Metro Council candidate queries Germantown coffee shop owner on Madison plans

A pre-Christmas Twitter exchange between district 8 candidate Nancy VanReece and a Germantown restaurant/coffee shop owner on the latter's plans for a second shop in Madison (third, if you count plans for a Berry Hill extension) captured below. Offered without my comment, other than to say that I have positively reviewed The Red Bicycle in the past. But please feel free to comment yourselves, if so led:

Charlie Tygard's ongoing infatuation with signs enabled by Metro Council approval of ads in parks

Erectile dysfunction ads are everywhere else, so why not in parks?

It's a vicious circle: the Mayor's Office will not fully fund Metro Parks, which leaves Metro Parks to scramble to come up with other ways to get revenues, which prompts council members--with buddies in the sign business or corporate donors looking at every possible marketing angle--to pitch privatizing in order to bring parks more money without holding the Mayor responsible for fully funding parks. Since Metro Council operates in such a vicious circle--made more vicious by a Mayor who has proposed and generated budget-busting capital projects--it must have been welcome relief to the blundering herd that CM at-Large Charlie Tygard pitched his latest smoke-and-mirrors pretense to help out Metro Parks.

With little debate Metro Council has approved this bill not once, but twice. Approval on third reading will open parks' gates to advertisers, large and small. The rationale is that our green space is growing so much that alternative sources of funding need to be found. However, Karl Dean has slashed parks programming by authorizing cuts to community center hours since he first took office. Hence, this move will likely lower expectations for increases in public revenues for parks. It will place the onus on Metro Parks to hire sales staff to market ad space in parks to corporate clients. It fits right in with the privatizing that the Dean administration has already done in other municipal services like public schools.

Rationalizing advertisements and signs by minimizing their impact is not a new tactic for CM Tygard. In 2007 he tried to justify putting car washes in residential neighborhoods by insisting that the signs advertising the businesses would be "attractive, monument-style" signs, as if comely signs would convince neighbors to accept car washes nearby. In 2009 he led the fight for LED signs in residential neighborhoods and he repeated over and over that they would not be large or flashing, as if that would never be an eventuality if allowed. In 2013 he promises no neon signs on the Parthenon (according to his sign-making buddy, Bobby Joslin, LED light strips are "alternative to neon", so maybe they'll look better in Centennial Park) and he issues talking points on signs that he predicts people will not see in parks:

The bill would give the parks board the power to create rules about ads and sponsorships. That would give the board the power to not accept ads from booze or cigarette companies, for example, or strip clubs.

“I don’t think we want to tackle the condom manufacturers,” Tygard said.

No? Well, what about predatory lenders, one of whom is Nashville's second fastest growing company (and a major campaign donor)? Is allowing ads from companies who market high-interest loans to park patrons who may be at vulnerable moments but who cannot afford them better governance than allowing Trojan to market condoms? It is interesting that CM Tygard was quick to prohibit ads that may or may not involve personal vices, but not ads that may or may not involve corporate irresponsibility.

Again, generating and justifying these alternative funding schemes that benefit his friends in the private sector has always been CM Tygard's M.O. And he has been downright hostile in the past toward publicly funding green spaces: during its construction Mr. Tygard derided the Courthouse Public Square as a "monument to government". This time the Metro Council is going along with his scheme.

Will people care when they start to see visual clutter in parks like signs with, "This mulch trail is brought to you by Waste Management"? Not likely. But it will stand as a precedent to allow Metro Parks to expand ads and increase their clientele later. Restricted ad space will likely generate greater competition and bigger offers that Metro Parks may have problems resisting. Look at the logic of the marketplace: smaller signs give way to larger signs. And who knows. One day we may begin to see illumination and LEDs on ads in parks as the first wave of private ads will have done the job of desensitizing us to more intrusive marketing that is bound to follow after the money rolls in.

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.

A BZA engineered for LED

The Tennessean catches up on a story that's been brewing since the Board of Zoning Appeals reversed Zoning's disapproval of a request to install a brightly animated LED billboard:

The Metro Law Department sued in Davidson County Chancery Court on Tuesday to reverse the Board of Zoning Appeals’ ruling earlier this year that Richardson Outdoor Advertising can build a 50-foot-tall digital billboard to replace a standard board at Bell and Murfreesboro roads ....

