Being a council progressive means shielding the corporate polluters

False reporting? New anti-litter ordinance won't prohibit that yellow roll of spam litter.

Less than 24 hours ago WSMV reporter Patrick McMurtry contacted me to get my views on a council ordinance to regulate the delivery of non-subscription materials to homes (like when the Tennessean throws their "free Wednesday edition", which is full of advertising circulars). He asked me to call him. I reminded Mr. McMurtry via Twitter that the ordinance to discourage the Tennessean from littering our neighborhoods was defeated in June.

I didn't blog about the ordinance in June because I was more concerned about the move to shrink the council. That is where I put all the writing energy that I had. Several years ago I blogged at length about a similar ordinance that was designed to regulate the proliferation of news racks in neighborhoods, so readers can imagine my response to the latest news media hijinks.

Mr. McMurtry's request prompts me to return to the question of whether the Tennessean should be allowed to litter neighborhoods like Salemtown with paper that few people read let alone subscribe to. In June, the Metro Council voted 21-10 to kill the proposal that would have enforced our requests not to have the circulars thrown every Wednesday at our homes. Almost farcically, the council's bill would have placed stupid demands on people like you and me to stop the Tennessean litter: we would have to send our request to Gannett by certified letter and we would have to swear out an affidavit with Metro Codes that the Tennessean is violating the agreement. Who should have to do that?

In June, the Tennessean responded to the bill by making some "concessions" to the council. Those concessions included two phone numbers given to each council member providing a direct line to managers in the circulation department who would see that constituent opt-outs were being honored. Why should we need to lobby our council members to get the Tennessean to do the right thing? Again, it's adding extra steps that many people don't have time to take, especially with unresponsive council members.

Another Tennessean concession was that they would audit the distribution and opt-out lists to make sure that delivery people were only delivering to subscribers. The paper also promised to ride around with delivery people and clean up litter that had previously been left. As far as I'm concerned, those concessions never materialized. I can remember at least 6 deliveries of the "free edition" deposited on the sidewalk in front of my home since June, none of which were cleaned up by the Tennessean. All of the editions were kicked out into the street. Over time 2 were pulverized by auto traffic. The remaining editions were picked up out of the street by a volunteer last week before Germantown's Oktoberfest. Gannett/The Tennessean is not keeping their promises; the same promises 21 council members used as an excuse to defeat the ordinance.

And look at the list of progressives who voted against attempts to discourage litter in neighborhoods: Ronnie Steine, Lonell Matthews, Brady Banks, Scott Davis, Peter Westerholm, Anthony Davis, Burkley Allen, Erica Gilmore, Jason Holleman, and (last, but not least) Megan Barry. CM Barry spoke out against the ordinance, but she did not focus on the question of stopping litter in neighborhoods. Instead, she zeroed in on the bill sponsor whom she alleged was trying to force the Tennessean to write an article:

The conversation has led to some really good things that the Tennessean is doing. Having said that, I … think that this is an overreach and I am incredibly uncomfortable that we as a body would ever compel a newspaper to write a story. I heard a colleague of ours earlier tonight talk about the fact that he had actually lived some place at one point where the government could tell newspapers what to write and that was called “a dictatorship,” and I know that that’s not the intention of the sponsor here but tonight I am going to go ahead and say, “Let’s just put this to rest” and I’m going to vote against it.

On the heels of Ms. Barry's comments, CM Fabian Bedne rose to say that he was the one who related his experiences of living under a dictatorship, but he added that CM Barry's use of his own comments against this anti-litter ordinance was "missing the point." While he wholeheartedly disagreed with forcing a newspaper to write a story, he would vote for the ordinance to protect neighborhoods from "trash and litter". Phil Claiborne, the sponsor of the bill, added that he was not trying to force a newspaper story.

To CM Barry's clipped and obfuscating remarks that the Tennessean is doing "really good things," I would respond that the Tennessean has done absolutely nothing "really good" from where I sit in Salemtown. Again, folks, Megan Barry is a 2015 mayoral candidate who claims to be a progressive. How can a progressive stand with a big corporate polluter against the wishes of a community? We are getting a glimpse of what kind of mayor Megan Barry would be.

Before closing, I want to circle back around to WSMV's request for an interview. Patrick McMurtry told me that the ordinance "is back on the agenda." That is not exactly true. The ordinance on the agenda now would regulate any advertising materials except the Tennessean's. The bill's sponsor, Sheri Weiner, believes that controlling some advertising is better than none. And yet, the biggest litter nuisance at my house is the Tennessean. CM Weiner was absent from the June vote, but her bill is toothless on arrival and would actually give the Tennessean a monopoly on un-subscribed advertising litter. The council had its chance to regulate litter and they failed.

