the controversy around zoning protection in Sylvan Park paints a fairly unattractive picture of the embroiled principals.

On the one hand, Council member John Summers (who supports the zoning overlay along with at least 116 voting members of the association) is portrayed as a bully who used neighborhood association by-laws to defeat opponents. On the other hand, zoning overlay opponents apparently started attending neighborhood association meetings merely to disrupt the process and then 116 opponents became new dues-paying members just before Monday night's vote.

Lost in the haze between Summer's cheeky disrespect and his opponents' cynical, single-issue obsession is the pressing matter of what would be best for the Sylvan Park neighborhood. And I would sure as hell not want to be a member of that association right now; they have got one big royal mess beyond the zoning issue to purge. In the wake of the seemingly noxious discontent, they have to find some trust and common purpose.

Ethics And The Metro Council: Banning Meals-For-Deals Is An Appropriate First Step, But Only The First

September is upon us. That means it's time for the Metro Council to consider the question of ethics that they deferred at the end of June because the majority of them wanted to focus singularly on the budget rather than to multitask and to pass meaningful ethics legislation sooner rather than later. Unless they vote to defer it again, they are going to have to so something with their own Ethics Task Force's recommendations.

The first step at least 21 of them appear willing to take is to ban business and other private associations from providing their meals on Council nights. Unlike the current Council practice of accepting gifts over $25.00 without publicly reporting those gifts, the free meal program is not a huge influence-peddling mechanism. One free dinner from Group X is not nearly the same as accepting free Titans game tickets from Group Y's Personal Seat License or Season Suite arrangement. Therefore, the biggest ethics test for the Council is not this one. The biggest one is down the road: Council-at-Large member David Briley's bill requiring the Council's public accountability on gifts over $25.00.

In the meantime, I endorse the current bill that would ban free meals from private groups. It is an appropriate first step that at least indicates that members are willing to appear above reproach. I am disappointed to see that groups with whom I am sympathetic--like the Arts Commission, neighborhood associations, the education association, and Tying Nashville Together--chose to participate in the meal-for-deals program. I understand the logic of tapping into power networks, but the propriety of the tap-lines should have been questioned. Rather than raising red flags and asking hard questions, many groups just went along for the ride.

Having said that, I hasten to add that banning meals-for-deals does not go far enough as an ethical corrective. The Ethics Task Force did not even bother with it, because it represents such a piddling amount of money compared to unreported gifts to Council members. I hope that Council members Michael Craddock and John Summers and the other 21 sponsors of this bill aren't using it as a bone thrown out to us so that they can say they voted for meaningful ethics reform, while at the same time they both riddle Council member Briley's ethics bill and decimate the recommendations of the Ethics Task Force. Council member Charlie Tygard's resolution to defer ethics discussions to September was not a hopeful sign in June; even so, let's hope the meals-for-deals ban is a portent of important reform to come, rather than simply window dressing to cover the unchecked flow of gifts to Council members.