The Metro Codes department initially denied a permit to Richardson Outdoor Advertising last spring. The denial relied on a legal interpretation that digital billboards must be at least 2,000 feet from other billboards.

The BZA ruled in June against the denial, but I could not find any media reports on the roll call. The Zoning minutes only tell that the vote was 4-2 but they are not transparent about how members voted. I called Zoning and finally received a list of names of the members who voted to overrule the zoning and allow LED signage:

• David Harper
• Chris Whitson
• Mercedes Jones
• Stacey Garrett

The Nashville Business Coalition used allowance for LED billboards as a litmus test for candidates 4 years ago. A sign industry influence broker and NBC member held a post-election fundraiser for the Mayor to pay back some of his campaign bills. A little later NBC darling Chris Whitson was endorsed by the Mayor and approved by the council for an open slot on the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Has the BZA been moving toward opening the door to LED billboards? To some it seems so. Earlier this year a neighborhood leader attended a BZA hearing on an applicant's attempt to make an appeal for an LED billboard. She came away with two primary impressions. First, the applicant appeared to her to be testing the waters to see if a LED appeal could pass. Second, she wondered if some BZA members might actually be intent on permitting LED appeals based on their leading questions directed at community opponents:

• Why don't you want LED in residential area?
• What make you think having LED billboard nearby will affect the property value?
• The applicant is suggesting to lower the height and dim it at night, will you reconsider your opposition?

She wondered specifically about the propensities of David Ewing (voted against the appeal in June) and David Harper. Her perception proved right in at least Harper's case in the the latest appeal.

Whether or not Metro Law can turn this appeal around, the handwriting may be on the wall with regard  to the BZA's future intentions on LED billboards. The BZA does not appear to have been built to regulate or control Vegas-style signage dominating people's vistas. When a board is engineered to make it easier for industry to ignore community quality of life and do whatever they want, what choices are the rest of us left with?

History is written by the winners (with the help of journos)

To which CM might
that "Super Progressive"
label lead?

It wasn't too long ago that SouthComm writers labeled CM at-Large Megan Barry as a "Super Progressive," despite the fact that her only progressive chops were on nondiscrimination (eager support on Metro employees, hesitant support for Metro contractors) and on a "living wage" bill that helped a little more than a dozen Metro employees. At least we can be grateful that in their latest report she is cast not so much as a super progressive, but as one who has uncannily strong ties to local progressives while also keeping her business options open.

With interest I have followed the short but happy political life of Megan Barry for several years now I have yet to see her risk the same stances against the Nashville business junta that she has against the cash-strapped pro-neighborhoods wing in Nashville politics. I have always assumed that any strong leader has to at some point risk their political capital to show their character and the strength of their conviction to voters. Even if observers do not agree with her they may respect her for taking a stand once and a while against the odds. And that stand cannot be strictly symbolic. But I have yet to see Megan Barry lay it on the line. The truest passage of yesterday's City Paper spotlight on Barry had to do with the pure symbolism of the progressive agenda she's worked on:

Both of Barry’s key bills were also symbolic measures. The new living wage applied to only 14 workers who had wages below $10.77 per hour. And there hadn’t been many Metro workers who had actually cited discrimination in the government workplace.

“In a community where you’re starting with a baseline, and you have to make incremental steps, that’s how you bring people along,” Barry said.

At least CM Barry has the honesty to admit that these only amounted to incremental progress, but whether they build consensus is open to debate. Consensus assumes that all things are equal as partners each give up benefits to achieve something higher. However, the Nashville game is always rigged to favor industry, unsmart growth, and development over community and quality of life. So, while she may aim for consensus, in reality, neighborhoods are forced to take whatever they can get unless they stubbornly and tirelessly mobilize their numbers. Even then, they are accused (usually falsely) of being regressive, pro-status-quo, and NIMBY.