By the way, I never called the reporter back, I have better things to do with my time than waste it on a bill that would not make a dent in the Tennessean's misbehavior or on a reporter who does nothing to hold the 21 council members who voted no in June accountable for enabling the Tennessean's misbehavior. After seeing Patrick McMurtry's story, I have no regrets. My time was well spent doing something else.

AMPscam: in the absence of studies "presume" the studies

And "forward" ain't "northward"

Because of family illness, I did not have a chance to watch Metro Council proceedings on the Mayor's budget proposals last week live. Yesterday, I started going back and watching the video from the last meeting. I was particularly interested in CM Josh Stites' amendment for bus rapid transit that would have required a study of alternatives to the Mayor's Office selection of West End be included as part of the bond resolution.

The amendment had received a good amount of media attention, which is likely one of the reasons it also was opposed by 3 different CMs before debate was cut off prematurely. The points expressed against the clause were all feeble. Peter Westerholm trotted out, as if on script, the same tired talking points he has in the media. Jason Holleman, who said he shared some of Stites' concerns, argued that he received assurances that Mayor Karl Dean would consider alternatives in the future and that we should place trust in those assurances.

But the weakest tea of all came from CM Jerry Maynard, an at-Large who often self-styles as a North Nashville representative. In his comments to council lawyer Jon Cooper and then to CM Stites on the amendment, Mr. Maynard ran interference for Hizzoner:

Cooper: [I]t's included in the initial bond resolution as part of the project to be funded.
Maynard: If we pass this, what impact will it this have?
Cooper: If MTA has already done such a study, then that would satisfy [Stites'] clause ... [MTA] would have to answer that, but if funds have already been spent for that study and they don't need to do that, then they could show that they have already satisfied that part of the study.
Maynard: Based on the comments that I've heard from [Mr. Ballard] and others, that they have looked at other routes and determined that West End would be the best place to start. I think you could presume that a study has been done of alternative routes and I would aks if CM Stites would withdraw his amendment.
Stites: If [studies] have in fact already been done it would be best to leave the amendment in; and then, if the studies fulfill or meet the amendment then it would move forward

Plainly, all CM Maynard had to do if he wanted to put to rest the question of whether West End is the best alternative is hold the alternative analysis up and refer to the sections that considered options like Charlotte Pike or Gallatin Road. Why not simply read MTA's conclusions, if they exist, to the council? Instead, CM Maynard lectured those with honest questions to "presume" that MTA has done the studies absent any transparent data.

Either the data on alternatives to West End doesn't exist, it is being hidden from the public or all of the Mayor's supporters are willing to jettison transparency and openness in government in the name of placing blind faith in both Karl Dean and MTA. In any one of those scenarios the principle of informed consent has been violated.

So, Jerry Maynard sowed seeds of doubt toward an entirely even-handed, fair proposal, and then North Nashville CM Walter Hunt called for the question, effectively terminating any more debate on adding alternatives analysis as a requirement of the bond resolution. Despite the fact that the Mayor's BRT/AMP plan excludes North Nashville from access to the transit cash that could roll in, none of the North Nashville CMs present--not Matthews, not Harrison, not Langster--raised any questions about alternatives. They all seem to have acquiesced to the Mayor's Office, as has a majority of the council, which voted down Josh Stites' attempt at fairness.

The final report on BRT assumes the West End corridor from beginning to end. The "Alternatives Evaluated" sections only consider alternatives in modes of transit (for instance, light rail vs. BRT) rather than alternatives in corridors considered. The only consideration given to other areas for BRT are for speculative, future possibilities that will no doubt compete with one another. There is nothing to suggest that Charlotte Avenue or any other North Nashville corridor will get consideration over say, connecting the east-west corridor with 21st/Hillsboro to Green Hills. The absence of any consideration in the final report of other corridors further underscores the probability that the analysis is not open to public discussion (and Metro does not make access to this limited report easy, charging a chunk of change to acquire it).

And one more thing. CM Bruce Stanley's earlier comment (in a different context) that a number of council members have been kept in the dark on BRT/AMP sustains my perception that the Mayor's supporters have not been on the up-and-up about the viability of all options. It seems that even council members are voting on this initiative from a position of ignorance or a tacit acknowledgement that the deal was done on arrival. Even its council supporters can only refer to nebulous faith and presumption absent any hard data. That is no way to serve the public on such an important question concerning so much money.

Because people do not live, work, or recreate in North Nashville

Last night East Nashville CM Peter Westerholm toasted to possibly bringing sexy new bus rapid transit infrastructure home to his constituents:

“[West to East Nashville] is an area that does have lots of housing, a lot of residents do reside in this area who use transit. You already have active transit users in this area, you have places of work, you have places of recreation, of entertainment — all the metrics that experts use to determine where transit projects should take place.”

And what transit toys did the North Nashville's council members bring home to us?


