I’m a ‘no’ for the Donelson TOD

Tomorrow, the proposed Donelson transit-oriented redevelopment district is back before the Metro Planning Commission. I have been working for many months to see whether the legislation could be improved so that I can support it. I don’t think I am going to get there and I want to explain why.

There’s not much time left before the Planning Commission meeting tomorrow…so I’ll do this in bullet points:

  • Here’s my April 16 update about the Donelson TOD. At that point, I was feeling good about the general direction of the legislation. Since then, Metro has been through the budget process. The final budget the Council passed on June 19 has Metro relying on selling one-time assets, repealing an employee pay plan, and shortchanging schools on their requested budget.
  • I have also now seen the financial assumptions supporting the proposed Donelson TOD. My thoughts about those assumptions are here. In summary, there’s no question that, in the early years of a Donelson TOD, there would not be any new revenue for Metro to cover the new operating expenses that would go along with a few hundred million dollars in new buildings. Given the current budget crunch, I cannot see how it is a good idea to voluntarily take on new budget requirements where there is no offsetting revenue to Metro.
  • Since the last Planning Commission meeting on May 24, the Planning staff has conducted a review of the affordability of the area immediately surrounding the proposed Donelson TOD. According to the staff, of the housing units in the area currently, “90% are affordable at 100% of [Area Median Income, or “AMI”], 75.4% are affordable to moderate income (80% of AMI) households and nearly 62% are affordable to low income (60% of AMI) households.” In other words, the Planning Department believes that the area is currently relatively affordable. We can expect that concentrating government incentivized large scale development will erode the affordability of the area.
  • One of the main arguments in favor of transit-oriented development is that it provides options to include affordable housing. However, surely Nashville won’t want to create a transit-oriented development district in order to provide affordable housing to replace the affordable housing that will be lost due to transit-oriented development?
  • The legislation being reviewed by the Planning Commission tomorrow would allow MDHA to set affordable housing goals in the district. I believe those goals should be set by the Mayor’s office in consultation with the Council. Also, the goals for affordable units to be preserved and built in the district should be established before the Donelson TOD is passed into law. No goals have been set at this time.
  • The legislation being reviewed by the Planning Commission tomorrow would allow the “design review committee” to be selected, in part, by the Mayor. As I understand it, MDHA wants to have the exclusive ability to appoint the members of the design review committee. This issue is currently unresolved.

Councilmember Jeff Syracuse has worked tremendously hard to balance all of the competing interests. I certainly appreciate all of his hard work. But for now, I have to respectfully choose to be a ‘no’ on the Donelson TOD legislation. I don’t think Metro can afford to take on new operating expenses with no revenue in return. The area is currently relatively affordable. There is no goal proposed for preserving or adding to affordability in the area. There is no pressing time concern. To me, this just isn’t the right time for this district.

 

Bob Mendes

Bob Mendes represents all of Nashville as a Council-At-Large member of Nashville’s Metro Council. He is Chair of the Council’s Charter Revision Committee, a member of the Metropolitan Audit Committee, and a member of the Council’s Budget & Finance Committee, Rules & Confirmations Committee, and Ad Hoc Affordable Housing Committee. Bob also practices business law at Waypoint Law PLLC. Bob’s complete bio is here. You can follow Bob @mendesbob.