(By the way, the fact that Chris Sanders, Chair of the Tennessee Equality Project, is playing up that consensus--given that his organization is steadfastly single-issue and hidebound not to consider other people's priorities--contains no lack of irony).

On questions that are more substantive, and not symbolic, CM Barry has either wavered, flip-flopped, or sided unabashedly with the business presidium, the admirals of the Nashville Chamber of Commerce:

• She voted with Mayor Dean on a regressive stormwater fee structure that charged property owners who created less stormwater (mostly residential) more than those who generated more stormwater (mostly business) and then blamed keeping her promise to Rich Riebeling on the bill's sponsor
• She enlisted neighborhood support in her bid to beat Charlie Tygard's LED sign bill that would have allowed Vegasesque signs in residential neighborhoods, then she disappeared quietly into the LED Task Force and walked-back her opposition. Her campaign manager emerged several months later to attempt to remind neighborhood leaders that she opposed LED signs
• After sponsoring a community meeting or two on the proposed convention center, she supported it without making any demands on the Mayor or setting any perimeters for the project
• She opposed a community-based master plan project for the State Fairgrounds and she supported Mayor Dean's bid to tear everything down, sell off 95% of the non-flood-risk public property and build an expansive office park that would have been a boon to private developers while increasing vehicular traffic further polluting Brown's Creek.

So, again, how has Megan Barry been anything more but superficially progressive or pro-neighborhoods? The latest SouthComm pin-up of the council member still seems like a re-write of history, because it ignores historical facts about her record. Swallowing the story would have been easier had it been strictly a matter watching a reporter weigh in with journalistic objectivity between Barry's critics and supporters. Instead, it becomes a matter of judging whether journo's own interpretation helps a winner frame the history that her constituents remember.

Neighborhood resists Blade Runner landscape

The Tennessean has the details on a southeast Davidson County community's attempt to defend its quality of life against Vegas-minded sign companies:

A Tygard sign grows in Salemtown

One of my Salemtown neighbors has erected a Charlie Tygard-for-council sign. I figure that any home owner in an urban neighborhood who votes for sprawl-happy, developer-friendly Charlie Tygard should have to look at an LED sign from their house, since Tygard sponsored legislation to allow the brightly lit signs in high density neighborhoods like Salemtown.

How they vote is their business, but a closely-placed LED would be karma.

A strong win at the Board of Zoning Appeals against LED billboards in neighborhoods

West Mead neighborhood leader Mina Johnson attended last week's meeting of Board of Zoning Appeals, which considers requests for changes or exceptions to zoning codes and rules. Mina has been among those leading the charge against LED billboards in residential neighborhoods for the past few years. She went to the meeting to speak against request for variance to allow an LED billboard 125 feet from residential properties around Lebanon Pike.

Her dispatch is notable because it reports an important win for neighborhood advocates and it gives us some helpful clues on how the murky process of zoning appeals work:

I am happy to report that the request to allow LED Billboard was denied.

There were 3 people from nearby neighborhood association and CM [Phil] Claiborne besides myself. I learned that BZA handle [their] meeting very differently from Planning Commission. They will give 15 minutes to applicant to present the case and 15 minutes for the opponent no matter how many people pack the room. During 15 minutes, the commissioners can stop the clock to ask questions to whomever presenting the case.

In our case, they asked,

• Why don't you want LED in residential area?
• What make you think having LED billboard nearby will affect the property value?
• The applicant is suggesting to lower the height and dim it at night, will you reconsider your opposition?

It made me wonder if some of the commissioners, namely David Ewing and David Harper, want to promote LED sign in residential area.

At the end, the decision was easily made based on "No hardship was presented to grant the variance" The applicant, Jim Godsey appeared to be he was just testing the water if he could change existing billboard to LED. Though I must add he was very considerate of surrounding neighborhood. He said he did not want to upset neighbors and that the last thing he want. Commissioner Rebecca Lynford asked if he would withdraw it. He replied that what you all to decide. The request to deny the variance was the most desirable outcome for us and he was not upset.

Sincere thanks to Mina for being a strong advocate for neighborhoods and representing us well.

How many trademarks do these sign-industry-produced anti-racetrack signs violate?

