What do you call 100 developers at the bottom of the ocean?

Once again with the old bait-and-switch:

Developers promised something different. Residents thought they were getting a development that included buildings and a green area. Instead, they now live beside a dump.

"It's supposed to be a greenway, a little pond and trees and benches to sit on," said James Mullins.

He and others near the Antioch community feel deceived by what is on the 44 acre tract of land beside Mullins' home.

There are huge mounds of concrete and gravel.

Neighbors claim property owners are gaming the system.

"This is unacceptable," said Metro Councilwoman Karen Y. Johnson.

Johnson said she attended a public meeting last year in which developers promised to build homes, industrial properties and a green area with a pond.

"There was no talk in the meeting about the operation that is occurring there today," Johnson said as she looked over the site.

Unless developers are willing to put their promises in writing, always verify before you trust. Caveat emptor.

By the way this story included comments from the developer's engineer, Roy Dale, who has also been working with developers in Salemtown:

Now, tanker trucks can legally dump things like drilling fluid on the site.

NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked a spokesman for the owners when the recycling and dumping will stop on the property.

Roy Dale responded, "I don't know that I can answer that question."

Dale is the engineer and represents the owners in front of Metro Boards.

NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked, "Do the owners have a clear vision for what is going to be here?"

Dale responded, "I think yes. At the end of the day it's going be a commercial industrial site no doubt about it."

NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked, "Do they have a clear vision on a timetable?"

Dale responded, "Probably not."

He admitted the recycling facility is the main focus on the property right now, but insists he is trying to get the owners to start building what they originally promised soon.

"I think that's something they should do. And I think it's something that ya'll have probably helped to happen, and I think that's a good thing," Dale said.

We shall see whether this is savvy public relations or a good-will expectation of promises fulfilled.

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.

The larger point

One thing you can say about the debate over Mayor Karl Dean's paradoxical plan to give LifePoint tax breaks for a move over the county line to get back a few tax revenues: at least it hasn't been conducted like last July's IQT relocation debacle. Before Canada realized it, Nashville offered IQT subsidies to lay off 1,200 Canadians. Before the news media realized it, social media reported that IQT shuttered completely. Before Karl Dean realized it, IQT announced that they would not be coming to Nashville.

At least in the case of LifePoint, it feels more transparent than it did with respect to IQT, which finally declared bankruptcy in November, and is now facing government pressure to meet its financial obligations of worker compensation.

While LifePoint does not stand to be the same unmitigated embarrassment, the buckling blow to the Mayor's narrow, unexamined thrust of economic development, it generates a new set of obstacles that can hurt an administration that just claimed that it had no clue that the state orchestrated the diversion of sales taxes from Metro coffers to the Nashville Predators. For all the times we're admonished to trust the Mayor's access to information, he seems to come up clued out when the chips are down (cue IQT).

The most glaring obstacle is the Dean Administration's readiness to overbarter in order to sate commercial desires even at the expense of the balance that reason brings. One prominent Nashvillan described the LifePoint deal to me thusly, "Giving away an eroding resource to move less than a few miles into our county. If they needed consolidated space, then that alone should be enough incentive." But Metro is bound and determined to pile up special-interest incentives at greater future risk to service to the rest of us.

Consistent with past unwillingness to rock Rich Riebeling's boat, the Tennessean reporters editorialized the move as a "victory for Davidson County" and a "significant boost" for the area on north of the Williamson County line.

They also claimed the move will "boost" Metro tax revenues, even though the Mayor's bill before the Metro Council (co-sponsored by CM Sean McGuire, CM Brady Banks, and CM Karen Johnson) requires LifePoint to pay zero property taxes the first 4 years, markedly less than half of property taxes the 7 year after that, and only 75% of property taxes until year 15 of their lease. At that rate how can the Tennessean reporters claim that LifePoint is going to "boost" our revenues with any journalistic credibility?

Incidently, The council could also give LifePoint a break on personal property taxes for roughly $50 million worth of computers, software and other equipment (like "supplemental HVAC," a.k.a. "extra air conditioning for computers") that will go into the data center that it plans at the new building. What computer equipment lasts 15 years?

So, the other obstacle to this project is the Mayor's own logic behind how revenues work. With a decade and a half of paying no or very few property taxes on their property, how is LifePoint supposed to be bringing new revenue into Davidson County coffers? Depending on when LifePoint takes up occupancy, Karl Dean could be done with his last term as Mayor by the time the healthcare company starts paying any revenues to Metro.

But Hizzoner insists to all those media who will listen with unconditional regard that deferred scratch is better than none at all:

“If this project didn’t exist – if we didn’t do this arrangement, they would be paying no taxes. So you’re talking about taxes that only exist because we’re doing this deal. And then you start talking about the things that come from this deal.”

Dean says jobs will flow from construction of the headquarters, spurring restaurants and shopping that could lure other investment. And Dean says jobs in the healthcare sector build on one of Nashville’s core strengths, saying “LifePoint could be anywhere they want to be.”

Again with benefits for the restaurant industry? That was a talking point used to sell Music City Center, too.

This seems like just another expansion of the Dean bubble, a small chimera in a sequence of capital plans--convention center, fairgrounds redevelopment, new ballpark among them--that form a slickly marketed, yet profoundly ungrounded dream of a common good.

LifePoint looks like one more notch on the baton of a Mayor who would someday be King. But after IQT, can we have faith that the Mayor has thought out this process carefully or that Nashville won't be fooled again?