Subject of 12South development may be raised during CM Sandra Moore's community meeting on Saturday morning

CM Sandra Moore

According to an email sent to the 12South elist, Council Member Sandra Moore is sponsoring a community meeting the day after tomorrow at the West Police Precinct to discuss crime issues, school questions, public works, parks, and planning. Reportedly, CM Moore gave no indication that the controversial development on the 2300 block of 12 Av. S. is on the agenda for discussion even though the affected neighbors were promised a  large community meeting back in January and construction is scheduled to begin next month.

Moreover, developers unexpectedly compressed the timeline for small businesses to make way for demolition and so the window of opportunity for those who have issues with the development appears to be closing.

Nonetheless, opponents of the plan who last week published a signed letter are girding their loins for CM Moore's meeting. They plan to raise questions about increased auto traffic, preserving pedestrian-friendly streets, available parking, building scaled too large for the character of the community, the re-dedication of the Waverly Belmont School, the risks to diversity posed by gentrification, and principles of conservation.

A 12South timeline: residents vs. developers

Two months ago, H.G. Hill Realty and Southeast Venture announced to the media plans to build a mixed-use four-story complex that will include one- and two-bedroom apartments in order to fill what they called "a much needed niche" in the 12South neighborhood. One commercial building and two old houses used for small commercial (the zoning is currently commercial) are to be demolished. This particular kind of growth has not brought the neighborhood together in support of the proposal. In fact, there is a group that has been organizing since January to fight the development team.

There seemed to be bad blood from the beginning. The co-owner of Blackbird Tattoo, one of the small businesses affected, told concerned neighbors:

In September 2011, we were informed that our building was most likely going to be demolished and that we should find a new building .... I do not know how we could have fought this ... in effect we WERE forced. We were told we could purchase our building for $500,000, an astronomical price for our small business.

A 12South blogger vented her frustration early in January:

I’m not one of those rabid listserv purists who goes nuts every time somebody proposes a new development in my neighborhood. And although the proposed construction project at 2310 12th Avenue South (the property between the 12South Taproom and Rumours Wine Bar) does appear a bit overblown and disproportionate at first glance (67 apartments and 4,200 sq. ft. of retail), I was ready to keep an open mind.

But when I found out last week that that the owners of the Rumours property right next door had exerted a little deep-pocket muscle on Rumours restaurateurs to strongly “incentivize” them to sell their lease with four years left, I felt frustrated and not a little bit angry.

12South neighbors who are otherwise supportive of growth in their community utilized their elist to express incredulity at the deviation from community character and anger that the process seemed less-than-transparent in its early phases (it did not help that they learned about it in the media). Some expressed opposition to 12South becoming an "extension of The Gulch". Some pointed to the distraction of the holidays (introducing controversial zoning requests during holidays or vacation seasons is a time-honored ploy many developers use to mitigate public backlash). Some pointed out to the quality of preserving the older houses along 12South and wondered why the developers did not pursue other properties for sale along 12th Av S. Some objected to paving over properties with surface parking.

Even those who supported the project emphasized that the community should have a "constructive voice" in the planning of the project.

The frustration and ambivalence about developers extended deeper into January:

When the bulldozers come, I am going to weep shamelessly. And that means that suddenly, the stakes went way up for me. Consequently, I’m going to judge what rises from my favorite wine bar’s ashes much more harshly than all previous building projects here. It’s going to take a whole lot for what comes next to be a net gain for me, an improvement in my quality of life. And that’s kind of a big responsibility, You Developers. Please do well. And do good. Don’t make our little corner of the world worse.

The neighborhood association attempted to reassure members in an elist posting:

The 12South Neighborhood Association has some concerns about this large-scale project, and has been diligently working together and initiating discussions with the development team.

We want to assure you that we are actively involved in reviewing the schematic design and voicing the concerns of everyone in the neighborhood and adjoining communities.

We have called on the Metro Planning Commission and The Mayor's Neighborhood Representative, and have thoroughly reviewed the zoning/planning overlays for this property to ensure that what is being proposed is within the guidelines established.

Southeast Venture has agreed to listen to a smaller representative group from the neighborhood in the schematic design phase...and would also like to meet with the neighborhood at-large in a subsequent meeting to present the project to the community .... The initial meeting with Southeast Venture will include members from the 12South Neighborhood Association Board, the Belmont-Hillsboro Neighborhood Board, the Sunnyside Board as well as councilwomen, Sandra Moore from District 17 and Burkley Allen from District 18.

