Realtors back Mayor O'Connell on housing plan
Nashville's Realtor association will work with the city on its new Unified Housing Strategy, the organization announced last week.
Why it matters: Mayor Freddie O'Connell's administration needs private sector buy-in to successfully implement the 10-year strategy to address Nashville's housing crisis.
Catch up quick: Nashville needs 90,000 new homes over the next decade to keep pace with its surging growth, according to the Unified Housing Strategy report released last month.
The report aims to align all Metro agencies working on housing issues and identify strategies to ease the affordability crisis.
That followed the Planning Department's release of the Housing and Infrastructure Study earlier this year. That report, which was commissioned by the Metro Council, examined policy changes and investments that could help spur more housing.
What they're saying:"We're encouraged to see Metro aligning policy, planning, and community input in ways that can help expand access to homeownership and housing security," Greater Nashville Realtors president Collyn Wainwright said in a press release.
In addition to the Realtor association, the Community Foundation of Middle Tennessee conveyed its support for the plan after it was announced. Community Foundation CEO Hal Cato said the nonprofit organization would "lean in with our Metro partners to help create a true community coalition united by a shared determination to make an impact on this issue that is foundational to our well-being as a community."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
LPR funding not included in Nashville Mayor's budget. Metro Council says debate isn't over
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — On Tuesday night, Metro Council will consider whether to change Mayor Freddie's O'Connell's budget. The changes include a property tax increase, however, it does not have funding for license plate readers. Metro Council approved the permanent use of LPR cameras last year, but after a six-month pilot, the program shut down. The cameras will not return unless a new contract is approved and funded. PREVIOUS | LPRs not listed in Nashville Mayor's proposed budget Some council members have encouraged private businesses and property owners to install their own cameras, as the city has not yet approved its own camera system. A new apartment complex coming to Hamilton Church Road in 2026 plans to include this technology. 'We want to make sure that you feel safe and secure; we want to build strong communities, and as I said, you can't build strong communities without being safe and secure,' said Alex Trent with Trent Development Group. District 32 Metro Councilwoman Joy Styles has encouraged private businesses and properties to install their own LPR technology while the program remains stalled citywide. 'They are working with us on great things like license plate readers being included and a gate being included,' Styles said. 'That is the accountability that we are missing in this whole city.' 'I think the private companies and apartments putting LPRs in place just shows how much Nashville wants and needs this type of technology,' added District 11 Council Member Jeff Eslick. Tennessee police departments share intel, use LPR cameras to track down theft suspect LPR cameras scan license plates and compare them to state and federal databases to help locate stolen vehicles and missing and wanted people. 'For the most part, it is going to help the everyday citizen, the taxpayer out there, live a safer life and feel better when they go to bed,' Eslick said. 'I think if we are going to add all this money to the budget and spend all this money to make people feel better, we should feel safer as well.' Eslick said funding for LPRs may come later. 'I think we are going to have to work out the budget, try to figure out where we are on that, and we can add LPRs,' Eslick told News 2. 'The amount that it costs to put the LPRs in place isn't something outside of what we could pull from something like the 4% fund.' | READ MORE | District 26 Council Member Courtney Johnston told News 2 that LPRs would not be included in her substitute budget proposal, saying in a statement: 'Putting that line item in any substitute would cause that substitute to fail with this council. That said, funding is not the issue. The issue is that we don't have support for LPRs from either the Mayor's office or the majority of the council to approve the contracts.' Eslick added that the conversation is not over. 'I think the budget is going to go through similar to what it is,' he explained. 'In a way, to kind of makeup for it, we will have LPRs on the agenda in the near future. Now, that doesn't mean it's going to pass. It's still going to be a struggle, but if we can just get it before us and start talking about it, I think we can find a way to get the common ground that we need.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Metro Nashville Council can be cut in half, Tennessee Court of Appeals rules
The Tennessee Court of Appeals has ruled that Nashville's governing legislative body can be cut in half. The court, in a split 2-1 decision issued June 3, reversed a lower court's ruling that a state law that would shrink Nashville's Metro Council from 40 to 20 members is unconstitutional. In a statement to The Tennessean, Nashville's associate director of law, Allison Bussell, said the city is evaluating its options moving forward. "We are understandably disappointed and concerned about this ruling's implications for local sovereignty," Bussell said in the statement. "But we are also encouraged by Judge Armstrong's compelling dissent. We are digesting the ruling and evaluating our options." The next step, if the city chose it, would be to file an appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court. House Majority Leader William Lamberth, who sponsored the House version of the bill during the 2023 legislative session, applauded the court's decision. "This action reins in excessive government growth while ensuring local municipalities across the Volunteer State remain accountable and responsive to their constituents," Lamberth said in a statement. 