Historic zoning reorganization clears final Nashville Council hurdle
A bill placing Metro Historic Zoning Commission staff under the purview of the Planning Department has cleared its final Metro Nashville Council hurdle.
At Tuesday's council meeting, the group voted 24-11 to approve the bill on its third and final reading, with District 25 Council Member Jeff Preptit abstaining. Council members Zulfat Suara, Ginny Welsch, Russ Bradford and David Benton were absent. With that approval, the ordinance will take effect on July 1.
The bill initially called for folding both the Historic Zoning Commission and Metro Historical Commission into planning, but the final version keeps the Historical Commission a separate entity. Though the Historic Zoning Commission's staff will report to the executive director of the Planning Department, the commission itself will retain its current voting powers and authority.
The bill also had a public hearing at Tuesday's meeting, which comes with an opportunity for an unlimited public comment period rather than the 20-minute window allotted for each meeting. Several dozen Nashvillians spoke at Tuesday's meeting, and more than 30 members of that group were opposed to the bill.
Some of them argued that the process had moved too quickly and without enough public input. Others said the public hearing should have taken place sooner so council members would have the ability to propose and consider amendments to the bill. Typically, the last opportunity to amend or substitute council bills is on its second of three readings, unless the rules are suspended.
Besides the local bill, there's still legislation working through the process at the state level that could further affect historic zoning decisions.
The Tennessee bill aims to curb historic zoning commissions' authority in "tourism development zones." There are several throughout the state and one in Nashville, with boundaries covering the entire downtown area.
The Senate and House versions of that bill currently are awaiting committee approval. The House version is listed on the calendar for the Cities and Counties Subcommittee on Wednesday. After that, the bill will be eligible for a final vote in both chambers before it can move on to the governor's desk.
At their last meeting, some Nashville Council members voiced concern that failing to move forward with a local bill quickly enough could open the door for state lawmakers to preempt Nashville through legislation of their own.
Austin Hornbostel is the Metro reporter for The Tennessean. Have a question about local government you want an answer to? Reach him at ahornbostel@tennessean.com.
This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Historic zoning reorganization clears final Nashville Council hurdle
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
McCarthy slams Newsom over LA protests: ‘It is embarrassing'
Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) slammed California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) for his handling of the Los Angeles protests that have ignited over the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in the area. 'You've got to look at our governor. First, he created a sanctuary state. Then, if you listen to the protesters. It's really not about immigration. It's about trying to take California back to Mexico. Look at the flags they're waving. Look at what they're saying,' McCarthy said during an episode of 'Cats Roundtable' on WABC 770 AM that aired Sunday. 'I mean, and I don't understand how Democrats are standing with that. I mean, whatever happened to law and order and safe streets. And look what they're doing. They're literally throwing fireballs at cop cars. They're throwing bricks at officers,' McCarthy told host John Catsimatidis. 'I mean, it is embarrassing.' Newsom's office hit back at McCarthy in a statement to The Hill, accusing him of 'chasing relevancy.' 'The former short-term speaker is chasing relevancy and has no idea what he's talking about. This is simply incorrect. First, SB 54 was enacted before Governor Newsom took office. McCarthy should be fully aware of this,' Newsom's office said. 'Second, our state laws do not conflict with any federal law. As a former representative of the California's Central Valley, McCarthy's disrespect for the diverse and rich community that help make this state and the region he represented great is abhorrent. Period. Full stop.' Newsom, along with Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D), has received heavy criticism from Republicans over their response to the Los Angeles protests that have seen violent protestors vandalizing a federal building and setting cars on fire. President Trump's administration greenlighted the deployment of Marines and the National Guard to Los Angeles, arguing troops are needed to safeguard personnel and buildings. Newsom, Bass and other Democrats have slammed the move, contending the troops' involvement would further inflame the situation. The Marines made their first temporary arrest of a protester in Los Angeles on Friday. Newsom has pushed back against the criticism, embracing the confrontation with Trump through interviews and public speeches. Some within the Democratic Party are arguing that the California governor, seen as one of the contenders for the party's nomination in 2028, is taking the right approach amidst the blowback. 'This is what Gavin does best. He is absolutely unapologetic about getting up in someone's face and calling out their weaknesses. That's why he's so effective in going after Trump and MAGA Republicans,' one longtime Newsom ally told The Hill this week.