We are cautiously optimistic that our concerns will be heard while recognizing that from a practical standpoint we are not in a position to stop a project that meets current zoning and codes requirements.

The initial meeting occurred on January 20, and the officers emailed association members to tell them how they believed residents' concerns were addressed:

The major points of concern from the 12South Representatives & Council Representatives were:

• How will traffic be affected and how will the designers address the additional influx of cars with a single point of entry/egress? Answer - A traffic study will be done/is being done and will dictate anything beyond what is currently shown in the design in regards to traffic flow. The parallel spaces along 12th should provide some traffic calming as well.
• How is the design team approaching the selection of exterior materials? Answer - the exterior materials are being selected based on the contextual materials in the 12South area.
• How is the size/scale/mass being dealt with in order to stay within the context of the neighborhood? Answer - the design along 12th is not a solid wall/facade but is broken up with pieces being pushed back off the street to break up the facade. Also, the 4th floor being pushed back from the lower 3 floors will help minimize the height of the building at street level.
• What are the lease/rental rates for the retail/restaurant spaces? Answer - the rates will be consistent with the rates in and around the 12South area.
• Are the developers seeking any zoning variances? Answer - not at this time and there is no plan to do so.

Overall, the major concerns of the neighborhood were discussed and we are optimistic that they will be met as the design process moves forward. We will be working with SEV, HG Hill & Council-lady Sandra Moore in the coming weeks to schedule a neighborhood-wide meeting.

While officers met with developers, a group of residents held strategy meetings to recruit volunteers to fight the proposal.

Those aiming to fight the developers did not seem satisfied with answers they got back from the association officers' meeting with the developers. Dissent seemed to come to a head last week when an opposition letter signed about around 50 people in advance of the large community meeting was sent out through the neighborhood contact list:

We the signers believe the four-story, luxury apartments proposed for the sites of Middle Tennessee Roofing, Rumours Wine Bar and Blackbird Tattoo are a poor fit for the 12th Av So neighborhood. First, the vehicle traffic associated with 95 living units plus retail, all moving through a single 12th Av entrance, will exacerbate already-stifling 18 hour per day congestion. Second, the size and privacy of the structure will dwarf historic landmarks, obstruct viewscapes, and foreclose integration of the business district center with the larger community. Third, the gentrification entailed - upscale, gated, high-turnover rentals replacing small businesses and manageable leases - will reverberate in higher costs-of-living and diminished diversity throughout the locale.

The structure is planned for dead center in the old-and-new community. In the immediate vicinity of 12th Av intersections with Elmwood and Caruthers are “worthy of conservation” ... churches, commercial buildings, school, and homes, including the Rumours and Blackbird cottages and many residences in the Belmont Hillsboro Conservation District west of 12th. For three decades, entrepreneurs and residents have invested heavily in these buildings and in the prospect of “new urbanism” based on century-old development patterns.

The neighborhood’s documented periods of balanced self-sufficiency should be guiding new growth. The original village combined streetcars, distinctive and affordable homes, farm produce, dry-goods, elementary school, and churches. By the 1940s, additions included groceries, pharmacies, service stations, meat & three, tavern, hardware, bookstore, middle school, and Sevier Park. After crippling outmigration in the 1970s, government, business and homeowners initiated re-birth under 1221 Partners banners of “neighborhood strategic district” and “cultural marketplace.” Later studies – the 2005 Plan of Nashville, 2006 Future of Neighborhoods, 2008 12th Av So Detailed Neighborhood Design Plan (DNDP), Mayor Dean’s recent Green and Healthy initiatives - touted “human-scaled,” “complete neighborhoods.”

