Dean: "at some point" the neighborhoods most affected by a new ballpark will be brought into ballpark planning

I distinctly recall that in the days when a previous ballpark proposal was under consideration under a previous Mayor, community meetings were held for feedback on location and other considerations well in advance of the legislative debate beginning. Not going to happen under Karl Dean:

crucially, the mayor did say, at least during his time left in office, there would be a new park in Sulphur Dell or there'd be no new park at all, quashing once and for all any hopes of a stadium at the old Thermal Plant site in SoBro or at the foot of the Korean Veterans Bridge on the East Bank. The former was all-but a done deal in 2008 and the latter was briefly considered a frontrunner as late as last year.

Indeed, the Sounds — and even former Nashville Vols who actually played at the original Sulphur Dell — were on the record, in the past, as being unenthused about the prospect of moving to North Nashville.

Sticking with the theme that all of this is very early — the mayor wouldn't commit to any "hard timeline" on the project — Dean said at some point the area's neighborhood associations would be brought into the discussion, though he said "this is a project for the whole city."

I guess under this "strong executive" form of county government, the Mayor unlike other mayors need not be a "neighborhoods mayor". However, the peculiar hypocrisy of saying the interests of proximate neighborhoods should take a backseat to the city is obvious to those of us who watched the theatrics of the Mayor's plan to sell the State Fairgrounds to private developers.

First, I recall a gaggle of residents from South Nashville neighborhoods around the Fairgrounds supporting the Mayor's plan and arguing repeatedly that even though the Fairgrounds is public property, their communities should have more say over demolition and planning than anyone who did not live nearby. Second, when Karl Dean introduced his Fairgrounds sell-off plan, he greased the skids at the first council committee meeting considering his plan by showing a video of neighborhood association president Keith Moorman promoting Fairgrounds demolition/redevelopment to the Chamber of Commerce and the news media. South Nashville Action People, the association representing the Wedgewood Houston neighborhood, got their own exclusive public hearing before the council during which Mr. Moorman pitched the Mayor's Fairgrounds plan. No opponents were allowed to speak at this committee meeting. Instead, they had to wait until council's public hearing. Further, the Mayor's SNAP supporters even insinuated that they were entitled to their own public hearing later in the council process, as if Mr. Moorman had not been given one in the first place.

And one more note. The land on which a new Sulphur Dell would sit belongs to the state. By Hizzoner's own logic, a new Sulphur Dell ought to be "a project for the whole state" with the city brought in "at some point".

Straight from jump this Mayor has consistently shown benign neglect toward North Nashville. He merely perpetuates that neglect by not affording our neighborhoods the same influence over a major capital project (in this case a ballpark) that he grants others. My interpretation of "the point" at which Mayor Dean will bring North Nashville communities into the process is basically when, if ever, it is safe for him to.

False equivalence at the Tennessean

For the past few months the political beat writers around the city have amplified the organization of supporters of the Mayor's plan to sell off the Fairgrounds, even though there was little or no evidence that they had a popular movement behind them. Even the ultimate test of a landslide referendum win seems to prompt no change in the reportage.

Michael Cass's report on last week's election keeps up the false equivalence as if demolition supporters swarmed the polls to the same degree that advocates of a community-based master plan did:

the century-old fairgrounds ... has divided neighbors and other residents throughout the city. The fight has pitted people who love the fairgrounds' history and affordable activities against those who believe it's mostly dead space and a noisy nuisance when cars are zooming around

Judging by the 71%-29% landslide of the referendum, the Fairgrounds no more divided neighbors than Karl Dean himself did. And yet, Cass never brings up Karl Dean's divisiveness in his report on the Mayor's race. Instead, Cass ponders how the popular Mayor will get the extra 6 council votes the referendum mandates.

Unlike the relatively positive media spin that Fairgrounds opponents like South Nashville Action People and Neighbors for Progress received during the past year, the Mayor's no-name opponents got next to none. There is no telling how media coverage of SNAP/NFP motivated people to vote against the referendum and there is no telling how low the percentage of "against" referendum votes would have been had SNAP/NFP received the same meager coverage that Karl Dean's opponents did.

