Newspaper repeats: TDOT says that stopping noise they make possible is Salemtown's task

I was wondering when this story was going to show up. Given that this project started almost a year ago, the Tennessean seems to be playing catch-up at a very late stage. Reporter Nancy DeVille sort of portrays some of the frustrations Salemtown residents have expressed with TDOT:

This is how SouthComm steamrolls

Last week Southcomm Publisher Chris Ferrell took time away from the task of purchasing the Nashville Scene to tweet a reply to my post defending CM Mike Jameson's attempt to delay the Mayor's proposal to create a convention center authority. Ferrell compared Jameson's use of council rules to the actions of my former District 19 council member, Ludye Wallace:

on the council rules post - that's an old Ludye Wallace trick and not what the rule was intended for

What bothers me most about Ferrell's response are the insinuations in the word "trick" about motivations and intentions. Tricks are acts meant to deceive people, and I learned fairly quickly while being Ludye's constituent that there usually seemed to be some hidden vice in his council actions. I found Ludye's deceit to be about talking as if he were representing the community while merely serving himself.

For all of his talk about listening to constituents, he never responded to e-mails or attended neighborhood meetings. The one discussion I had with him face-to-face about one of his bills, he argued incessantly with me and seemed to close his mind to my perspective. He promised to have community meetings on development issues and did not.

Ludye earmarked thousands of dollars for private non-profits likely to return favors later and ignored Metro Park pleas to use council discretionary funds to provide summer youth programming as community centers reduced hours in tight budget times. He attempted to redirect funds that would have helped struggling families pay their utility bills to a non-profit tennis program. He went to bat for a growth-focused university against the Rose Park neighborhood and its sense of character. Speaking of character, Ludye has not exactly been a model. He grew grass on his properties that was code-violating tall and he was indicted for his patronage of gambling houses.

And he only did that just while I was paying attention to him.

Ferrell may have served on council with both Ludye and Jameson, but his attempt to criticize squeaky clean MJ with a comparison to Ludye is patently absurd. Mike Jameson's tenure on Metro Council is broadly characterized as above reproach. Jameson listened to his constituents. He expressed hesitance at the one request I made of him when I lived in his East Nashville district, but he said he would raise the issue in council if I were set on it. He held community meetings. He recommended discretionary funds not for patronizing non-profits but for public infrastructure. His opponents may not like his stance on the issues, but they can hardly pin anything on him with regard to ulterior motives.

Jameson's attempts to slow down the Mayor's rush-to-convention-center have been telegraphed and broadcast. His use of the rules to guarantee that questions bubbling up from the public get answered were fairly predictable. Where's the sleight of hand? More importantly, where is the arrogant selfishness that marked the tricks of Ludye Wallace? How does it serve Mike Jameson to plant himself in front of Karl Dean's steamroller or to risk his political career by taking on McNeely, Pigott, and Fox (who besides Dean counts Phil Bredesen and scores of other Tennessee big shots as close friends)?

The reality of the situation is that Ludye Wallace never would have attempted to stop the Mayor's convention center proposal, because the Mayor would have already thrown Ludye whatever bone he asked for. Ludye never would have taken the risk to oppose on principle. Standing up for the right thing "tho the heavens fall" is not Ludye's style. Being a Salty Papa is.

The irony here is that Ludye is now a paid lobbyist for the Mayor's convention center plan. The Nashville Convention and Visitors Bureau is paying him $1,500 to be a "minority representative" with council relationships and knowledge of council procedure. Too bad that amount won't cover the $2,000 he lost on June 2, 2006 visiting "constituents" in a gambling house a few blocks west of the street where I live. I don't hear any trepidation from Chris Ferrell about Ludye's influential new position.

In lumping Ludye and MJ, either Ferrell is riding the Dean steamroller himself or he knows something about a dark side to Jameson that none of the rest of us do. Having watched both CMs, I consider Ferrell's short burst at Jameson serious, and I would like to know more about what sort of Ludye-like deceit he believes that Jameson was intending. I've asked him to clarify, but he has not responded. That's the mark of tactical attempts to undermine credibility rather than exhibition of authentic attempts to join the debate and to answer all questions.

I have yet to understand why advocates of the Music City Center might be more offended that Jameson is demanding answers from the Mayor before moving ahead than they should be at the pummelling Mayor's managers have given the Metro budget.