I've been loath to join recent discussions of campaign yard sign wars that tend to be the focus of racetrack opponents' online expressions of moral outrage. Yard signs are overrated means of conducting a campaign since people usually are not swayed to support or oppose something based on reading them.

However, I do want to draw your attention to a sign that was -- I am told by a well-placed source -- professionally produced by Bobby Joslin, owner of Joslin Signs, for the supporters of the Mayor's plan to demolish the racetrack and sell off the Fairgrounds to private developers. The sign ironically includes a photo of racer and racetrack supporter Jimmy Johnson's car displaying all of Johnson's commercial sponsors.

So, does the sign imply that Lowe's, Chevrolet, or Kobalt Tools endorse the Mayor's plan to demolish the racetrack?

Germantown's Gateway design winner

Germantown leaders have incorporated both residential and industrial inspiration in their new Gateway concept:



What I liked about the original Salemtown ID signs were their muted industrial look. The final product from the designer regrettably sacrificed the industrial look to overly bright colors.

The winning Germantown design looks like it has those classic industrial overtones. It is a winner.

Sponsors defer LED sign measures to have "courtesy meeting"

Burkley Allen reports the latest news about tomorrow's Planning Commission agenda changes to the Nashville Neighborhoods e-list:

Sponsors of both LED bills on the planning agenda have asked for a deferral for both bills so that the two groups can have a courtesy meeting. This means that both bills will be deferred for at least one meeting. The only public comment tomorrow will be on the request to defer the bills, not on the merit of the bills themselves.

Hopefully the outcome of the courtesy meeting will be a single bill that does not allow LED signs in residential or agricultural districts. I think this has the potential to have a positive outcome and is definitely a result of the strong input from the public. Everyone's letters have made a difference.

Neighborhood leaders had been making plans to show up tomorrow and the e-mails on LED bills were running heavily against placing LEDs in residential neighborhoods.

All the king's horses, all the king's men

Yeah, take note of restaurateur Mike Kelly on one end and a big shot from the local franchise of a national temp labor corporation on the far side. More importantly notice the joy expressed by the men situated closest to Mayor Karl Dean: sign monger, Bobby Joslin, who would like nothing better than to install a bright LED or two in your neighborhood and Democratic Party insider and lobbyist Dave Cooley, who takes money to win political projects by trashing other people's good names. Just off frame and out of sight are the anonymous trolls Cooley uses to prowl the internet and win by any means necessary.

This is the image that I will carry into the voting booth with me in the next mayoral election. It's burned into my memory.

Photo credit: Holly Spann via Dru's Views

Neighborhood leaders organized to fight LEDs in residential areas on Thursday

An invitation sent out to the Nashville Neighborhoods Google group:

Nashville’s neighborhoods said "No" to [attempts to allow LED signs in neighborhoods] in June. Over 200 letters and email messages were sent to the Planning Commissioners and 30 people spoke at a public hearing against a bill that would have allowed LED signs in residential neighborhoods. The loud public outcry was heard. The original bill was disapproved.

Now a new bill allowing LED signs to shine in our residential neighborhood is on the table. This is named ESOD Version 1 (One). An alternate bill by the Planning Department bans LED signs from residential neighborhoods. This favored bill is named ESOD Version 2 (Two).

How can we protect our neighborhoods from commercial-type LED signs?

1. Send email to Planning Commissioners: (planning.commissioners@nashville.gov) and say you Oppose ESOD Version 1 (One) but Support ESOD Version 2 (Two).
2. Come to the Public Hearing on Thursday, January 28th at 4 pm and say a few words or sit with the opponents. The hearing will be near the airport in the “Metro Southeast” meeting room. This is near the corner of Murfreesboro and McGavock Pikes (officially at 1417 Murfreesboro Pike) but down between the Genesco building and the Johnston & Murphy (shoe) Store.

Why do we want to support ESOD Version 2 (Two)?
Because it is a fair, sound proposal that will protect the quality of life and property values in residential areas and limit electronic (LED) commercial-type signs to commercial and mixed-use areas.

