Don't need a study to convince me that poverty is a bigger problem than gentrification in Nashville

I don't need convincing just because I can be labelled a "gentrifier." I encounter individuals once in a while who insist that gentrification is the worst thing that happens to neighborhoods like those in North Nashville. While I do not believe that gentrification--however we define it--is an absolute boon, I don't believe it's an absolute bust.

I tend to believe that the real culprit that destroys the cultural vitality and authentic diversity in established neighborhoods is poverty, untrammeled home values and skyrocketing rent that drive working class people out of our communities. I believe that gentrification, as a tool for building the middle class in diverse communities, can have a positive impact if measured and controlled so that poverty does not pool and concentrate elsewhere.

Now come indications from a national report consistent with my views:

Gentrification is the bete noire of the yuppie: once affluent professionals have settled a previously rundown neighborhood, they get cranky about how others like them are ruining the place. Nashville is the latest in the “gentrification is killing the city’s soul” meme.

Gentrifiers, however, are not ruining the US – or at least, not enough of it.

An exact opposite of gentrification is playing out. Instead of neighborhoods rebounding, they are getting older, shabbier and the people who live there are falling deeper into poverty.

The number of neighborhoods with a high poverty rate has tripled over the last 40 years, according to Joe Cortright and Dillon Mahmoudi, authors of a new report published by City Observatory.

Having voiced my affinity with those findings, I hasten to add that this kind of knowledge can be twisted into an oppressive, dangerous advocacy for growth. Developers and planners could use information like this to justify wanton demolition of existing homes, headlong pursuit of maximized infill and assumed freedom to take as much wealth out of neighborhoods as planning policy allows without a call of conscience. The risk of excusing gentrification is that we give cover to developers without demanding that they address problems of poverty, too.

There is nothing wrong with criticizing gentrification a bit, too. Keeping gentrifiers honest is not a bad thing.

Once you're with the Wizard, no one thinks you're strange

"when you wear green spectacles, why of course everything you see looks green to you. The Emerald City was built a great many years ago, for I was a young man when the balloon brought me here, and I am a very old man now. But my people have worn green glasses on their eyes so long that most of them think it really is an Emerald City"

-- "The Wizard of Oz" by L. Frank Baum

Oh, what a pair they'll be, the Wizard and It

For approximately the 268th time in the last decade Salemtown is being declared in media as the "newest hottest spot" in Nashville. The "newest hottest" gilding gets old after a while, but something else leaped at me from the latest Realtor® hype:

When Karl Dean, the Wizard of It, announced the nearby Germantown area as the location of the new baseball park – not a stadium, a ball park – he cast a spell upon the neighborhood.

I have to concede, while shoving such overstatement aside, that Hizzoner has indeed used a fair degree of Oz-like sleight of hand during his years in the Mayor's Office. However, there are those who choose to keep their It-City spectacles firmly over their eyes. That helps the illusion, too.

Whites Creek lost a battle but not yet the war

You can bet that these 43 lots are only Phase I.

Community opponents of Ole South development's plan to sprawl 43 suburban-style homes across previously tree-canopied rural properties held a brave stand at yesterday's Planning Commission public hearing, but they had the weight of law and zoning against them. As an outsider-looking-in with a little experience with planning process, it struck me as a long shot to stop Ole South from building a cluster subdivision approved by the Planning Department without any requirement to rezone.

And Ole South did not even bother to have one of their owners speak at the public hearing. Tom White, real estate lawyer and lobbyist, took care of the developers presentation and rebuttal (and Mr. White reserved his right vocally to end the public hearing with a rebuttal several times during his presentation). For their part, dozens and dozens of community opponents rose to speak against the subdivision to a commission that has been described to me as "the most developer-friendly commission in Nashville history".

Commission Chairman James McLean dished a not-so-veiled warning to opponents that he would stop the public hearing if speakers started repeating themselves because the commissioners wanted to get home at a reasonable hour. As if regular folks out in the gallery had not taken time out of their busy schedules, away from their families to sit for hours through other planning business that did not involve them in order to have their 2 minutes to speak their minds at what was ultimately the end of the meeting. As if commissioners have more important things to do than to hear the expressed interests of a Whites Creek community that is watching their character change without much control--beyond the hearing--over it. Given that most commission business involves relatively uncontroversial, unemotional work on planning, I thought Mr. McLean (who is himself a developer) showed little patience, humility or humor with that warning. Who isn't busy in their own personal lives nowadays, Mr. Chairman?

But the opponents stood out by emphasizing plural concerns, admitting and shortening their comments when they sensed that they were repeating what had already been said. The difference in the public presentations for and against could not be more stark. The emphasis from supporters of Ole South was strictly on the legal side of the argument: the company had complied with what zoning requires and they had toed the line Metro planners and CM Walter Hunt set for them, so at bare minimum they deserved to build their cluster lots. Their basic message was that they achieved the lowest common denominators developers have to, and they saw no need to strive for anything higher than their bottom line.