While the precedents cited above do not legally constrain new construction, they are socio-economically compelling. They suggest the following responses to the proposal:

1. Quoting the DNDP, “auto-oriented development … conflicts with business center mixed use.” The SV/Hill project is less “mixed use” than high density “mixed housing” and thus should be located on an exterior, larger thoroughfare. In either location, however, it would merit rear access by alleys and side streets, and shared parking, in line with original and contemporary best practices. The developer should do its part to “(re-) create an alley system parallel to 12th Avenue South along the east side.”
2. Nevertheless, the more fundamental problem is inappropriate “mass, scale and orientation.” The height will be twice, and length and depth three times, that of vintage structures. The rear extension will invade the former alley. Rumours and Blackbird cottages will be demolished. The developer should consider a 3-story, more modest “urban design” paralleling the street, with less rear extension.
3. This upscale, limited access project introduces aspects of exclusivity that are alien to democratic “smart growth.” Gated apartments for the wealthy are not uniformly a priority for diverse neighborhoods. Currently, destination attractions for disposable incomes overshadow basic services for residents. The project will abut the old school yard, affording private green views and precluding planned pedestrian movement from 12th Av through the school to 10th. The developers should embrace the crucial urban connections between the neighborhood center and the surrounding residential, civic and recreation areas. Specifically, the new project should, according to authentic mixed use, diversify living options, complement possible futures for the school, include more revenue sources, and help create a local sense of place.
4. While this project will significantly raise the bar in traffic, mass and scale, and gentrification, these issues have long been simmering. “Permissive building codes,” responsible for sprawl in suburbia, now enable excessive “bulk” and lot coverage and insufficient parking and green space in our urban community. The resident and business associations should recognize and nurture the existing constituency for conservation, small community life, and sustainable growth. This could begin simply with defining the distinctive essences of our “place,” and then promoting them to homeowners, employees and customers. It might – or might not - later involve the adoption of one of several guidelines for “appropriate” land use and development character. By whatever means, though, we should unite in taking care of the “golden goose” that brought us here in the first place.

Last December developers told the media that construction would start in April. It looks like they may have a showdown with their new 12South neighbors before the groundbreaking. It seems to me that they should have started having larger community meetings months ago about this, especially if they are seeking rezoning from commercial to mixed-use. Public hearings at planning and council meetings can always turn nasty with controversial developments that do not strive for transparency and compromise.

Word to your Mayor

Tonight the Metro Council passed on third and final reading the Fairgrounds bill that requires the Fair Board to come up with a master plan for development of the property. CM Sandra Moore made a last minute attempt to suspend the rules to add an amendment, but her bid was defeated by two objections.

Now that the Fairgrounds development issue is back to where it should have started--within the community planning process rather than as a unilateral move by Karl Dean--a sage word for him who would lead us through a more inclusive, communicative process comes from Catherine McTamaney, who took the high road on her Facebook page after the 2nd reading on this bill:

good leadership is more like the steering a big ship than driving a steamroller. You move slowly, you get people feeling ok about the direction you're headed, and you keep the queasiness to a minimum, even in rough waters.

He needs to bring people along, even those with questions, by allowing them a sense of ownership of plans for public property.

Megan Barry curiously backs off leadership of her own bill

The controversy surrounding the bill that would add council certification to the Mayor's plans to demolish the Fairgrounds racetrack began when Megan Barry introduced the bill the same day the Mayor's Office announced its new direction, organized the "gang of five" co-sponsors, and acted as gang spokesperson in the media and in e-mail correspondence to opponents of the gang.

Last Saturday she seemed ready to pass off the lightning rod she took up as gang leader:

Several council members on Saturday suggested the legislation be deferred to allow for more debate. Approached by The City Paper, Barry deflected questions on her plans for the bill to Councilwoman Sandra Moore, who represents the surrounding fairgrounds neighborhood and has co-signed the legislation. Moore said she would consider deferring the bill.

This is not the first time the Dean Team has handled CM Sandra Moore's district business. However, they also attack any opponents who demand other plans for the Fairgrounds by defending CM Moore's councilmanic privilege.

All's fair in this council war: Barry replicates Dominy's initiative to save the Fairgrounds excepting the racetrack

CM Duane Dominy is not pleased with Megan Barry (a member of the Metro Council Dean Team, which includes Ronnie Steine, Anna Page, Rip Ryman, and Sandra Moore, also referred by local reporter Joey Garrison as the "Gang of Five"). CM Barry is bringing a bill that essentially saves the Fairgrounds another year, which was the purpose of a bill CM Dominy sponsored and deferred on November 16. The main difference between the bills is that CM Barry wants to demolish the racetrack and CM Dominy does not.

CM Dominy sent a letter to the Nashville City Paper and to the Council office for distribution late today. The letter is reproduced below (click on the images to enlarge), but the money section is the paragraph where he points out that the "Gang of Five" not only showed discourtesy not allowing deferral of his own bill, but they voted as a bloc to try and table his ordinance (which would essentially have killed it).