Neighborhoods volunteers have been working with the Planning Department and Council members since October on the "No LED Signs in Residential Areas" bill. The planning staff listened to the neighborhood concerns and will recommend disapproval of ESOD Version 1 (One) and approval of ESOD Version 2 (Two).

Version 1 will allow LED signs in residential neighborhoods. Disapprove.
Version 2 will allow LED signs only in commercial and industrial areas. Approve.

Only 5 days left to protect our neighborhoods. Send your email now.

And a child shall lead them, if by "child" you mean WKRN's Jamey Tucker

More than either of the other two local news television stations, News 2 has tended to have a culture war edge to it, especially in the reporting of Jamey Tucker. And we can perennially bet that Tucker will ramp up the theo-con angles (or is than "angels"?) on his reportage the deeper we move into the year-end holiday season.

Tucker is starting early this year with a story on an LED billboard, which is controversial enough with many neighborhoods. However, he is seemingly not interested in the quality-of-life impact of bright, streaming, distracting Vegas-style billboards. Instead he hones in on one particularly innocent message like a duck on a June bug and he wrings his own meaning from it.

As I said, Tucker's biased reporting is typical of his history of covering faith-based issues. His comment that the sign advertises the belief that there is no God seems to be designed to incite drama where there may not be any. His bias is probably going to end up as an unintentional fundraising catalyst for a project that otherwise would have had less.

HT: Jack Silverman

UPDATE: I just found out that Jamey Tucker has a ministry outside of his work at WKRN. There is nothing wrong with having a moonlighting ministry. There is something wrong if Tucker allows that ministry to bias his journalism. And I see strong consistencies between the slant of spin against WKRN report subjects who are not evangelical, and his overtly evangelical ministry reportage like this:

Not so fast, Michael Cass

The Tennessean's long-time Metro beat reporter Michael Cass veered overboard today describing the connection between a church's will-to-commerce and Charlie Tygard's will-to-power. Here's how Cass retells the history of the LED signage controversy:

The issue has pitted commercial interests and some community organizations against neighborhood groups for more than 18 months, raising questions of effective advertising, "visual clutter" and enforcement. After Tygard postponed a 2008 bill inspired by a Bellevue church's plea for a more visible way to market themselves along a heavily commercial stretch of Highway 100, the council put together a task force to come up with another plan.

Is there a double standard using romantic concepts like inspiration to describe the drive to light neighborhoods with LEDs while descriptions of neighborhoods seek to protect their quality of life against LEDs are described more neutrally or negatively? And then there is the issue of what these congregations want to be in chasing after commercial-style amenities as "community organizations." One member of the Nashville neighborhood list responded with the following letter to the Tennessean challenging the "inspired" theory of faith-based commercial signage in residential neighborhoods:

To the Editor:

An article in The Tennessean on [Nov] 2 said that a proposed Metro Council bill on permitting commercial-type, brilliant, LED electronic signs for churches and schools in residential neighborhoods is being delayed. The article said the bill was "inspired by a Bellevue church's plea for a more visible way to market themselves."

How inspiring is that? A tax-free church that believes commercial-type, outdoor, electronic signs is their route to salvation.

I believe that churches that behave like businesses and rely upon business-type outdoor advertising along the roads are churches that have lost their way.

Pete Horton, Nashville 37204

Amen, brother.

"Huge bullies" like Lamar Advertising

Southern Beale is not pleased with the appearance of a LED billboard in her Green Hills community:

when it first appeared (in place of an old-fashioned non-electronic kind) it raised a huge outcry among neighborhood folks who don’t like the increasing prevalence of these electronic thingamajigs. They are quite controversial irrespective of their advertising content, mainly because they are too bright, too loud, and too obnoxious for anyplace not Times Square ....

This one shows us the weather report and sports headlines in addition to advertisements. Personally, if I want to know the weather forecast I'm not looking at a freaking billboard. Thank you for turning what is a quiet retail/residential area into something that resembles downtown Tokyo. How sensitive to the neighborhood. Not.