CNBC
29 minutes ago
- CNBC
Senate Republican education plan may trigger 'avalanche of student loan defaults,' expert says
Senate Republicans' proposal to overhaul student loan repayment could trigger a surge in defaults, one expert said. The Senate GOP reconciliation bill's higher education provisions "would cause widespread harm to American families," Sameer Gadkaree, the president of The Institute for College Access & Success, said in a statement. The proposals do so by "making student debt much harder to repay" and "unleashing an avalanche of student loan defaults," he wrote. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions introduced bill text on June 10 that would change how millions of new borrowers pay down their debt. The proposal made only minor tweaks to the repayment terms in the legislation House Republicans advanced in May. More from Personal Finance:Experts weigh pros and cons of $1,000 Trump baby bonusHow Trump spending bill may curb low-income tax creditWhy millions would lose health insurance under House spending bill With control of Congress, Republicans can pass their legislation using "budget reconciliation," which needs only a simple majority in the Senate. Gadkaree and other consumer advocates have expressed concerns about how the new terms would imperil many borrowers' ability to meet their monthly bills — and to ever get out of their debt. More than 42 million Americans hold student loans, and collectively, outstanding federal education debt exceeds $1.6 trillion. More than 5 million borrowers were in default as of late April, and that total could swell to roughly 10 million borrowers within a few months, according to the Trump administration. Currently, borrowers have about a dozen plan options to repay their student debt, according to higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz. But under the Senate Republican proposal, there would be just two repayment plan choices for those who borrow federal student loans after July 1, 2026. (Current borrowers should maintain access to other existing repayment plans.) As of now, borrowers who enroll in the standard repayment plan typically get their debt divided into 120 fixed payments, over 10 years. But the Republicans' new standard plan would provide borrowers fixed payments over a period between 10 years and 25 years, depending on how much they owe. For example, those with a balance exceeding $50,000 would be in repayment for 15 years; if you owe over $100,000, your fixed payments will last for 25 years. Borrowers would also have an option of enrolling in an income-based repayment plan, known as the "Repayment Assistance Plan," or RAP. Monthly bills for borrowers on RAP would be set as a share of their income. Payments would typically range from 1% to 10% of a borrower's income; the more they earn, the bigger their required payment. There would be a minimum payment of $10 a month for all borrowers. While IDR plans now conclude in loan forgiveness after 20 years or 25 years, RAP wouldn't lead to debt erasure until 30 years. The plan would offer borrowers some new perks, including a $50 reduction in the required monthly payment per dependent. Still, Kantrowitz said: "Many low-income borrowers will be in repayment under RAP for the full 30-year duration." A typical student loan borrower with a college degree could pay an extra $2,929 per year if the Senate GOP proposal of RAP is enacted, compared to the Biden administration's now blocked SAVE plan, according to a recent analysis by the Student Borrower Protection Center. The Center included the calculations in a June 11 letter to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. "As the Committee considers this legislation, it is clear that a vote for this bill is a vote to saddle millions of borrowers across the country with more student loan debt, at the same moment that a slowing economy, a reckless trade war, and spiraling costs of living squeeze working families from every direction," Mike Pierce, the executive director of the Center, wrote in the letter. Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said the proposal would stop requiring that taxpayers who didn't go to college foot the loan payments for those with degrees. "Biden and Democrats unfairly attempted to shift student debt onto taxpayers that chose not to go to college," Cassidy said in a statement. Cassidy said his party's legislation would save taxpayers at least $300 billion.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Infighting jeopardizes hopes of Democratic comeback