In the end, though, Ferrell has to concede that if Mike Jameson attempted to trick people by derailing the Dean express, then Vice Mayor Diane Neighbors and 15 other council members exercised their own form of deceit in arranging, staging, and executing last Friday's defeat of Jameson's actions. They did not exactly take the high road. One could interpret their actions as a use of the Charter against the intentions and spirit of the Charter.

If the Southcomm publisher truly believes that Jameson was morally wrong for exercising a privilege that the Charter gives him to delay the process in order to have the Mayor's office answer a few questions, then he cannot without self-contradiction excuse convention center proponents for using the rules against Jameson deceitfully. Two wrongs don't make a right, unless you're riding the Karl Dean steamroller.

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.

Papa Saved Some Salt for Briley

Tuesday night during the discussion of the proposed budget a verbal scrap broke out between members Ludye Wallace and David Briley over 9 amendments that different members wanted to add that would have transferred funds from certain line items to non-profit organizations (no surprise there).

Ludye wanted to introduce his amendments and call the names of several other members to offer their amendments. He seemed to be angry that some, like Mr. Briley--who had challenged whether other members could follow Ludye to attempt to amend just because their names were called--were going to cut off debate before they had their chance.

Referring to Mr. Briley's candidacy for Mayor, Ludye accused him of trying to pass a budget without any debate. Ludye also claimed to be acting in the best interests of "the public" (he did not specify the particular subsection of "the public" outside of non-profits whose interests he was defending). Ludye snapped at the at-Large Member, "Some of us aren't running for re-election." Maybe not. But the only reason that Ludye Wallace was standing there scolding David Briley was that he had done whatever it took to get re-elected in the past. Now, facing term limits and out of options, Ludye didn't have a credible leg on which to stand and take shots at other members who are now running.

To his credit, David Briley responded to Ludye by acknowledging that the two of them agree on "almost nothing." However, he added that out of respect for the long tenure of the District 19 Member, Mr. Briley would yield the balance of his time to Ludye in order to allow him to introduce his amendments for a vote, and thus, he blocked the cut-off of debate against a budget bill that he was co-sponsoring.

I thought that was a classy move that Mr. Briley never had to make. It allowed Ludye to introduce his amendments (all of which were tabled, and thus, killed) and to call the names of other members who had amendments (all of which were also tabled). It showed much more class than Ludye returned. The best Ludye could offer was a clipped "thanks" to David Briley when his time had run out. But Ludye Wallace has rarely been mistaken for gracious or humble.

Meeting Tonight on Belmont/Rose Park Strife

There was a Community Meeting on Belmont University's proposal to use an Edgehill public park earlier tonight, but I don't know how it went because I only received word of it late this afternoon and I could not attend. According to the notice representatives from both Belmont and the Parks Board were to participate.

It would have been interesting to see whether Organized Neighbors of Edgehill participated since they were given the chance to present their case against Belmont and Metro in court, which puts a halt to the plan's progress through the Planning Commission and Metro Council. District 19 Council Member Ludye Wallace was the sponsor of tonight's meeting.

This the 4th Day Since Councilman Ludye Wallace Declared That He Would Hold a Community Meeting in Salemtown

No word from our Council Member on the promised community meeting on rezoning at 6th and Garfield.

This the 2nd Day Since Councilman Ludye Wallace Declared That He Would Hold a Community Meeting in Salemtown

Still awaiting that annoucement of date, time, and place to discuss what Salemtown apparently fails to understand about the rezoning at 6th and Garfield.

Tennessean Posts Names of Some Possible Metro Council District 19 Candidates

According to Tennessean reporter Michael Cass, the District 19 seat (currently held by term-limited Ludye Wallace) has two more names of possible candidates to be added with Janice Davis and others that Cass leaves unnamed. Erica Gilmore, daughter of Council Member Brenda Gilmore, and Michael McDonald, who was fired from his election administrator post in 2004, both have picked up qualifying petitions for the open seat, which is to be filled in August.


UPDATE: Sean Braisted sent me a list of all of the candidates for Council who have filed so far. Janice Davis is not among the 6 who have filed. Besides Gilmore and McDonald, here are the other candidates: Cathie Dodd, Freda Player (whom Sean mentions in the comments below), James Turner II, and Maurice Walker.

Roll Call Vote on Last Night's Motion to Defer Controversial Hermitage PUD

Below is the breakdown of votes from the Council's deferral of J.B. Loring's and Harold White's bill to allow a medical building to expand beyond what it had originally proposed when it first moved into the Hermitage neighborhood, which is learning that if you let the camel's nose under the tent at first, the whole animal is bound to push its way in eventually.