For their part, the opponents of Ole South appealed to a wide range of arguments to make the basic case that they expect development (no one whom I heard expressed NIMBYism), but they wanted something higher than what developers were offering. They appealed to their history, to consistency with the village-like character of Whites Creek, to the idea of quality in building materials, to the common sense notion of fairness that they ought to have the same planning opportunities as other communities, to environmental protection, to a unique and attractive culture comparable with few other places (Bells Bend, Leipers Fork were mentioned), to tourism, to the culture of land and green space and to their diverse community. Their appeals were thick and rich compared to the rather cold, calculated and cynical statements by an attorney who seemed to me ready to pull a trigger on a lawsuit if Ole South did not get commission approval.

Keep in mind that Tom White is the same lawyer who told the Tennessean that the suburban sprawl plan had plenty of community support for passage. The turnout of opponents at the public hearing proved that false. Tom White is also same lawyer who argued at last week's Whites Creek community meeting that he believed commission support for the plan was "highly likely".

This particular statement from the Old South side proved to be true, but not before questions were raised, mostly by commissioner Stewart Clifton, who acknowledged CM Hunt's interest in approving the plan while also asserting his interest in making sure that Ole South was consistent with the properties on the same side of the streets it would sit on. CM Hunt seemed to want to refer the commission to a completely different development rather than consider the streetside consistency. Mr. Clifton wanted to defer until he could get some answers from planning on whether creating 43 plots was consistent with the adjacent properties. Chairman McLean denied Mr. Clifton a vote on a deferral, called for a vote on CM Hunt's motion to approve the Ole South plan (amended to prohibit duplexes) and the commission voted 4-2 to approve.

It is worth noting that Mr. Clifton pointed out that 3 commissioners who "should be" voting on the Ole South bid were not present. One of those was Andree LeQuire, who had sent a request announced to the commission for a deferral of Old South's plan because she wanted more information about the water and sewer infrastructure Ole South was planning. Chairman McLean waved all of that off before holding the vote to approve.

But there is another significant, but understated fallout from this hearing. During Mr. Clifton's questions, Planning Director Rick Bernhardt noted that the commission had asked for urban character infill regulations but had not requested rural character infill regulations from planners. It was acknowledged that Ole South's approval hinged on old, outdated zoning regs and that there was a lack of infill regs for agricultural communities. After the vote, Mr. Bernhardt asked the commission whether they wanted Planning to pursue those regulations and I did not hear much of a response. Might this be where a concerned Whites Creek community can wage their next battle for growth consistent their community character? They lost this battle, but there still seems to me a war to wage in defense of their way of life. Ole South's holdings in Whites Creek are much larger and perhaps Metro Planning needs more prompting for infill regulations before the developers completely suburbanize backcountry.

In the end, this proposal was CM Walter Hunt's to lose. As ugly as the Whites Creek community meeting was, as impressive as the turnout to the public hearing was, CM Hunt seemed to have Metro planners (in fairness, Planning's hands seemed tied) and commission votes on his side. He did not need to do much compromising with constituents to get approval. Having a land holdings lawyer pounding away on what was legal from the podium is also effective leverage, given that Metro is likely not looking to get caught up in one more lawsuit. While CM Hunt promised to have a historical survey of the properties conducted (no traffic study has been done), I was disappointed myself that he did not at least extend an offer to opponents to start working to revise their outdated community plan, which is a reasonable request regardless of Ole South.

Moreover, take a look at how CM Hunt's campaign for office has been the beneficiary of donors with direct interests in land development, construction, new housing starts and housing market. Follow the money form some of the donors I culled from his campaign finance records since 2011:

• Robert Colson, real estate broker and property auctioneer ($100)
• Tom Cone, Sr., owner of Cone Oil convenience stores ($1,000)
• Roy Dale, engineer to developers ($250)
• Howard Eley, Jr., highways and ramps contractor ($250)
• Joe Hall, lobbyist for cable telecommunications assc. ($200)
• Ronald Ligon, Realtor ($500) and Susan Ligon ($500)
• Alexander Marks, developer ($250)
• William Massey, Jr., electrical contractor ($100)
• Jim McLean, developer and Planning Commission Chair ($100)
• Gregory Richardson, developer ($500)
• John Ring, developer ($500)
• Glen Wallis, Realtor ($100)
• L.H. Hardaway, Jr. construction company owner ($100)
• William Freeman, real estate investment company owner ($100)
• James Smith, developer ($250)
• Bernard Werthan, developer ($100)
• Feller Brown, realty and auction company owner ($100)
• Odell Binkley, waste management ($100)
• H.G. Hill Realty, PAC ($100)
• Tennessee Realtors, PAC ($250)
• Precision Plumbing, Whites Creek ($1,000)

That kind of money is more incentive to shepherd subdivision plans through rather than incorporate community concerns if one is not required to. This list is something for the rest of us to keep in mind should CM Hunt run for at-Large council in the future. He may be our council member someday.