The council office e-mail to members is time-stamped 30 mins after the City Paper story reporting (but not reproducing) CM Dominy's letter appeared on the paper's website. A few minutes later Megan Barry replied by e-mail to the council membership, seeming to bristle about CM Dominy mentioning "courtesy," and she insinuated that his correspondence with reporters "hours before" she received the letter was an act of discourtesy.

It seems to me indignation flows both ways. Despite her statement to the Tennessean that the coterminous news of her bill and and of the executive memo stating the Mayor's plans were coincidental, the Gang of Five probably tag-teamed this bill with the Mayor's Office. Council action around big mayoral projects has moved like Secretariat, that is, like a "tremendous machine," since Karl Dean took office. To think that there was no behind-the-scenes action-coordination strains credulity.

I don't agree with CM Dominy on much, but I do agree that there is some Gang of Five hypocrisy (and I would add cynicism) here. They criticized Dominy for what they are doing with the latest bill, which not only resembles his, but compliments complements the Mayor's plans to privatize the Fairgrounds eventually.

Each one of the Gang of Five has advanced the Mayor's agendas with few questions asked the last 3 years, and this common commitment has meant an easy ride for Karl Dean up until now. For the new Fairgrounds bill not to be coordinated out of the Mayor's Office would be out of character. CM Barry would have to think us naive to believe that the Gang of Five and Mayor coming together so exactly was fortuitous.


UPDATE: In a pointed e-mail reply to Megan Barry's mockery of his "courtesy" last night, Duane Dominy counters that not only did she also go to the news media without consulting him on the Gang of Five bill on Thursday, but she also collaborated with the Mayor's Office in writing it. Dominy also reminds Barry that elections are over and he invites her to leave politics out of the Fairgrounds discussions. He also presses her again for a work session on the two bills together.

Like I said before, I would have to be a chump to believe that the Gang of Five did not work with Rich Riebeling and other Dean staffers on writing an ordinance the same day the Mayor's Office "called time out" on the Fairgrounds.

Copy of Megan Barry's new ordinance to legislate the Mayor's revised plan to keep State Fair going one more year, demolish racetrack

I just received a copy of the new ordinance to be introduced to replace Mayor Dean's plan to exile Fairgrounds flea marketers to Hickory Hollow:

ORDINANCE NO. ______________

An ordinance amending Chapter 2.78 of the Metropolitan Code to require the Board of Fair Commissioners of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County to hold a state fair on the fairgrounds property in 2011, to continue operating the expo center at the fairgrounds until a suitable relocation site has been identified, and to oversee the demolition of the existing racetrack facilities for use as a public park.

WHEREAS, Chapter 6 of Article 11 of the Charter for the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County provides for a Board of Fair Commissioners (“Fair Board”) to exercise all the powers and perform all the duties imposed on the Fair Board by Chapter 490 of the Acts of Tennessee for 1909 and Chapter 515 of the Private Acts of 2923; and

WHEREAS, the private acts referenced in Section 11.062 of the Metropolitan Charter provide that the Fair Board was established for the purpose of maintaining and operating a fair for the people of Davidson County; and

WHEREAS, section 11.602 of the Metropolitan Charter provides that the Board of Fair Commissioners shall perform such other duties as may be imposed upon the board by ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the Metropolitan Government that a state fair be held on the fairgrounds property in 2011, and that the expo center functions traditionally held at the fair grounds should continue until another location is identified.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY:

Section 1.      Title 2 of the Metropolitan Code is hereby amended by adding the following new Chapter 2.78:

Chapter 2.78 BOARD OF FAIR COMMISSIONERS

2.78.010       Additional duties.

In addition to the duties provided in Section 11.601 of the Charter of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, the Board of Fair Commissioners (hereinafter “Fair Board”) shall have the following duties and responsibilities:

A. The Fair Board shall negotiate with the Tennessee State Fair Association to hold a fair in 2011 to be called “The Tennessee State Fair” on the existing 117-acre Tennessee State Fairgrounds site located in Council District 17.  Any agreement negotiated between the Fair Board and the Tennessee State Fair Association shall provide that the Metropolitan Government shall not be liable for any financial losses associated with the operation of the State Fair. 

B. The Fair Board shall continue to operate the expo center and related facilities on the Tennessee State Fairgrounds property at such times and in such ways as to not interfere with the operation of the Tennessee State Fair until another suitable location for these activities has been identified and approved by a resolution of the Metropolitan Council receiving twenty-one (21) affirmative votes. 