Intraparty fighting is threatening to stall the Democratic Party's efforts to rebuild seven months after President Trump's sweeping general election victory. The party has also been roiled by revelations and questions about the last months of former President Biden's administration and whether he was in the midst of a cognitive decline. They also will have to contend with a number of high-profile primaries in the year ahead. And ousted Democratic National Committee Vice Chair David Hogg has been at the center of controversy, using his political group to challenge incumbent House Democrats. History suggests Democrats have a chance to win back the House in next year's midterm elections, since the president's party usually uses seats in such cycles. But the multiple fractures for Democrats are a real risk. Some Democrats acknowledge the bad vibes hanging over the party, even as they argued things are brighter than they appear. 'The narrative right now is we're a bunch of losers running around like chickens with our heads cut off and I don't think that's the case,' said Mike Nellis, a Democratic strategist and former senior adviser to former Vice President Kamala Harris. He suggested some of the party's problems are just typical after a lost presidential election. 'We are a party out of power without a standard-bearer and that isn't going to change until the presidential election,' he said. Democratic infighting spilled onto center stage earlier this week when recording a recent DNC call was leaked, revealing DNC Chair Ken Martin venting about his frustration with Hogg — who denies being the source behind the leak. The audio came out just before DNC officials were set to vote virtually on whether to redo the vice chair elections. Later in the week, DNC members voted to redo the vice chair elections of Hogg and Pennsylvania state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta (D). Hogg said after the vote that he would not seek the position again, saying he would focus on his group, Leaders We Deserve. 'It is going to remain my No. 1 mission to build the strongest party possible,' Hogg said. But in a subsequent series of social media posts following the committee's vote, Hogg alleged that Democratic Party leaders had been 'asleep at the wheel.' 'It became clear that Leaders We Deserve had to start primarying incumbents and directly challenging the culture of seniority politics that brought our party to this place to help get our party into fighting shape again,' Hogg said. Many Democrats have expressed public frustration with Hogg over the past few weeks, though Nellis said its importance is overstated. 'That is typical, classic, internal party fighting that happens everywhere and it gets outsized attention to its importance,' he said. 'Could our messaging be stronger? Yeah. Could we be more forceful in the way we're approaching these fights? Absolutely. But we are a unified party and we are fighting the worst of what Donald Trump is doing,' he continued. Democrats point to a slew of special election victories that have taken place within the first months of Trump's second administration as evidence the party is already hitting back and galvanizing against the administration. Last month, Douglas County, Neb., Treasurer John Ewing Jr. (D) ousted incumbent Omaha Republican Mayor Jean Stothert in a special election. That win followed a flipped Iowa state Senate seat in January and a win in an open Pennsylvania state Senate seat in March that Trump comfortably won in November. 'Some people in DC just want to win the argument, but I'm focused on winning elections. Since the start of the year, Democrats have an unprecedented track record of 30 wins and overperformances in races across the country, and up and down the ballot,' Martin said in a statement to The Hill. 'That's what I was elected to do, and we're doing it. Now, we are laser focused on winning in November 2025 and the midterms in 2026.' Still, with DNC tensions laid bare and finger-pointing over Biden's presidency persisting, Democrats have looked anything but unified from the outside. Democrats push back on the notion that they are the only party that is facing disunity at this moment, pointing to disagreements among Republicans on Trump's legislative agenda and the very public falling out between Trump and billionaire businessman Elon Musk. Amid his feud with Musk last week, Trump's approval rating in the Decision Desk HQ/The Hill average ticked down to 47.5 percent, 2 points less than his disapproval rating of 49.5 percent. 'Donald Trump has had the two worst weeks of his presidential term,' Nellis said, referring to recent economic data and Trump's feud with Musk. 'And immediately Donald Trump decides to execute an attempt to change the conversation to immigration and as always, he's taken it too far.' Trump's move to deploy troops to Los Angeles this week, coupled with Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) being forcibly removed from a press conference featuring Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, has served as a unifying moment for Democrats against Trump. 'If it's framed as immigration, Trump wins that argument. This is not about immigration, this is about government overreach,' Nellis said. Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright said it was time for Democrats to take back the narrative on the issue. 'I think it's one of those issues where we're going to have to grab the microphone on and let the other side know that they don't control the issue,' he said. 'I do think that bread and butter pocketbook issues are still going to run the day.' The first major test of Democrats' unity will come in November in Virginia and New Jersey's off-year elections. While the two elections do not always act as an accurate barometer ahead of the midterms, statewide wins would give Democrats a needed boost in making their 2026 argument. 'Everything has to be about our electoral success, expanding the map, as well as growing and strengthening our coalition,' Seawright said. 'I think in this moment we'll be judged every step along the way before 2028.'