But there is also something else to keep in mind as far as I am concerned. One of the supporters of Ole South said during last night's public hearing, "Whatever Walter Hunt wants, Walter Hunt should get." That prospect itself is troubling given campaign finance, because it won't be just what Walter Hunt wants. It will also be what his most influential campaign donors want.

And those of us without the money (or the community organization) to keep up with his donors will likely be left behind.

Because the construction of a new ballpark is such a very special moment for North Nashville

From our WTH?! Department:

[Council member Robert] Duvall said Monday that Dean and other city officials rushed to get the Metro Council to approve [a ballpark at Sulphur Dell] without thinking it through.

“’Let’s get it over with’ was their attitude. It’s a done deal. ‘We have to move on to bigger and better things,’ they believed,” Duvall said.

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you, to hear that even a huge new capital project real estate grab in North Nashville may have been dealt with carelessly, cavalierly by the financing wizards in the Mayor's Office, who may view other parts of Nashville as more worthy of "bigger and better" attention. Shocked! (As if I could be at this point).

Someone needs to kick this ballpark concept until it bleeds baseball

Practically no culture critics that I am aware of have weighed in on the Mayor's new Sulphur Dell ballpark design. That was not the case in 2006, when the Sounds and developers had a design for the Riverfront. I recall weeks of discussion about the design.

Christine Kreyling, co-author of The Plan of Nashville, wrote of the Sounds proposal at the time that it did not integrate the ballpark facility successfully with the other mixed-use development that was part of the project. Looking over the images released for Sulphur Dell, I wonder if Kreyling's opinion would be that different of Mayor Karl Dean's project for North Nashville. Rather than creating a cozy fit between ballpark, residential and parking garage, Sulphur Dell could be accused of repeating the "willy-nilly wedged blocks" of 2006 "Soundsville". Designers seemed to have fit the garage and the residential buildings more carefully along the greenway beyond the outfield wall, but the ballpark seems dropped down with little thought to continuity.

The ballpark in the Sulphur Dell plan itself looks like a low-profile afterthought, almost like the mission here is to express that this is strictly a real estate deal and not the resurrection of hollowed ground of primordial baseball diamonds of old (as went the marketing campaign went before the proposal was approved). In 2006, Kreyling reported that developers intended that residential and ballpark not strive for integration "in case at some point in the future the stadium is demolished." Is the same logic in effect at Sulphur Dell in 2014? Because the new ballpark seems to be strictly an expendable utility player on this field of dreams.

Kreyling also criticized the awkward way that the rounded shell of the 2006 grandstands "stuck on" a squared porch "diluted the strength of the building form." The Sulphur Dell proposal differs in that the rounded wall behind home plate is centered between blocks of its own squared porch instead of pulled toward a corner, but the style looks similar: the Dell's squared off porch seems to nullify the classic ballpark form.

Rather than emerging unmistakably streetside as a ballpark, the form seems to be swallowed into a blank stone wall. If you took the literal reference of the name of the place off the Jackson St. windows, would the building itself communicate "ballpark" or "baseball"? Or could the rounded shell that peeks out from its sandwich between blocks merely seem to be any building suiting any purpose at all? Indeed, the Jackson St. exterior looks like a hoary back wall to the development footprint to the degree that they could add to it a loading dock that would not appear to be out-of-place.

After the blight of Greer Stadium, Nashville may feel lucky to have any new ballpark design at all. But the one they are planning at Sulphur Dell seems to recede to the point of insignificance relative to the real estate around it. One reviewer of stadiums across the USA referred to the exterior of Titans' LP Field as "unspectacular", and I am struck by how the stone and glass skin of the new baseball park resemble points along the blasé hull of LP Field. If baseball in North Nashville history is as venerable, is as important as boosters of the Mayor's plan have insisted for weeks now, don't we deserve a more robust and unmistakable baseball aesthetic for the old ball game, befitting the history of Sulphur Dell?


UPDATE: one of the reasons that the ballpark part of the Sulphur Dell development is more utility than frontline may be because the Sounds club owner, Frank Ward, is more of a real estate mogul than a baseball guy. In a November interview, Mayor Karl Dean emphasized the Ward family's real estate credentials to insist that the real estate would succeed:

I think people need to remember that the current owners of the Sounds came into baseball with a background in real estate development. In fact, the son of Frank Ward, who's the principal owner of the Sounds, that's how he makes his living is real estate development and building student housing. So they have a lot of experience and we're very confident that they want this to move forward.

I don't have a problem with this family wanting to make some money on their real estate business, but the reality that the ballpark element in the development is downplayed and the appointments in the ballpark are meager suggests that baseball is not the focus that it should be.

When I look at Memphis's Autozone Park in contrast I think, "This looks like a park baseball people would build":

Green Hills neighborhood association declares victory over developer; developer counters with new design

Southern change gonna come at last

A developer pulled plans for a skyscraper in suburban Green Hills after the Green Hills NA filed a lawsuit against the company. GHNA declared victory in an email sent out the day before yesterday:

We want to update our neighborhood supporters with some positive developments related to our lawsuit over the proposed Southern Land skyscraper project.