C.  The Fair Board shall oversee the demolition of the existing racetrack, grandstands, and associated facilities on the Tennessee State Fairgrounds property.  Once the racetrack, grandstands, and associated facilities have been demolished and the site has been cleared, the Fair Board shall transfer control of this area, as well as the floodplain area along Brown’s Creek, to the Metropolitan Board of Parks and Recreation for the development and operation of a public park.  

Section 2.      It is the intent of the Metropolitan Council that the expo center functions held at the Tennessee State Fairgrounds property will operate on the revenues generated by such functions at no cost to the general government.  In the event the revenues generated at Tennessee State Fairgrounds property are insufficient for the operation and maintenance of the facilities, the Council intends to appropriate the necessary funds from the State Fair fund balance to cover any shortfall.

Section 3.      This ordinance shall take effect from and after its final passage, the welfare of The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County requiring it.

APPROVED AS TO                                  INTRODUCED BY:

AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS:

Particularly troubling to me is that the bill writers put in an explicit prohibition against using the General Fund to pay for any overages in the Fairgrounds budget. The same rule should have applied to the building of the new convention center, but the council Dean Team was perfectly fine with exposing general government revenues to certain new construction overruns. These council members--Barry, Ronnie Steine, Rip Ryman, Sandra Moore, etc.--are pitching this action as pro-neighborhoods, even as neighborhood services are threatened by the much larger Music City Center.

I'll have more extended comments on this as I reread it, but take a look at it and as usual share your feedback below or via e-mail.

Is the Mayor's Office sending department heads to lobby Metro Council on the fairgrounds privatization plan?

I cannot wait to see the replay of this week's council committee meeting on Mayor Karl Dean's plan to help fulfill Finance Director Rich Riebeling's dream of privatizing the fairgrounds by converting it for real estate industry royalty. I've never really been strongly opposed to converting the fairgrounds to something more in tune with surrounding South Nashville, I just oppose the means the Mayor's Office uses consistently to ram through capital initiatives that serve Karl Dean's cohort while leaving the rest of us to enjoy whatever scraps are left over.

I want to see the replay of the meeting because I look forward to CM Emily Evans pointing out that Director Riebeling has been "carrying the torch" of fairgrounds privatization since he was with the fair board. That confirms my sense (which I've had since the Mayor's Office ran interference for CM Sandra Moore on a shadow neighborhood meeting) that the fix was in on the fairgrounds future from the beginning.

But what I most want to see is CM Mike Jameson rail against the lobbying effort that seems to be coming from on high (as related by Joey Garrison):

Jameson said [Metro Public Works Director Billy] Lynch called him last week and asked for his stance on the fairgrounds issue.

“You don’t need to go there,” Jameson said. “Had it just been me, I would have chalked it up as just idle conversation. But, in talking to some of my colleagues on the council floor –– none of whom I will name –– but all of whom said they got the call and started getting arms twisted and references to yellow trucks in their district. That doesn’t need to happen.

“I know the public works director,” Jameson added. “He’s a phenomenal public servant. I know he doesn’t do this out of his own volition. I know he follows orders.”

Jameson requested Councilwoman Vivian Wilhoite, who chairs the council’s Codes, Fair and Farmers Market Committee, ask Lynch for any vote tally list that he may have obtained.

Metro 3 and IT Director Keith Durbin willing, I will get to see the drama unfold on tape someday soon.


UPDATE: Metro 3 did play back the 3 hour meeting Thursday night, and Mike Jameson's disclosure about Public Works' lobbying effort was even more spectacular than depicted in The City Paper. CM Jameson made a point of saying that the Director's phone call was not made personally, but with the Director's assistant. If I could transcribe Jameson's entire body of comments I would. It was impressive.