'Republicans will continue to cut waste at all levels of government." The Tennessee Attorney General's Office, which represents the state in lawsuits, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The majority aptly began their analysis of the case by framing it as a power struggle. "At its most fundamental level, this case represents a power struggle between State government and local government," Judge J. Steven Stafford wrote for the majority. He was joined by Judge Carma Dennis McGee. The law, passed in 2023, would require city and metropolitan governments to cap their councils at 20 members. Metropolitan governments are combined city and county governments. There are three in the state — Davidson County-Nashville, Moore County-Lynchburg, and Trousdale County-Hartsville. At the time, bill sponsors acknowledged that while the bill didn't explicitly name Nashville, it would be the only local government in the state that would be affected — there are no other metropolitan governments in the state that have a council larger than 20 members. The law, and others like it, were seen as payback for Nashville's Metro Council rejecting a draft agreement to host the 2024 Republican National Convention. The city had successfully argued the law violated a clause of the Tennessee Constitution called the Home Rule Amendment, which prohibits the state legislature from passing laws that have a local effect without first getting local approval. The appeals court rejected that argument. The majority opinion notes that the legislation "clearly" is "a law of general application applicable to all counties that have formed a consolidated metropolitan government or will do so in the future." Nashville Vice Mayor Angie Henderson, who manages the operations of the Metro Council, said that she was "disappointed" by the decision and that it failed to "respect the will" of Nashville's voters. "The Home Rule Amendment of the Tennessee Constitution, in part, stands for the proposition that the size of the Metro Council is a decision for the voters of Metro Nashville," Henderson said in an emailed statement. "For the last 60 years, this 40-member Council has capably and effectively served the interests of our constituents, who today number some 715,000." The lower court had also found that the law violated another clause in the Tennessee Constitution called the Exemption Clause. That clause exempts metropolitan governments from a statewide 25-member limit on city councils written in Article VII of the state constitution. But the majority of the appeals court found the law comports with the Exemption Clause. They ruled that the clause exempts metropolitan councils from the 25-member limit in Article VII of the Tennessee Constitution, but it does not exempt them from limits passed through other legislation. This was the subject of Judge Kenny Armstrong's dissenting opinion. Armstrong argued the law is unconstitutional. His view is that the Exemption Clause prohibits the General Assembly from limiting metropolitan councils to less than 25 members, but that the General Assembly would be free to institute a cap of more than 25 members. Have questions about the justice system? Evan Mealins is the justice reporter for The Tennessean. Contact him with questions, tips or story ideas at emealins@ This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Metro Nashville Council can be cut in half, appeals court rules
San Francisco Chronicle
6 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
New S.F. data is most detailed yet on how long it takes to move through city's notorious permit process
The time it takes to get approval to build something in San Francisco has fallen since a number of streamlining measures were implemented last year — but some departments still struggle to meet the city's new target times. That's according to new data compiled by the Planning Department and the Department of Building Inspection, which is published in a new dashboard tracking the processes as part of Mayor Daniel Lurie's PermitSF initiative. The effort aims to simplify the city's notoriously long and often convoluted permitting process. The dashboard includes two main components: one tracks the median number of days it takes to get through the entire planning or building process, and the other breaks down how long the planning and building departments each take to complete their steps in the process. Together, the dashboard and underlying data provide more transparency into San Francisco's permitting process than previously existed. Using the data, a Chronicle analysis found that the time it takes to approve a project or issue a permit has sped up in recent years. Michelle Reynolds, a spokesperson for PermitSF, noted that the city made 'significant changes' to the planning and building review processes starting in January 2024, in response to state law as well as local changes under former Mayor London Breed. The time spent in both planning and building dropped after those changes were implemented, the data show. Planning approval plummeted from a median of 222 to 133 days, and building went from a median of 258 to 209. So far this year, the median times are on track to be even faster. Within the process, each step now has its own target for how long it's supposed to take — a metric dubbed the 'shot clock' in a press release from Lurie's administration. Such goals 'make the process more predictable for homeowners and businesses' and hold departments accountable for any delays, the release said. The target times went into effect this month. So far, according to the dashboard, the city seems to be faring well: Over the last year, though the targets had not yet been set, the building department completed tasks within the target window most of the time, and the planning department only missed its target for resubmission reviews. Still, that doesn't mean that all projects and permits are suddenly sailing through: In both the planning and the building departments, nearly 30% of permits took longer than the target 30 days to get through a first review. Missed target times will be incorporated into staff performance plans, according to Lurie's office. The metrics don't measure any time spent on required pre-application neighborhood outreach, which can add significant delays to projects. Michelle Reynolds, a spokesperson for PermitSF, noted that in July 2023, the city removed the pre-application requirement for most projects, although some bigger projects, like new construction or additions over a certain size still need it. Additionally, the total time metric for planning approval does not include checking whether the application is complete, a process that can take multiple rounds of submittals to the city. That metric is measured, however, in the planning department's 'shot clock' dashboard, with a target time of 21 days. The new data also reveal how long permits spend at each 'review station,' or city departments that need to check various permits for safety and code compliance. While the complexity of what each department must review varies with each project, some hit the city's new targets more often than others. A number of stations fell behind in the first review stage, which is when a plan is first checked for compliance (the city sets a 30-day target for these), but most hit the target for rechecks, or reviews of plans that have been revised, over the last year (a 14-day target). Of departments that completed at least 200 reviews from May 2024 and through April 2025, only one missed the target on most projects for both first reviews and rechecks: the Bureau of Urban Forestry, which handles permits on street trees and foliage. (Because the targets are new, the Bureau of Urban Forestry was not technically held to these targets over the 12 months ending in April, but has been starting this month.) In an email, Chris Heredia, a spokesperson for the Bureau, said that slower response times are due to a 'staffing issue,' as inspectors, who are also tasked both with upkeep of existing city trees, can only allocate about 20% of their time to permits. 'San Franciscans want trees with new construction,' he wrote, noting that construction, and the load on inspectors, had seen an uptick. 'We don't have an adequate number of urban forestry inspectors to meet the demand.' Still, he said that review times had improved in recent months.