As you will recall, we filed a petition back in November to have a judge review the legality of the approval granted by Metro Planning. On Friday (January 3), through our legal counsel, we accepted a motion by Metro attorneys to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that Southern Land has withdrawn their proposal. This motion came about because Southern Land formally withdrew their proposal for a 22 story tower. Metro Planning has thus nullified its original approval of the site plan.

While this is a victory for the Green Hills community, we fully expect Southern Land to return with a different proposal. We plan to vigorously oppose any aspect of a new development which we feel violates the Green Hills UDO or other portions of the zoning code. Furthermore, we feel we’ve sent a strong message to Metro Planning that Green Hills citizens are closely monitoring how such projects are approved.

This is just the first step in what we knew from the start would be a long marathon. We feel confident that our arguments are valid, but know we will have to present our concerns again before the Planning Commission or in court.

We continue to appreciate your support. Donations to our legal fund are critical to arm us for the battles ahead.

With sincere thanks,

The GHNA Board

Not missing a beat, Southern Land countered with announcement of a shorter concept. Now it has 16 stories:

The plan for a 16-story Green Hills tower that Southern Land Co. plans to submit in the next six weeks will include the same office and retail components as the last proposal, a vice president for the Franklin-based company said.

"Overall the general mixed-use plan has remained about the same and we're just kind of tweaking how it all comes together," said Michael McNally, vice president of multifamily development ....

McNally said the project would lose around 20 apartment units, landing at about 285 units. But it would still include about 60,000 square feet of office space on three floors over about 15,000 square feet of ground-floor retail, he said. The project includes two restaurants, and will still have about 600 parking spaces.

McNally said construction could begin by spring or summer and be finished in 2016.

Will the new plan be worthy of neighborhood association support?

In the interest of full disclosure

Several years ago Hope Gardens association president Jason Powell contacted North End community leaders to bring together "champions" whom he said could give life to a plan for a new ballpark in the North Capitol area. The "champions" never really materialized as a bona fide grassroots movement here. The "champions'" Facebook page lay dormant for 2 years before cranking up again with the Mayor's formal announcement several weeks ago. Now, as a prominent Democrat and State Representative from south Davidson County's 53rd District (but still a cheerleader without a grassroots ballpark movement), he celebrates news of the Mayor's Sulphur Dell announcement:

It may very well be a big fly for local property owners, especially since the news media is passing around projections that land values here will soar:

The impact a new ballpark could have on that area will be similar... [to] the ripple effect Music City Center had on SoBro, where property values have in some cases tripled in recent years.

If the project becomes official, look for property values to initially jump around 15 percent, [real estate broker Grant] Hammond said. Once construction is underway, Hammond expects prices to climb again, about 25 percent higher than now. Once completed and the buzz of the new stadium is at its peak, Hammond anticipates values will be up about 50 percent from today.

Hammond, who was planning on selling one of his investment properties in Germantown next spring, said he now plans to hold on to the condo until the first season of baseball in the new stadium.

“It could be a remarkable little ride for Germantown,” Hammond said.

With Germantown already flourishing, the biggest impact might be most noticeable in the area’s other neighborhoods.

“Hope Gardens and Buena Vista are seriously underdeveloped,” Hammond said. “That all turns around the moment they open the stadium doors. Those neighborhoods need some sort of big development to be the spark.”

After looking at the Metro property records, I can certainly understand why State Representative Jason Powell is excited about a new ballpark; he co-owns 3 properties located in Hope Gardens and 1 located at Buena Vista Heights/Jones Buena Vista. These are both neighborhoods that are identified as the biggest gainers from a new ballpark. Hope Gardens itself lies blocks away. String half-a-dozen Prince Fielder home runs together end-to-end, and Hope Gardens is that close to Sulphur Dell.

All of us who own property close to a new ballpark stand to benefit financially from a rise in property values a new development would bring. So, I do not blame the Democrat for acquiring investment properties over the last 4 years with hopes that their values will rise even though he does not dwell here any more. However, those of us who continue to live here have to worry about more than a return on real estate. We have to worry about protecting our families' quality of life from malignant growth and shortsighted planning. We have to demand smart, managed growth and planning for sustainability and respect for community character.

I'll say it again: I acknowledge Jason Powell's right to buy up as many properties as he wants and maximize their value to his heart's content. It is America, after all. I also acknowledge his right as a state legislator to maximize his relationship with the coattails of Mayor Karl Dean, who admittedly is the Tennessee Democratic Party's great red-state hope to beat a Republican somewhere sometime in the future. Bucking Karl Dean on a ballpark would not help a guy still fresh in his first state office (after running and losing here in our North Nashville district) and still flush with political aspirations.