The most disingenuous quote from Thursday's Metro Nashville ballot

From the AP:

Colby Sledge, a member of Neighbors for Progress, a group of south Nashville residents who have complained about the noise and pollution from the racetrack, said the next steps are to get more input on what residents want at the facility and try to reach an agreement that everyone can be happy with.

"We'll try to see if we can come to a consensus that's been elusive in this whole process," Sledge said.

I've heard preservationists say on several occasions that they have extended offers to Sledge's South Nashville Action People to work on neighborhood quality of life only to have their offers ignored. In the meantime, Sledge moved on supporting the plans to move the fleamarket to Hickory Hollow, to tear down the Fairgrounds and to replace it with a private office park built by wealthy real estate interests while relying on the assistance of Democratic insiders and the money of at least one political action committee.

If anything can be described as elusive in the process it is the authenticity of the SNAP/Neighborhoods for Progress group who talk as if they want a consensus, but walk as if they can only rely on partisan power from beyond the community to get exclusively what they want.

Davidson Co DA declares that Neighbors for Progress lawyer's slur of "illegal conduct" has no merit

What a monumental waste of time it must have been for the District Attorney's office to have to consider a request from the Neighbors for Progress lawyer to investigate unfounded "illegal conduct" allegations about Davidson County citizens who organized to legally leverage a referendum on Fairgrounds demolition.

From the beginning Democratic hack and former journo Colby Sledge and his NFP organization have slung mud at the intentions and the actions of those of us who supported the movement to stop Mayor Karl Dean's take-over of the planning process for the State Fairgrounds. They generated innuendo and gossip about Fairgrounds supporters coming from outside the county and being bankrolled by racers. Once it became obvious that the referendum had enough popular support to be put on the ballot, they trashed Fairgrounds supporters during the Election Commission process, and the latest false charge of "illegal conduct" was just part of the pattern of lies to stop a movement that is determined to stop Karl Dean's bulldozers.

Hence, the DA's refusal is further evidence that Neighbors for Progress's case for stopping Fairgrounds supporters never had merit and their ulterior motive has been to help Karl Dean prevail by any means necessary. But they just keep losing:

District Attorney General Torry Johnson said a review of the petitions determined that no further investigation should be conducted.

"The Election Commission is very stringent in its review of these petitions and they determined that there were more than enough qualified signatures provided that they didn't even need to rely on any of these forms the ‘Neighbors for Progress' group found questionable

Leader of the Fairgrounds referendum effort, CM Jamie Hollin, called Neighbors for Progress's latest efforts nothing but "gutter politics." That's exactly what they are conducting despite their claims to be community-based. It seems more like a party-type campaign of mud-slinging.

Neighbors for Hypocrisy

Remember how 35 members of Neighbors for Progress stood in a Metro Council public hearing last January and stipulated that their opinions of how redevelopment should occur at the Fairgrounds count for more than those of anyone else who lived farther away?

Well, it takes a lot of nerve for Colby Sledge and his gang to go outside of the Fairgrounds area to try and influence the re-election chances of a West Nashville CM simply because he did not agree with their opinions (or maybe they realize they can't beat the referendum and they're trying to pack the council with Deaniacs like Sarah Lodge Tally):

Going Rove hyper-locally

A week ago I ventured the hypothesis that the recent moves of the group that was started to help pass the Mayor's plan to sell off the Fairgrounds, Neighbors for Progress, seemed a lot like an election campaign designed to foil council votes against the Mayor. CM Jamie Hollin looks like he might believe likewise in a City Paper article by Charles Maldonado published yesterday:

Progress, thy dance is a two-step

The State Fair Board meets in the morning, and so, of course Neighbors for Progress/South Nashville Action People spokesperson Colby Sledge continued his media tour to discredit the Fairgrounds referendum by appearing on NewsChannel5's "Morning Line" today.