First, here's how the candidates running for office in August voted. Mayoral candidate David Briley voted to defer, as did Vice Mayoral candidate Carolyn Baldwin Tucker. Mayoral candidate Buck Dozier, who is consistently pro-business expansion at the expense of neighborhoods, voted against deferral. At-Large candidates Charlie Tygard and Loring voted against deferral.

The 15 council members (with the exception of new member Jim Hodge) who voted against Sam Coleman's deferral for more community feedback, seem to qualify as a consistently pro-business, ambivalent-toward-neighborhoods block:

• Dozier
• Michael Craddock
• Jason Hart
• Jim Forkum
• Rip Ryman
• Feller Brown
• Jim Gotto
• Carl Burch
• Loring
• Ed Whitmore
• Eric Crafton
• Randy Foster
• Jim Hodge
• Parker Toler
• Tygard

The only surprise in the group that voted to defer was Ludye Wallace, who generally votes with the block that voted against deferral. I'm sure Ludye will come back around on March 20, after co-sponsors make little or no effort to address community concerns. Here is the group of 22 voting for deferral of the re-zoning and on behalf of concerned residents:

• Tucker
• Briley
• Adam Dread
• Brenda Gilmore
• Jamie Isabel
• Lisa Hunt
• Pam Murray
• Mike Jameson
• Erik Cole
• Anna Page
• Ginger Hausser
• Wallace
• Billy Joe Walls
• Emily Evans
• John Summers
• Jim Shulman
• Greg Adkins
• Jason Alexander
• Vivian Wilhoite
• Coleman
• Robert Duvall
• Lynn Williams

Absent: White, Diane Neighbors, and Ronnie Greer

This is one of those votes we should keep in mind at election time, especially as it is a strike against candidates Dozier, Tygard, and Loring, unless they change their tune on March 20.

Quote of the Moment

Let's face it, what [Metro Council's monolingual] bill is really about is curtailing the influx of Mexicans. We all know it. It's kind of silly to deny it. It's not written into the law, but stopping African Americans from voting was not written into the Poll Tax, the Literacy requirements, or any other Jim Crow laws. The similarities are too close for my liking.

- - Slartibartfast at Nashville is Talking

That's taking the Metro Council down a couple notches right where they deserve to be: 23 of them approved a resolution that could amount to warmed over Jim Crow. Even several African American Council Members like District 19's own Ludye Wallace and Member at-Large and Vice Mayoral Candidate Carolyn Baldwin Tucker voted for this resolution. What of the lessons of history?

Candidate Announces Run for the 19th District Council Seat

Blogger Sean Braisted is reporting that Janice Davis announced her intention tonight to run for the District 19 Council Seat, which will be vacated by term-limited Ludye Wallace at the end of the year. If it is the same Janice Davis who appeared in a January 18 News 2 report on her opposition in the Edgehill Neighborhood of a Belmont University plan to expand sports facilities into public Rose Park, then the ostensible impression she left with me is not bad. She tells Metro officials introducing the plan:

This is our lives, our houses, our homes, and I think you all have to remember that you are our employees.

Ms. Davis does live in the district she would represent.

Council Ethics Splashed in Print

The Car Wash Exemption/Campaign Ethics Boondoggle hits hard copy this morning. Nothing much new to the story. Outside of the newsprint, we're still left with the images of Ludye Wallace shaking a car wash developer's hand after the latter spoke as the sole proponent of car wash exemption and the irony of Harold White's argument that the Council should not be influenced by a few neighborhood association people (he forgot to add "unless those few people want to build some car washes"). We can add to those Diane Neighbors's rather perplexing, equivocal comment to the Tennessean that she has not worked "for" or "against" this bill, even as she has received campaign help from car wash developers. If she has not worked "for" the bill, then why did she vote "for" it twice? Wouldn't a bill sponsor not working "for" or "against" a bill abstain when it came time to vote? Or better yet, why wouldn't she just shepherd the bill to the leadership of another co-sponsor to bring through the process in order to keep her name from being tied to the fortunes of special business interests?

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.

Wallace Craps Out

I know gambling. This is not gambling.

- - Council Member Ludye Wallace speaking tonight in support of his resolution requesting election lotteries

Wallace's bid to ask the Davidson County Delegation to the General Assembly to propose a constitutional amendment providing for state-wide and local election lotteries (a.k.a., paying people to vote) failed miserably by 20 or so votes. Wallace did get "aye" votes from 4 fellow members. He promised to bring another resolution that would ask the State Lege to enact a fee on voting-age Tennesseans who do not vote in elections.