But the quaintly walkable tableau that Jason Powell illustrated 3 years ago--as a spokesperson from my community to a Tennessean audience--now rings hollow, given that he presently lives close to the Nashville Zoo and leaves his real estate next to Sulphur Dell:

The neighborhoods, businesses and developments around Sulphur Dell are vibrant, supportive of a new ball park and poised for further growth. Downtown work­ers and residents, in addition to the surrounding neighborhoods of Germantown, Buena Vista, Salemtown and Hope Gardens and condos in the Sulphur Dell area, have the popula­tion to anchor attendance at games.

The location is already well-suited for professional baseball. Imagine grabbing a meal in Ger­mantown or at the Farmers Market, then relaxing at Bicentennial Mall before strolling to the ballpark to catch a game ....

If you build it we will stroll. Well, some of us will stroll. Rep. Powell will not because he no longer lives here. He owns property here. He will be driving to Sounds games at Sulphur Dell.

That is a proposition different than what our neighborhoods will actually face with the onslaught of traffic, the absence of transit plans, the ulterior motives of developers and the shifting goalposts of the community planning process along with the politicians who debase it. At least he has the certainty of greater property value without the challenges of living next to a large entertainment venue. Even so, he also should disclose the fact of his holdings whenever he uses the visibility of his office to tout the new Sulphur Dell.

Whether or not a Sulphur Dell ballpark might be a home run for all of us who live around it is still up in the air. For State Representative Powell it would appear to be more of a walk-off home run.


UPDATE: I guess none of us should be surprised that on opening day of the ballpark (April 17, 2015), Jason Powell is gushing about First Tennessee Park.

Putting himself center: Jason Powell

I think back to those heady days of "Friends of Sulphur Dell" when he was gathering a few friendly neighborhood representatives (ignoring those with questions) and touting his movement as "grassroots," never characterizing it as his own. I suppose it is a lesson in the idea that winners write history, but now Mr. Powell is claiming "the push" for himself. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised by this either:

Elected officials are known for shameless self-promotion, but in this case Mr. Powell should be more honest and concede that he had very little to do with the building of the ballpark. In 2013, it became obvious to all that the real puppet master was Karl Dean. Everything else was pure theater.

CM Duane Dominy overcomes popular dissent with an assist from a progressively challenged Metro Council

That sound you hear from Metro
Council? It's the sound of inevitability.

You should have seen this coming March 2012 when the Metro Council handed conservative CM Duane Dominy a 22-15 2nd reading win--in spite of strong community opposition--on a bill that protected the big real estate investment of Hickory MC Investments, which plans to build a new asphalt plant on the doorstep of an Antioch subdivision. Even an indefinite deferral a few weeks later only bought the wealthy property owner's lobbyist Thomas White more time to erode opposition from the generally spineless Metro Council.

Emboldened over the summer, CM Dominy rehatched his bill to permit the new asphalt plant. He brought it back for third and final reading. The community opposition Facebook page reported insider info a few days ago that "the lobbyists for the asphalt plant have been working hard for 4 months" and that those lobbyists "told the council that we had basically gotten used to the idea and are no longer opposed." Gotten used to the idea of exposing susceptible neighborhood kids to cancer and asthma risks? Gotten used to endangering the preservation of fragile wildlife and the watershed? What would be council progressives' defense for supporting the blacktop mongers? That their convenient greenness does not encompass environmental and health jeopardy outside their own districts?

Predictably, weak-kneed and campaign-financed Metro Council voted with Dominy and the lobbyists tonight, 30-4. The minority of 4 were CMs from districts near the proposed plant. Naturally.


UPDATE: the tweet I linked in last paragraph above was originally from CM Fabian Bedne's account. According to Twitter it no longer exists. I wish now I would have made a screenshot of it before it was taken down. But CM Bedne did tweet that evening that the 4 CMs voting against the plant were those from near the plant. In the future, I will screenshot his tweets whenever I link them here.

Historic Germantown president says Germantown does not care about Metro Water's new landfill on its border; council member Erica Gilmore says she does care

Tennessean reporter Bobby Allyn interviewed Historic Germantown, Inc.'s president, who is also a Realtor:

Despite concerns by some, Nathan Weinberg, president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, said the community was not troubled by the waste burial.

“It’s not something of tremendous concern,” Weinberg said. “It has not created the impression that has made the community mobilize, and this community is quick to mobilize.”

To her credit, Erica Gilmore told a reporter at another publication what she told me last week when I wrote her about Metro Water's irresponsible, unneighborly actions: she finds the landfill unacceptable.

I find it curious that the Tennessean chose to quote Nathan Weinberg but apparently opted out of contacting CM Gilmore.


UPDATE: I received an email from the Salemtown president, who was trying to contact the Germantown president and tell them of SNNA's vote to oppose the landfill. He told me he could not find Mr. Weinberg listed on the site as the HGI president. He contacted someone else who told him that Robbie Vaughn is president. I located a profile for Mr. Weinberg on zoominfo.com that lists him as Vice President for HGI:

http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zoominfo.com%2Fp%2FNathan-Weinberg%2F1573340780&ei=yrTmUZC9A9DdqAHQnoCwDQ&usg=AFQjCNFAOEjasD-L6jO-mneln8LO7WwQQw&sig2=6moMDFzN3lW0_n1UdDZq6A&bvm=bv.49405654,d.dmg

After years of different concepts, ground finally broken at 6th and Garfield for row homes

Metropolitan Brokers and rootARCH started construction this week on the only vacant lots (4) left at the intersection of 6th Av N and Garfield Street in Salemtown. Exteriors look like they have taken their cues from some of the period infill around Salemtown and Germantown.