The Sledge two-step abides. When the issue was moving the flea market to Hickory Hollow, Sledge supported it. Then the issue shifted to demolishing the racetrack, and Sledge supported it. When the operation of the racetrack reasserted itself and a broadly-informed community plan was called for, Sledge trotted out a scheme to entrench NFP control over operation and plan.

Improbable odds and double standards

• Save My Fairgrounds, the preservationist group, was required to turn in almost 16,000 petition signatures from registered Davidson County voters to leverage a referendum on a charter provision that would simply increase approval for any demolition by half-a-dozen CM votes.
• News reports a week ago said that SMF had collected over 10,000 signatures in a matter of weeks. They maintained last Monday that they have more than the required number.
• Last December South Nashville Action People set a goal of 2,000 signatures on a petition expressing support for the Mayor's plan to start Fairgrounds demolition in order to motivate the council to vote to demo.
• According to SNAP leaders a few weeks later, they had only collected 500 signatures while bound by no limitations, rules, or deadlines. Nonetheless, they lost the council vote to demo by a whisker.
• SNAP announced this week the "hiring" of a lawyer to challenge the authenticity of SMF petition signatures, alleging that SMF brought in "disruptive" agitators to influence local politics. 
• The SNAP petition's legitimacy and authenticity never faced the same doubt or scrutiny that SMF's is. Despite the fact that SNAP never produced large public demonstrations or held transparent meetings, they received the benefit of the doubt in most cases, and very nearly pulled out a council win.

There is no way the preservationists should still be in the fight. The bar has always been set higher for them than for the South Nashville organization. In fact, the bar has been in perpetual motion, lofted higher every time SMF scratches out a victory.

The greater petition requirement is only the latest inequity. Assuming they got 10,000 signatures, they collected 20x more sigs than SNAP did. If they have enough to leverage a referendum they will have collected 30x more sigs than SNAP did.

But I tend to believe some other obstacle will be hoisted should they eek out another accomplishment. The small group on the other side shows no willingness to compromise and they have friends in high places.

The real goal of the charter provision cannot be so gainsaid

South Nashville Life blogger Jen Trail misrepresents the effect of changing the Metro charter's provision on the Fairgrounds:

A group of neighbors of the Tennessee State Fairgrounds have engaged with a lawyer* to hold accountable the petition to add a referendum to the ballot that, if passed, would make it more difficult to do anything with the fairgrounds property other than maintain the status quo.

Here is what the proposed change says:

all activities being conducted on the premises of the Tennessee State Fairgrounds as of December 31, 2010, including, but not limited to, the Tennessee State Fair, Expo Center Events, Flea Markets, and Auto Racing, shall be continued on the same site. No demolition of the premises shall be allowed to occur without approval by ordinance receiving 27 votes by the Metropolitan Council or amendment to the Metropolitan Charter

This provision does not stop the community planning process on the Fairgrounds started earlier this year by the Metro Council. It only says that any demolition that occurs on the premises requires a super-majority rather than a simple majority of the Metro Council to approve. I also wonder if it prevents a unilateral move by the Mayor to demolish (has happened before elsewhere).

During the past couple of years the chips have been stacked against those of us who opposed moving the flea market to Hickory Hollow, to hacking up the Fairgrounds and selling it to private developers, and to the Mayor's absolute power to make these moves unchecked by the community. The latest underhanded moves included stacking a neighborhood advisory group with representatives from demo-driven South Nashville Action People/Neighbors For Progress and giving them recommendation powers to an already Dean-friendly State Fair Board with unchecked fiat over the lease.

In that kind of scenario, it does not matter how many Nashvillians oppose Fairgrounds demolition. The game is rigged against broad, popular sentiment about a public property. What can bring balance to the process is the Metro Council, which can send any one-sided concepts back into the community planning process.

SNAP has had countless opportunities to try and influence the direction of Fairgrounds redevelopment, which can and should happen (in fact, it should have happened years ago while the powers that be were allowing it the property to deteriorate). Their lack of success should not place extra obligations on any one else with an opposing interest in the Fairgrounds issue. Likewise, It is not too much to ask that--whatever concepts eventually emerge from the community planning process--that they receive the support of 27 rather than 21 council members to verify that everyone had the chance to influence the final product.