Down In Flames

Council Member Ludye Wallace's resolution asking the State Lege to pay people to vote in order to encourage voter turnout looked to be buried by snowballing, vociferous opposition until Wallace moved to defer it before it could be crucified by council vote. Not too surprising that The Gambler came up with the bright idea of twisting voting into a numbers game.

I Don't Remember a More Intelligent Metro Council Bill

Kudos to Council Member Mike Jameson, for introducing and shepherding this important ordinance through the Metro Council. What this complex ordinance does in a nutshell is to remove the responsibility of property owners for any leaks in their water or sewer line past their own meters. Previously residents were legally and financially responsible for repairs to the water and sewer lines between their meters and the water mains buried beneath the streets. That is patently illogical. Why should home and business owners be responsible for any repairs not underneath their own property?

Ludye Wallace admitted during debate on the second reading of Jameson's bill that a church in his district faced the enormous expense of water line repair and that he could not get anything done on this in the past. I am not at all surprised that Mike Jameson was able to get something done where others failed. He is the kind of representative that all of us deserve. The bill is up for third reading next Tuesday, so please contact your council representatives and encourage them to vote for ORDINANCE NO. BL2006-1239, unless of course you want to pay for any repairs to the water lines not under your property.

"Memorializing," Which Means, "It Is Toothless"

After the state dropped this, Ludye Wallace took it up. However, because Ludye's resolution is a "memorializing" resolution it is merely a request that no one has to respond to. Chalk it up to empty posturing that eats up Council time.

Late Wallace MNEA Resolution Defeated

District 19 Council Member Ludye Wallace attempted to introduce a "late" resolution (i.e., a bill not on the original agenda) at tonight's council meeting that would have asked the Metro Nashville Education Association to reconsider its vote to turn down private donor incentive pay for Alex Green and Inglewood teachers based on student test performance. Wallace maintained that the bill was an "emergency," because Council would not be meeting again until after the private offer was slated to be withdrawn. Another council member objected to Wallace's motion, thus defeating it immediately.

Neither elementary school is in Ludye Wallace's own district. I wonder whom he is doing favors for on this one.

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.

Other Dubious Ordinances Up For Council Consideration Tomorrow Night

• Ludye Wallace's Chain Link Fence Bill: would prohibit said fences along arterial and collector streets. Originally, Ludye wanted to prohibit all front-yard fences. After some constituent pressure, he dropped that dumber version of this dumb bill, which was good for me because we are putting up a lovely new picket fence this week in our front yard without any Metro interference. Ludye is just going after people with chain link fences along the street, which includes the local big business, Werthan Packing, unless he has worked out some sort of deal to exempt owner Tony Werthan from compliance. However, the Metro Council Office seems to be waving a red flag about this bill:
  

  The council office would point out that this ordinance could result in a substantial cost to the Metropolitan Government, especially schools, if Metro facilities were required to have stone, brick or wood fences.

  We shall see if money is an object when this bill comes up for a vote on the second of three readings tomorrow night.
• Charlie Tygard's Selectively Applied Residency Bill: would amend Metro Laws to require elected Metro employees making more than $100,000 per year to be residents of Davidson County. This bill seems to be mainly targeted at the Mayor's Office. The Metro Council lawyers have deemed Tygard's proposed ordinance (also up for second reading) to be unconstitutional:
  

  While the United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is valid to require that employees of local governments be residents of the jurisdiction of the government, such a residency requirement must be uniformly applied to satisfy constitutional muster. The residency requirement in this ordinance would only apply to those persons working for certain elected officials that make in excess of $100,000, and therefore would not be uniformly applied to similarly situated employees.

  Looks like Tygard's bill runs the risk of further clogging our courts with frivolous litigation should Metro Council pass it. Why is Council even wasting time on a law that cannot be applied uniformly?
• Bordering on dubious is Vivian Wilhoite's & Randy Foster's proposed ordinance to require Metro Departments to send reports on costs of copies and publications that council members can already request themselves if they are so interested. Do we really need another law to institutionalize what council members should be doing by their own initiative? Isn't running down important information why we elect and pay them? The council office issued this comment to council members in light of its third reading tomorrow night:

  The council office would remind members of council that several of the large publications prepared by various Metro departments are required by council ordinance.

• What are the odds that council member J.B. Loring will once again announce the percentages of phone calls from "Caucasian people of the United States" vs. phone calls from "people of foreign descent" when his anti-illegal-immigration ordinance comes up on third reading?