This particular one, as I recall, doesn’t meet the existing code for where electronic billboards can be located. It was snuck in under the dead of night under the outdoor advertising industry’s favorite “let’s do what we want now and deal with the consequences later” ploy. Outdoor advertising companies like Lamar are huge bullies, in my opinion.

As I recall, Councilman Sean McGuire was supposedly working to get it removed, though that was a few months ago and I never heard any more about it.

CM Megan Barry resurfaces after running silent on the LED issue

Megan Barry's campaign manager Elizabeth M-K Sullivan announced to the Nashville Neighborhoods e-list this morning that CM-at-Large Barry not only opposed Charlie Tygard's failing light-emitting-diode-sign bill, but that she is "working on this issue right now." Call me a cynic if you like, but this strikes me as freighthopping mid-passage in order to add "keeping LED signs out of residential neighborhoods" to her bulleted list of accomplishments in the next campaign.

We can fact-check that spin. After coming out of the gate strongly opposed on this issue, she convinced me of the rightness of the cause, but then she voted for the task force allowance of LED signs in neighborhoods and equivocated on the question:

Fellow at-large Councilwoman Megan Barry reiterated her concerns about sign ordinance enforcement by the Codes Department, although she voted in favor of the task force’s recommendations.

“I think it gives the Council some opportunity to have some discussion about what they want to see go forward,” Barry said. “I do agree that… we may have created a bat to kill a gnat and that’s a concern. It’s definitely a concern for all the neighborhoods because they don’t want to see these things in their neighborhoods. The reality may be that they’re not going to see them, I don’t know. We need to have a good discussion on Council.”

Now she seems to be walking back a harder stance given the community-leveraged road blocks to the LED sign proposal. It's not right, but it's okay, because I don't reject any CM's help on this important issue, but Ms. Barry has miles to go to convince me that she is not trying to get back into the party now that band has finally arrived.

Community Leaders Respond to Planners' Recommendations on LED Signs

Below is a sampling of the Nashville Neighborhoods e-list reactions to news that Metro Planning disapproves of CM Charlie Tygard's proposal to place commercial-style LED signs in residential neighborhoods and that they are offering an alternative, as-yet unsponsored ordinance called "Electronic Sign Overlay District." Planners will make their recommendations to the Planning Commission later today.

Trish Bolian:

actually, I find it one of the WORST things they have ever proposed....creating constant monitoring by every neighborhood in this city well into the future...and granting of permission on an individual basis with neighborhoods having little ground to stand on to prevent these signs. Also, it does not restrict LED's to those who have currently lit signs. My worst fear is that anyone would step forward to sponsor it. I see it as a nightmare. I am among those who will meet with planning this afternoon to go over all of this but I see their proposal as a disaster.

Charlotte Cooper:

I don't like the alternate bill, but it may have a better chance of getting approved than the Tygard bill; therefore, I was merely trying to mitigate the consequences by suggesting the addition of language that would prohibit application for ESOD unless the applicant property is surrounded by commercial zoning. I think this would eliminate the possibility of LED signs in residential neighborhoods - ALL residential neighborhoods, without neighborhoods having to oppose applications. Perhaps there is a flaw in my suggestion, but having an ordinance that prohibits LED signs for civic use property zoned R in a residential neighborhood might be a good thing. In addition, the alternate ordinance also prohibits the use of SP zoning in Section 4 by amending 17.40.105 of the Metropolitan Code to read "The Specific Plan district shall not be used for the purpose of approving an electronic display sign."

Adrianne Marianelli:

To me, the ESO would be another name for SP sign zoning for certain landowners, including Metro .... In my opinion, the alternative ordinance should be disapproved. It is even less restrictive in residential districts than the original request. If the residential districts are removed from the original request, then I believe most of the opposition will end. The codes department already does not have enough employees to ensure any new LED sign compliance in residential districts.

CM Emily Evans (not an e-list member, but her message was forwarded per her request by a member in response to a direct query):

The staff has recommended disapproval. The staff alternative is just an idea and I do not think anyone has gotten behind it and plans to move it forward. I know that MPC will not be voting on any text amendments related to it. There is a draft circulating and some comments are that are very much in order.