District 17 CM contests fellow CM's fairgrounds legislation in District 17

The following memo from CM Sandra Moore was sent out to her constituents by Elise M. Waller at the Metro Council office today:

Metro Council Office

M E M O R A N D U M

---

to: Constituents of the 17th Council District

from: Sandra Moore

Council Lady – District 17

date: September 30, 2010

---

RE: Fairgrounds Legislation

---

As you have probably heard, legislation was filed this week by Councilman Duane Dominy of the 28th Council District that, if enacted by the Council, would essentially require the Board of Fair Commissioners to continue to hold an annual state fair on the fairgrounds property.  The legislation would also require the Fair Board to make the property available for other events, including “a monthly flea market, annual lawn and garden show, annual gem show, annual car show, motor sports, and such other activities and events that took place on the property in Fiscal Year 2009.” (emphasis added).  I want to make it perfectly clear that I was not asked to co-sponsor this legislation nor was I even informed that it existed until after it had been filed.  I have worked for the past three years to ensure that any future use of the fairgrounds property is in the best interest of the citizens of the 17th District and the city as a whole.  I am frankly disappointed that another district councilmember felt it appropriate to file legislation regarding property that is located solely within my district, but it is within his purview to do so.

Please know that I will be reviewing this legislation closely in the coming days and will take whatever action I deem to be in the best interest of the 17th District when the bill comes up on first reading at the October 5th Council meeting.  As always, if there are any concerns or comments please give me a call at 386-9246, or you may email me at Sandra.moore@nashville.gov. Thank you for your continued support as we work together for the benefit of the community.

Why is the Mayor's cruise director fielding media queries for the District 17 council member?

I've not taken a position on the rising controversy over the State Fairgrounds but something ain't right when a council member schedules a community meeting in direct conflict with a previously scheduled community meeting. And what does the Mayor's office have to do with event coordination in District 17?

The City Paper's JR Lind reports:

While [a preservation] group will be fighting to maintain the status quo — a half-hour earlier on the other side of the fairgrounds, another meeting about the fairgrounds’ future will take place.

Council member Sandra Moore — whose district includes the fairgrounds — is hosting a public meeting at 6 p.m. in Wilson Hall to “discuss the process going forward for redevelopment plans,” according to Dean’s spokesperson Janel Lacy.

Moore did not immediately return phone calls Tuesday afternoon.

Watson said he is “aware” of the other public meeting.

“She ought to be [at the preservation meeting]. It sits in the middle of her district. We are going to have people handing out handbills in front of Wilson Hall inviting them to our meeting,” he said.

The preservation meeting will be hosted by former council member Ronnie Greer and Watson said a number of current council members said they will attend.

Council Member Communication FAIL

According to the Nashville Neighborhoods e-list, CM Sandra Moore failed to communicate her sponsorship of rezoning for a commercial enterprise in residential Waverly Place (12South area) before she failed to communicate her intention to defer the rezoning bill last night:

At the Council meeting on Tue. July 22, Council Lady Moore moved indefinite deferral of the SP-zoning bill that would permit building a 13,000 sq. ft. 2-story commercial building on 10th Ave. South in the all-residential, historic Waverly Place neighborhood. She said the deferral was at the request of the developers. Previously, at the Council's public hearing on the issue on July 7th, opponents were surprised when Ms Moore, who had been uncommitted up to that time, supported the development that is in her home neighborhod. At that hearing, proponents and opponents were both numerous but evenly matched. One of the proponents said the split between the proponents, mostly new to the neighborhood, and the opponents, mostly long-time residents, was a tragedy. Then on Mon. July 20, the Council's Planning & Zoning Committee had approved of Ms Moore's plan to defer. The some dozen Waverly Place neighbors who attended the Council meeting in opposition to the development - they called it "creeping commercialism" into the residential zone - did not learn of the imminent deferral until they arrived at the Courthouse and were told by other Council members before the meeting.

District 17 Council Member Indicates that the LED Bill Will Pass

CM Sandra Moore seems to suggest in an email to her District 17 constituents that they better get their feedback in sooner rather than later about Charlie Tygard's LED bill if they hope to have any influence before Council passes the bill, as if the votes are already there for bill passage. Read all the way to the end of this paragraph in an e-mail that was posted to the 12South list:

If you have questions or concerns about Metro's pending legislation regarding digital and LED (light emitting diode) signs, please contact Council Lady Sandra Moore at Sandra.Moore@nashville.gov, or telephone her at 386-9246. Ordinance No. BL2008-152 passed second reading before the Metro Council on March 4, so please contact Council Lady Moore as soon as possible if you have questions so that they may be addressed before the legislation is finally adopted by the Council.

Does that not create the impression that Council approval is in the bag already?


UPDATE: Sandra Moore says in the comments below that she was asking for comments from constituents, but not endorsing the LED bill, but she did not deny that she was indicating in the email that she thought passage is a sure thing. That's really what this post is about.