UPDATE: Via Mike Peden, below are the numbers that the Mayor intends to spend on bus rapid transit, east-west.

I.D. Number: 13MT0007
BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) - EAST WEST CONNECTOR - FINAL DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND STREETSCAPE
2013-14 $49,000,000

I.D. Number: 13MT0006
BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) BUSES - EAST WEST CONNECTOR - 10
2013-14 $10,000,000

I.D. Number: 13PW0016
EAST-WEST CONNECTOR BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) - STREETSCAPE PHASE 1
2013-14 $38,400,000

And in North Nashville:

I.D. Number: 13MT0011
BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) - CLARKSVILLE HIGHWAY AND D.B.TODD BOULEVARD
2013-14 $4,840,000

Notice that the cost for streetscape designs alone--that is design stuff like planters, landscaping, lights (likely with expensive underground power lines), attractive seating, art, etc--starts out at $38.4 million for phase 1 and continues up in the final design. There is no "design" component mentioned with the measly $4.8 million he sets aside for North Nashville BRT altogether. The cost of the east-west buses alone more than doubles what the Mayor says he intends to spend on North Nashville BRT.

It does not appear that the North Nashville council members brought much home at all from last night's budget "fight" (a term I use loosely, given the general lack of backbone in the Metro Council).

Westerholm advocates uneven, unequal growth

Retorting to those who have criticized the location of bus rapid transit along affluent West End without consideration of slower growth corridors like Charlotte, CM Peter Westerholm tears a page out of the Karl Dean playbook and pastes it in the Tennessean:

I agree that infrastructure like transit can be a great driver for new development, which is needed not only on Charlotte, but also on several major corridors leading into Nashville, including from the north and south.

Transit, however, is not just an economic development tool; it connects people to work, to housing, and to entertainment and recreation. Successful systems work when people already have a reason to ride. Cleveland’s BRT system worked so well precisely because “it connects downtown to major employers.” West End has the major employers, the restaurants, the hotels, the attractions, the parks that people want and need to access.

I knew all along that Hizzoner's West End BRT proposal was intended to serve the wealthy institutions along the western corridor like Vanderbilt, the hospitals, and the hotels/tourism industry. Nice to see a council "progressive" finally concede that there is little "mass" in the transit proposal, since it was never intended to serve the masses. It is a Darwinian transit policy bent to the least vulnerable in the Nashville caste system. It leaves North Nashville in the dust of Davidson County's economic disparities.

I guess we can see that Peter Westerholm will likely never be confused with a renegade left-wing populist on the Metro Council. Liberal elitism advocates a more conservative, trickle-down method of growth, which is exactly what Mr. Westerholm opines.

TDOT! TDOH! TDOLTS!

Unlike CM Peter Westerholm, I do not feel very charitable when giving credit for government stupidity where it is due.

The Tennessee Department of Transportation did not approach Salemtown for feedback before their recent I-65 highway repairs, and we could have used some noise mitigating elements. They even cut down trees that provided some buffer against the noise of large loud trucks.

So, I'm not surprised to read that TDOT--in the noble name of having a place to park some trucks--tore down $10,000 worth of trees in East Nashville that community groups had raised the money to install 3 years ago. I'm not surprised that they did not bother to pay attention to their own history of approving the trees in the first place or at least consulting the local community about the impact of construction:

Rediscover East! paid $10,000 to plant trees on the state’s right-of-way property on Woodland Street near the onramp to Interstates 24 and 65. The state granted them permission.

But last Friday, bulldozers showed up to raze the grassy area, and workers tore down the trees –– all 60 of them in the quadrant ....

TDOT officials say workers were using the space to store equipment for ongoing repairs on the interstate’s bridge.

“The state-owned space where the trees stood was needed to stage large construction equipment for the upcoming repair project to replace two bridge decks on I-24 over Main Street and over Woodland Street,” TDOT spokeswoman Deanna Lambert said in a statement.

“Anytime TDOT allows such plantings on our right of way, it comes with the understanding that we may need the space for a highway project,” she added.

TDOT officials say they intend to pay for the replanting of new trees.

“We definitely plan to replace these trees after construction later this summer,” said Toks Omishakin, TDOT’s assistant commissioner and chief bureau of environment and planning. “We will replace the trees with what the community wants and that also meets TDOT standards.”

Aw, geez. How big of TDOT. A community group beautifies an ugly stretch of highway, saving the State of Tennessee thousands of dollars; but TDOT destroys the stand but promises to pay revenue originally saved in order to replace the trees. The community attempted to exercise a little low impact environmentalism and conservation and the bureaucratic wizards and lumbering construction engineers wasted natural and financial resources.

Given the rate of inflation and cost of labor, will TDOT be able to plant as many trees in 2012 as were planted 3 years ago?