Metro Nashville Mayor Freddie O’Connell released three policy proposals from his transition committees on Tuesday, more than two months after he assumed office.
O’Connell released documents provided by three transition committees he created to examine how his government can serve residents of Nashville, better its infrastructure system, and encourage economic and population growth in the city.
His How Nashville Grows committee suggested O’Connell continue Metro’s focus on the East Bank but urged O’Connell to keep “decision-makers” in the process “accountable to the communities that helped shape them” and also stressed that O’Connell’s administration “should invest in infrastructure, affordable housing,” and other “assets” throughout Nashville.
The committee also recommended O’Connell examine how to “maximize the utility of underused, Metro-owned land and buildings.”
O’Connell’s How Nashville Works committee, commissioned to determine how Metro can best serve residents, said his administration should focus on “excellent customer service” for the citizens of Nashville and optimize non-emergency services resource hubNashville, but also urged O’Connell to “increase collaboration and problem solving among Metro leaders,” and to prioritize “openness and accountability” in his administration.
Recommendations made by the How Nashville Moves committee include O’Connell using his mayoral position to restore “trust in our transportation system” but also urged the mayor to consider a transit referendum timed to coincide with the 2024 presidential election.
“The failure of Nashville’s 2018 transit referendum holds many lessons,” the committee wrote in its report, adding that votes for “long-term funding for transit” are best timed “during a high-turnout election.”
Its proposals also include regular meetings among transit officials and a recommendation for O’Connell to “partner with other Middle Tennessee elected officials to deepen the regional commitment to transit.”
O’Connell was sworn into office as Nashville’s 10th mayor on September 25, and by early October elected to reinstate Nashville’s controversial City Review Board, which allows appointed citizens to investigate police conduct and was established by a public referendum in 2018 but was made illegal by the Tennessee General Assembly earlier this year.
“Civilian oversight is important, and I am committed to getting our Civilian Review Board up and running as quickly as possible,” O’Connell said in September.
Since then, O’Connell has worked to create a new Civilian Review Board that abides by the new law. The board was inactive from October 27 until November 1, during which time O’Connell hired a new executive director. The new board has since held its first meetings, and reporting from News Channel 5 indicates it may have more power under the new law.
– – –
Tom Pappert is the lead reporter for The Tennessee Star, and also reports for The Georgia Star News, The Virginia Star, and the Arizona Sun Times. Follow Tom on X/Twitter. Email tips to [email protected].
Photo “Freddie O’Connell” by Freddie O’Connell. Background Photo “Nashville City Hall” by Luckiewiki. CC BY-SA 2.0.
I am still trying to figure out why government should be involved in “affordable housing”. It might be less expensive for the tenants but it sure as heck cost the taxpayers a lot of money. This is garbage.
so, spend lots of money with little results, got it
On affordable housing, most government (especially democrat, in my experience) people lack understanding of the situation. I absolutely believe their hearts are in the right place. Their main failure is in misunderstanding “affordable housing” and mislabeling “government subsidized” as such.
Affordable housing is housing that can be paid for directly by a potential occupant based solely upon their income. For example, let’s say a single person who has a full time job which pays them $15/hr. An affordable apartment would be one that costs them about $600/month. Building, or creating, affordable housing would mean that a property owner is willing and able to rent a place for this amount – in the free market, without government. subsidy. The market would drive this process (which in all honesty, will require capitalists without greed).
The typical government response to the issue seems to be something like this:
Pay a non-profit entity with government grants, or other funds, to build “affordable housing”.
Allow that builder to “mange” (collect payment and profits) from the low income residents.
Subsidize the the low income residents to be able to pay the market rate for the housing.
This method causes an increase in tax rates, including, and especially, property tax rates. This in turn makes it more unaffordable for lower income earners to ever qualify for non-subsidized housing – and the cycle continues…all at taxpayer expense.
If the free market method described above is utilized in combination with appropriate tax incentives and regulation cost reductions for such housing, it would essentially cost the taxpayer nothing while at the same time creating affordable housing options.