A Metro Planner (not an e-list member, but her message was forwarded by members who met with her to discuss community reaction):

The public hearing on the Sign Task Force bill is closed and the Planning Commission will deliberate on that. Staff is recommending that discussion on the Alternative Electronic Sign Overlay District be deferred indefinitely.

LED Proposal Re-emerges on Thursday Planning Commission Agenda

Metro planners have placed an attempt to allow commercial-style light emitting diode signs in residential neighborhoods on the Planning Commission's Thursday agenda for reconsideration. However, unlike last June, planners are now recommending disapproval of CM Charlie Tygard's proposal based on two reasons. In the first place:

From a land use policy perspective, staff would argue that these electronic display signs are not appropriate in all residentially- and agriculturally-zoned areas. While there may be some areas zoned for residential or agricultural use where an electronic display sign could be appropriate, staff finds that the process outlined in this bill does not adequately allow for consideration of the context of the site and the potential impact on surrounding properties. Rather than a one-size-fits-all list of criteria for the BZA to consider, the decision on the appropriateness of an electronic display sign should be based upon analysis of the context of the area.

So, it appears that planners have now adopted arguments by LED opponents that a one-size-fits-all-neighborhoods approach to allowing commercial-style signs is impractical and heavy-handed. This looks like progress to me.

In the second place:

from a practical point of view, the bill, as written, will not prevent future requests for Specific Plan or other inappropriate commercial zoning districts to accommodate the signs in residential districts. The process and standards recommended in this bill will limit the community education facilities, cultural centers, recreation centers, and religious institutions that are eligible to apply for, and receive permission to have, an electronic display sign. This is unlikely, however, to reduce the demand for these signs. As a result, these institutions will continue to seek electronic display signs by requesting rezoning to Specific Plan or other commercial zoning districts.

Essentially, not only will residential neighborhoods have to brook bright LED advertisements with approval of Tygard's bill, but they will continue to face increased developer demand for Specific Plans in order to get around the zoning. Tygard's bill means more money for the sign industry and more trouble for residential neighborhoods.

On Thursday, planners are offering their own alternative proposal free for any CM to pick up and sponsor. Their proposed ordinance would create an "Electronic Sign Overlay District" as "a means by which land uses situated within areas of the community where zoning does not permit electronic display signs by right, may have a process to obtain an electronic display sign if the sign is found to be compatible with the existing and proposed development pattern as outlined in the principles, policies and objectives of the general plan." Control over recommending the ESO would not go to Board of Zoning Appeals, but would stay with the Planning Commission before going to Metro Council.

According to the Nashville Neighborhoods e-list, one leader followed up with questions about the alternative and a planner responded:

We are trying to come up with the most forthright way to deal with electronic sign applications and give the public the most information as was requested by the Planning Commission. Short of a complete prohibition on electronic signs, this is the best way to make the public aware of a proposed LED sign. If we don't do this, there will still be SP and CS rezoning requests. We don't see that there is an interest on Council's behalf in a prohibition ....

Yes, there will be a public hearing for the commission to take input on the proposed ordinance.

P.S. I want to be clear about something - the purpose on Thursday's meeting is to vote on the Sign Task Force Bill and our recommendation is to disapprove.

The proposed ESO is not a bill, doesn't have a sponsor, it is our recommendation of a better way to do what the Sign Task Force Bill set out to do. We have no idea if it will go anywhere.

It seems clear to me that Planning has changed their action to advocating disapproval of Tygard's LED bill, which would mean it would require a supermajority (27 instead of 21) to pass it in Metro Council. I find curious the claim that there is no Council interest in a prohibition on LEDs in residential areas. Have industry lobbyists so influenced the legislative process that the choice is either to pass Tygard's bill or to take no action to reform and update regulations on commercial advertising in and around our dwellings? It seemed ominous when self-proclaimed reformer Megan Barry flip-flopped from wanting to beat Tygard's LED bill to disappearing entirely from the debate. Was it an indication that the planner was right about the council mood on this issue? I find that prospect disturbing.

After reading the description of the planner's proposal (p. 52), anyone have any insight on its merits?