I honestly fail to see why Jen and her SNAP cohort would be opposed to supporting the most democratic solution to a planning challenge, unless they believe that support for the Mayor's initiative for an office park is not popular to begin with.

Full disclosure: For the first time ever I signed a petition for a public referendum when late last week I signed and returned the petition to put this charter change on ballot the next election. I believe it encourages a more inclusive community planning process rather than narrowing the process to suit the exclusive ideas of those supporting Mayor Dean.

Gruhn challenges Tennessean reporter's story

Fairgrounds preservationists sent out an email blast tonight that included a letter to the editor from well-known and reputable local businessman George Gruhn on a local organization's latest terms for the Fairgrounds:

The top of the page headline in the Local News section of the Sunday April 3 Tennessean entitled Neighbors Offer Racing Deal states "The South Nashville Action People neighborhood group has reached an agreement with fair board chairman James Weaver that would allow five racing weekends in both 2011 and 2012." implies in no uncertain terms that a final deal has been reached when in fact any such decision needs to be made by the full fair board which does not meet until April 5 and later in the same article it is mentioned that Weaver stated that he didn't know if the full board would support this so-called compromise he had worked out without consultation with other board members.

The South Nashville Action People group comprises a small minority of neighborhood residents. There has been no vote giving SNAP authority to represent people who live in this area. Furthermore it should be noted that the fairgrounds are a publicly owned facility belonging the citizens of Davidson County as a whole rather than the local neighborhood. The Metro Council has already passed legislation keeping the fairgrounds open and approving racing as well as other activities currently held at the facility.

SNAP makes third unilateral move against the Fairgrounds

There they go again.

First, the South Nashville Action People organization supported Mayor Karl Dean's plan to exile the State Fairgrounds Expo's fleamarket to Hickory Hollow mall and sell off the property to private developers. After the exile scheme crashed and burned, SNAP backed the Mayor's plan to keep the fleamarket for a short time but demolish the racetrack. Then that pitch was crushed by an opposition whose scale dwarfed the handful of SNAP reps we've actually seen.

A few days ago SNAP leaders made its third unilateral attempt to dictate its terms without direct negotiation with Fairgrounds supporters in Davidson County. Yesterday I obtained a copy of the SNAP document called "Community/Neighborhood Terms for a 2011-2012 Race Track Lease," which I posted at Google Docs. Look over the document and give your feedback in the comments section.

Could Wedgewood-Houston SNAP to it?

According to the Nashville neighborhoods e-list, Colby Sledge (one of the leaders of South Nashville Action People, which supports the Mayor's plans to privatize the State Fairgrounds) wrote an article inviting residents of Wedgewood-Houston to a meeting:

Oh, SNAP! Did "Make the Fairgrounds Green" always really mean "Make the Fairgrounds Green Hills"?

While South Nashville Action People leader Keith Moorman is now styled as a community spokesman in the Mayor's project to sell off the Fairgrounds, his mission to move the State Fair under a banner of pro-developer greenness was viewed with skepticism in 2007 by some in his own neighborhood. Pith in the Wind blogger Steve Haruch provided an early illustration of Mr. Moorman's mission, which included a website now scrubbed off the net:

Rachel, of Women's Health News, responds cautiously in the comments:

The lack of identification makes me skeptical as well, especially given all of the "developers aren't so bad!" language. The only thing I can tell is that the site was registered by a Keith Moorman. I'm also interested in knowing whether they have been in contact with any existing neighborhood groups, like South Nashville Action People, who have been talking about and involved with the Fairgrounds issue for a while now (haven't received a response to my email inquiry). While I'm all for improvement because I live nearby, it's hard to know right now who these people are or what their real intentions are.

We asked around a bit, and no one seemed to have heard of the group or the website. Shannon Hornsby of Walk/Bike Nashville said she had never seen the site before. An email to the Middle Tennessee chapter of The U.S. Green Building Council was unanswered as of this writing.