What's being built in 2013 at 6th and Garfield

I admit I am partial to the period look, but in several community meetings I have attended in the past few weeks I have heard grumbling about the sterile, geometric boxiness of more recent builds in Salemtown. I would think that a plan for a more traditional row house style would be welcomed by some of the folk unhappy with some of what's been offered recently. That said, HR@G strikes a good balance to the rectilinear "G spot" homes across Garfield. Moreover, it is unequivocally more attractive that the slapdash, Lego-like disappointment across 6th Av N (I still am not sure what it is called. "Sixth & Garfield"?).

Everything I've read about HR@G says it will have 8 units, which is denser than what was previously proposed as the "Salem Gardens" concept 6 years ago when duplexes were to be built on this pivotal neighborhood site:

Scaled back 2007 plan for duplexes at 6th and Garfield

I am not bothered by the greater density of the Historic Row plan as others might be for a couple of reasons. First, Salem Gardens was unmistakably duplexified in its appearance. The row houses give a little more diversity to a neighborhood where duplexes could dominate (on some streets they already do) without some creative building and zoning. Second, the Salem Gardens proposal emerged several years ago after Salemtown Neighbors fought and won rezoning for three of the SG properties further south of the Historic Row site redeveloped for detached single family homes. The Salem Gardens group originally proposed mixed use (which SNNA supported):

2006 mixed use concept for 6th and Garfield

Then the SG group pulled a u-turn and lobbied unsuccessfully to return to all duplexes. One of the detached SF homes for which SNNA won rezoning is already built and owned. Two more can be built if current property owners ever tear down some old triplexes.

So, I am not concerned about the greater density that current developers of the Historic Row at Garfield plan for 6th and Garfield. It is balanced, thanks to thoughtful and diligent planning, by zoning for 3 lower-density, detached homes to its south. We just need to stay vigilant that the lower density nearby is not rezoned to mirror the lots where HR@G is going up. "Diversity" remains the name of the Salemtown development game.

Double-edged infill

Salemtown came up in a discussion last week in the Nashville Ledger:

 

The “double-edged sword of infill,’’ as Lynn Taylor of Taylor Made Plans explains, is that new construction can fit in with the neighborhood and give it new life and diversity of price point, or it can spoil the neighborhood’s character and drive out anyone who can’t afford $300,000-plus for a place to live.

As infill houses have popped up all over Davidson County – East Nashville, Green Hills, The Nations, Salemtown, Germantown, 12South, Belmont, Vanderbilt, Brookside, Crieve Hall and Hillsboro Village – the debate moves along from neighborhood to neighborhood.

Nashville Post failed to verify developer's claims

Last week I referred you to an article by real estate reporter William Williams in the Nashville Post that constituted a friendly little pitch for developer Mike Kenner (MiKen Development), who is seeking Erica Gilmore's support for rezoning for "Salemtown Cottages". On Friday, I pointed out the problem of date change in the following paragraph (correction and emphasis added by me):

Kenner said the next step in the process is an April 10 [has been changed to April 17] community meeting (one has already been held) at Morgan Park Community Center. Metro Councilwoman Erica Gilmore, within whose district the proposed development would sit, is expected to attend.

As of this morning, neither Williams nor Nashville Post editors have corrected the misinformation, which may cause some to assume mistakenly that a meeting is being held tomorrow at Morgan Park.

If that were not irresponsible enough, I just found out that the "community meeting" that Mike Kenner told the Nashville Post "has already been held" was actually a gathering of 8 to 10 people in a home near the proposed rezoning parcels at Morgan Park. There was no general announcement sent out to the Salemtown community (Salemtown Neighbors neighborhood association did not even send anything out). It was announced on the private social network website, Nextdoor, to people who subscribe to Nextdoor (I do not subscribe to Nextdoor, so I did not receive an announcement).

In my opinion, someone either stretched the truth in reporting a community meeting or failed to follow up with others beyond the developer in order to verify that the meeting included the community.

CM Erica Gilmore did not attend that meeting. I requested minutes from the owner of the home where it was held Mike Kenner's Nextdoor communicator and I was told there are no minutes.

No council member. No minutes. No invitation to the entire community.

How does what looks like a small social network meet-up remotely resemble a "community meeting" for informed decision-making? How do we know this was not an attempt to get the developers' supporters organized to begin leveraging rezoning absent honest questions? And how does the Nashville Post (self-described as "Nashville's Premier Business Publication") get away with reporting a "community meeting" where one does not seem to exist? What's to stop me from questioning the legitimacy of this meeting in any future public hearing on Salemtown Cottages after the developer tries to claim to have had it?