We were, however, able to catch up with the site's creator. Pith in the Wind spoke to Mr. Moorman by phone yesterday. Mr. Moorman said that the website does not represent any organization, per se, but, rather, "It's just me .... The project's done. I just wanted to put my opinion out there—just to get my point across," he said. "If the city goes forward...if something comes of it, great." That shoulder-shrugging statement seems to sell short the mission expressed on the website:

The mission of makethefairgroundsgreen.org is two-fold:

One, we advocate for an alternative use of the current Fairgrounds site. Of course, right now no one knows what that will eventually be, and besides, whatever happens to a redeveloped Fairgrounds is for all of Nashville to decide. Our single, simple goal for the Fairgrounds is to see a green development that includes pedestrian-friendly spaces, plenty of trees, and no entertainment venues that create noise and draw excessive traffic.

Two, we advocate for relocating the Fairgrounds to an alternative site in Davidson County that can continue the great tradition of the Tennessee State Fair, but with updated facilities, better interstate access, and a more suitable topography for hosting the Fair.

And though the Keith Moorman PITW spoke to called makethefairgroundsgreen.org a "committee of one," he said that his wife, a Nashville attorney, would be filing the papers of incorporation necessary to gain non-profit status.

Moorman seemed eager to ward off the "tone of suspicion" he said he had picked up from some of the emails he had received. "The prevailing attitude seems to be, 'Who are these people? Is there something shady going on?' People think I'm a developer. I'm just a citizen." Later in the conversation, he added, "I'm not affiliated with any developer."

There are a couple of interesting background points that need to be underscored.

One is the early involvement in this project of Keith Moorman's wife, who is employed by a law firm with a primary lawyer for the Mayor's convention center project and close friend of Metro Finance Director Rich Riebeling. When I raised this possible conflict of interest two weeks ago, the blogger from South Nashville Life accused me of reaching and she maintained that Mr. Moorman's wife has been "out of the picture" on the Fairgrounds issue. The Pith post hardly placed her out of the picture in 2007.

The second point is that Mr. Moorman's green vision for the fairgrounds no longer includes a primary emphasis on tree-filled, entertainment-free, auto-limited quiet spaces. On November 9 he told the Metro Council he wanted another Green Hills, 5 Points, or 12South at the redeveloped Fairgrounds. With the Mayor only expressing a willingness to devote around 5% of the land that he is not compelled to devote (because of flooding risk) to green space, it appears that Mr. Moorman's vow to making the Fairgrounds green is much weaker than it used to be. However, his talking point that developers are not so bad still looks strong.

FT: The Antioch Protest Chicken

More special council hearing privileges for SNAP leaders?

It does not seem to be enough that South Nashville Action People leader Keith Moorman enjoyed the privilege of his own special council hearing time next to Mayor Karl Dean on the Fairgrounds question on Nov. 9. Now another SNAP representative--expressing his displeasure with Metro Council granting a public hearing to those attending first reading on the issue Nov. 16th and with Fairgrounds preservationists' new request for a public hearing during second reading on Dec. 7--is lobbying council for an exclusive "public hearing" only for those who support the Mayor.

Here is an excerpt from SNAP's Fred Agee to all Metro Council members, which was forwarded to the Nashville Neighborhoods e-list:

I would respectfully ask the Council Members to reserve any consideration for another public hearing to those who support the Hickory Hollow Leases that may want to have a public hearing. If SNAP wishes to request a public hearing you will hear from our leadership.

Either Mr. Agee does not understand that a "public hearing" on Dec. 7 would give all sides time to address the council or he believes his group is entitled to continue the same exclusive access that Keith Moorman scored back on Nov. 9. If the former, hopefully someone in South Nashville will help him see that Dec. 7 is his side's opportunity to flex their muscles. If the latter, how many Fairgrounds opponents have Mr. Agee's inflated sense of entitlement that they do not have to play by the rules that everyone else does?

Either way, if Metro Council caves to this request and offers an exclusive SNAP hearing, which could not be called "public" in any sense, then it would be out of order and unfair to all sides.