UPDATE:  A local Realtor's blog not only transmits the Nashville Post's bogus date for the upcoming community meeting, but also posts a screaming headline and lede that make approval for Mike Kenner's rezoning request seem like a foregone conclusion; the screenshot below:

Really? Why even bother with community meetings?!

Again, I cannot emphasize enough that a proposed "specific plan" invites community feedback and influence more than any other form of rezoning. Easy approval with no changes should not be assumed a foregone conclusion. Approval in 90 days should not be a foregone conclusion, either.


CORRECTION: The Nextdoor subscriber who communicated Mike Kenner's meeting plans emailed to say that I was wrong for placing the meeting at her house above. Instead, she says it was held at Morgan Park Community Center. Consequently, I corrected above with strikethroughs.

If by "redefining" he means "not growing any more waist-high weeds on their vacant lots" then, yes, the developers have redefined Salemtown

Journo William Williams published a puff piece for realtors a few days ago on the new development at 6th and Garfield, and he gushes that developers are "redefining Salemtown". I continue to be skeptical about Mr. Williams' grasp on our neighborhood as I have for years.

The current designs attached to his article do not look much different than those that stirred up controversy last year on the Salemtown Neighbors online discussion group. I do take solace in the fact that, now that the developer has broken ground and is laying foundations, he won't be allowing weeds to grow to ridiculous heights as had been allowed on the property in 2012.

Sale of Werthan Packaging to developer finalized

An Atlanta developer, who has proposed a huge mixed-use apartment complex with preservation of some of Werthan's historic structures, closed on the property:

SWH Residential Partners has closed on its $7 million purchase of a 13.75-acre site at the historic Werthan complex in Nashville's Germantown neighborhood. SWH Residential Partners plans to kick off a 282-unit, $40 million mixed-use apartment building on the site at 1515 5th Ave. North. The seller was Werthan Packaging Inc.

Developers blindside small 12South businesses by pushing up their deathline

The developers at H.G. Hill Realty Co. and Southeast Venture continue to sow a little ill will in a community where they stand to make a financial killing:

Blackbird Tattoo & Gallery, Rumours Wine & Art Bar and Middle Tennessee Roofing Co. had a deadline of today to shut down their 12th Avenue South operations to make way for construction to begin on a high-end apartment building/retail project.

Construction is expected to begin by April on the project ... on the 2300 block of 12th Avenue South in the 12South neighborhood. H.G. Hill originally had given the businesses until March 15 to move out, but recently pushed up the deadline to today, said Shannon Wages, Blackbird’s co-owner ....

Wages said she was blindsided by the sudden mandate to move.

“We were told to leave with really no warning,” said Wages, 32. “At first it was, ‘Oh my gosh, this is the greatest location ever and we’re about to lose it.’ We had no idea what to do.”

I can't say why the developers would be in such a sudden rush to push these small business owners off the land two weeks ahead of plans. Perhaps they are trying to get a head start over organized popular opposition that has been growing since January to their plans. Jump to my recent post for the background on this development and the community backlash.

HT: Jamie Hollin

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.

State bill moving with the help of advertising lobby to trump municipal regulation of digital billboards

We have fought the good fight locally to keep keep digital signs and billboards out of residential neighborhoods. However what if the red-state Tennessee General Assembly, buoyed by lobbyists, decided to pursue what would amount to a nuclear option on local regulation of commercial LEDs? It is happening in Utah:

Senate Bill 136 would allow companies to convert their traditional billboards to digital ones without requiring the approval of city governments - a move St. George officials say could have a detrimental impact on people living nearby ....

Proponents of the bill ... say businesses should be allowed to advertise and shouldn't be punished because they use certain methods or technology.

City Councilman Jon Pike said there would be more than a few outraged residents if current printed billboards were converted to bright digital signs that had the strength to project light into people's living rooms.

"These digital signs go a long way and can be very bright. We don't want to have these signs be so bright they light up the residents' windows at night," Pike said. "We don't want a proliferation of electronic billboards. We've said we'd like to preserve our ability to regulate as much as possible the billboards in our community."

There is a new study out that finds that billboards negatively affect the values of neighboring properties and that cities with strict billboard controls are more prosperous than those that have less strict ordinances. Given that it is the best interest of property owners to protect the value of their properties, given that it is in the financial interests of cities to maximize property taxes by supporting higher real estate values, state governments ought not to intrude into local regulations on businesses that threaten residential property values as well as quality of life.

But I thought Salemtown was the "next hot spot" 5 years ago

In 2007 real estate reporters called Salemtown the next hot spot, so hot, we were already "on fire":

Up-and-coming 27-year-old developer Jeremy Gearheart seems like a good match with Salemtown, an emerging neighborhood near downtown where he's building single-family homes and putting down roots by buying and rehabbing an old home.

Gearheart is finalizing plans for eight upscale brick brownstones at Fifth Avenue and Garfield. He recently finished three new homes with historic designs at Clayton on Sixth Avenue North.

Those homes go from $289,000 to $348,000 and recently won the city's Preservation Award for infill projects from the Metro Historical Commission of Nashville and Davidson County.

"This area is on fire," Gearheart says. "I'm fully invested in it."

Apparently, our status as the next hot spot in 2007 was just a false alarm. This morning the Tennessean reports that now it's for real; we are the next hot spot:

Salemtown [is] a long-neglected neighborhood near downtown Nashville being discovered by residents and home builders who see it as the city’s next redevelopment success story ....

“This is a very cool, exciting place. It’s the next hot spot,” says Josh McLean, a principal of Kenner McLean Development, who compares Salemtown to other neighborhoods that have experienced a renaissance, including Germantown and, across the Cumberland River in East Nashville, Lockeland Springs.

As I hear it, the real estate reporter at the Tennessean did not even know that Salemtown existed before he was contacted to do this story. We moved to Salemtown in 2004, and I can recall the news media discovering us at various times over the years: 2005, 2006, 2007, etc. So, perhaps the journo is referring to himself as being neglectful of Salemtown. Nonetheless, they have discovered us again.

Pioneers & Manifest Destiny

More troubling to me as a Salemtownie is the reference in the story to our neighborhood as "pioneer territory" along with the screaming colonial headline: "'Pioneers' take over Salemtown". The idea of "pioneers" summons other ideas like civilizing natives and subduing frontier. Pioneers do not just settle, they also drive out other indigenous communities. Because of those connotations, I find pioneer metaphors for urban community redevelopment appalling.

Salemtown is not the wild west or Fort Apache. When we founded a neighborhood association here we sought to acknowledge and to celebrate the class, ethnic, and social diversity of Salemtown. The idea that those of us who have moved here more recently are "pioneers" is at odds with that purpose. I am fortunate to share Salemtown with people who have lived here all their lives, who can remember working at the old Werthan Bag factory, who remember walking to class at the old Fehr school, who have looked at the block-by-block march of hip Germantown northward with a keen sense of loss of their own community. I have no desires to "take over" the neighborhood from them. Recently I found working side-by-side with folk who have lived in Salemtown for decades on our 3-year streetscape project very meaningful. If I were a pioneer I would not even see the value of their perspective or at least I would extol economic growth as the value that trumps all other values, especially "old-fashioned" ones.

Salemtown has a community character beyond that of the "urban core" exalted by lifestyle wayfarers who see the neighborhood as a pass-through from one stage of their life to the next. Some of us have stood in front of the Planning Commission and the Metro Council and defended that character against homogenizing tendencies of the housing market. Whether or not it is (or was or will be) "the next hot spot" promoted by real estate reporters and developers, it is (and was and will be) our home, too. Any so-called "revival" or "renaissance" is always influenced by the past as well as the present and the future.

Do Realtors want government subsidies without government regulation?

Realtors need to be careful what they ask for. It is inconsistent to demand at once that government regulators need to drop oversight of their marketplace and that the government continue to pour in public money to secure the mortgages that supply Realtors more income. If you push hard enough to elect conservatives to help you release you to do what you want free of obligation to oversight, then there is no guarantee that those conservatives will not just keep going and take the government out of your business in the ways it benefits you too.

GOP Senator Bob Corker is a case in point:

Realtors in Nashville cheered when Senator Bob Corker told them the best thing government can do is “stay the heck out” of the housing market. But the applause stopped Tuesday as Corker outlined his plan to get the government out of the mortgage market.

It seems to me Realtors need to be more real about public accountability. They can't have something for nothing. If they want subsidies to prop up their industry by increasing mortgages, then they better accept regulations that protect consumers and elect the consumer-protecting progressives.

Same developer behind Vista Germantown sued by West End HOA for design "failure"

Apartment complex Vista Germantown continues to rise like a behemoth over the dwarfed Madison Street intersection of Germantown under the direction of a partnership that includes Bristol Development Group. BDG already brought a checkered reputation to the Germantown project, and allegations made by the condo residents of the Bristol West End homeowners' association, if true, do not endear us to the developers:

The homeowners association at The Bristol West End is taking the condo project's developer, architect, engineering firm and geotechnical service to court, alleging an "inexcusable failure" in the project's design.

The HOA claims a serious design flaw in a suit filed last week by the HOA against 17 defendants in Davidson County Chancery Court.

According to the suit, cracks began to appear in various common areas in the project in late 2009, four years after the building opened its doors to residents.

Bristol Development Group already had two strikes against it around these parts. First, Madison Square HOA grew frustrated with the company over the future Vista Germantown site, and they asserted that Bristol neglected to keep an abandoned warehouse boarded up or the grass cut to codes requirements until squatters set the building on fire. Second, a bank saved Bristol from the embarrassment of bankruptcy by taking over their faltering Velocity project in The Gulch with a "friendly foreclosure."

For Germantown's sake let's hope that allegations like those on West End do not crop up around the Vista Germantown project after completion.