What Should Germantown "Resolve" about Hate Groups?

Resolution 17R16 – A Resolution of the City of Germantown to Combat Hate, Extremism and Bigotry  

Is Resolution 17R16 an appropriate condemnation of hate of the type seen recently in Charlottesville? Or, instead of being simply a fluffy, feel-good resolution, is it a pathway to enacting laws with unforseen consequences, perhaps even including legislation that might infringe on the First Amendment rights of assembly and speech? 

This is the question that aldermen must face this Monday.  

Germantown considering stance against bigotry and white supremacy; one alderman asks why 

Now, let's look at the text that the aldermen will be voting on: 

I completely reject the white supremacy movement and find it extremely dangerous. In all honesty, I don't mind our city's passing a proclamation against white supremacy, although some people disagree. Detractors wonder why a city should judge which ideas are right or wrong. They ask, "Shouldn't such judgments be left to the individual rather than to a government?" I do not find this argument persuasive. White supremacy is morally indefensible. If this were simply a measure denouncing white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and other similar groups, I would say: "Fine. Pass this fluffy feel-good resolution. It will be nice to put Germantown squarely against the morally bankrupt hate movements responsible for the events in Charlottesville."   

But I did a double-take and my hair stood on end when I read past the last "whereas" above. It states:

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City of Germantown supports the Mayors' Compact to Combat Hate, Extremism and Bigotry and supports the Mayor's effort to work with executive and legislative partners at federal and state levels to ensure that civil rights laws are aggresively enforced, existing hate crime laws are strengthened as needed and new laws are enacted to ensure that all hate crimes are prosecutable in their jurisdictions to the greatest extent of the law." 

The above clause implies that Germantown will follow all the recommendations of the Mayors' Compact to Combat Hate, Extremism and Bigotry-- an initiative developed by the Anti-Defamation League and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. New legislation is contemplated, but what conduct will it ban? Although the resolution is non-binding, the City would appear to be committing itself to support laws recommended by the Mayor's Compact. Are we prepared to make such a commitment when we know so little about this Compact and what it intends to do? I cannot help but wonder if far-reaching legislation isn't the whole point of this effort to entice communities into signing off on what otherwise appears to be a condemnation of hate.  

Here is an article about the Compact that appeared in the Washington Post:

U.S. Conference of Mayors Condemns Trump, forms compact to fight racism  

  

To put it mildly, I am surprised that the City of Germantown proposes to align itself with a newly formed group that arose in the wake of Trump's controversial response to Charlottesville. I did not see this coming. Did you realize that Germantown is a hotbed of anti-Trump sentiment? I didn't. Don't we have enough controversy over fountains, mattress stores, buildings too close to the street, bicycle lanes, drainage, school locations, and alcohol ordinances? Is it wise to further divide our community by aligning ourselves with a national group formed as an emotional reaction to controversial statements by President Trump? 

Apart from the Resolution's potention for distraction, it could also lead to pitfalls with ominous implications. I talked to a lawyer friend, and here were some of her questions:

Does the Resolution mean that the City of Germantown will work ACTIVELY and officially against proposed legislation to carve out protection for car drivers who strike someone in the street that is a protester? Does it mean the City of Germantown will work ACTIVELY and officially against legislation that enhance penalties for any injuries to a police officer, whether purposeful or accidental?  Does it mean the City of Germantown will be using its lobbyist to work ACTIVELY for legislation to enact a "Hate Speech/Hate Crime" law on the state level?    

It is my friend's last question that most concerns me. Does the Compact contemplate legislation that would criminalize speech or limit free assembly? We are treading in dangerous water if we promote challenges to the First Amendment. European nations ban the use of Nazi symbols and salutes. Here, however, these hateful expressions are protected by the First Amendment. Does the Compact contemplate legislation that would outlaw these symbols? Does the Compact envision limiting the citizens' right to assembly? We all treasure these rights, and any attempt to chip away at them should be resisted.  

    

A central purpose of the First Amendment is to protect unpopular speech, indeed, speech so unpopular as to incense the overwhelming majority of Americans. David Cole, National Legal Director of the ACLU, felt it necessary to write a thoughtful piece on why we must not permit the events occurring in Charlottesville to enduce us to forsake the First Amendment. Even the horrible, neo-Nazi thugs who demonstrated in Charlottesville need First Amendment protection.  

Why we Must Still Defend Free Speech 

I recommend that everyone read the entire piece. Here is an excerpt: 

As Frederick Douglass reminded us, “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” Throughout our history, disadvantaged minority groups have effectively used the First Amendment to speak, associate, and assemble for the purpose of demanding their rights—and the ACLU has defended their right to do so. Where would the movements for racial justice, women’s rights, and LGBT equality be without a muscular First Amendment? 

The First Amendment implications of this resolution should be apparent to all; however, Clay Bailey, a journalist who should have a heightened appreciation of these issues, ignored these First Amendment implications in his recent hit piece against resolution-opponent Dean Massey, who objects to the resolution because it is overly broad and connected to an unvetted authority.

Never assume any idea needing adoption by politicians is a given, even denouncing hate and bigotry 

Mr. Bailey's column is needlessly polarizing. He has given no thought to the potential ramifications of this resolution.

Whatever your feelings about Resolution No.17R16, be sure to communicate them to our aldermen--  

Our aldermen 

I personally feel that the resolution should be tabled until we have a clear picture of the specific legislative agenda sought by the Mayor's Compact to Combat Hate. We need to ensure that such legislation does not affect our First Amendment rights. If we feel we must take some action, the wiser course at this point would be simply to adopt a resolution that our community can fully embrace-- namely, a resolution condemning hatred of the sort that we saw in Charlottesville.

Wildwood Farms--the people, the history, and the future

As the rest of our City "urbanizes," one part, thankfully, is preserving Germantown's rural heritage. Wildwood Farms is one of the newest additions to the National Register of Historic Places.

Nothing defines the Germantown of the past century better than its horse farms. And our quintessential horse farm is Wildwood Farms, located on South Germantown Road near Stout. When I heard about its being added to the Register, I yearned to know more. You see, my introduction to Germantown was through Wildwood Farms, during the early 1980s.  

I was privileged to count Lynn Taylor as a very good friend. Her husband Lee grew up at Wildwood Farms, which was originally purchased by his grandfather. Lee's parents, William and Audrey Taylor, lived in "The Big House." The Taylor family was in the cotton business. Once a week, I drove from east Memphis, turned into the magical farm and followed the winding road around "The Big House", past the swimming pool until I reached two well manicured rubico tennis courts. Within view in one direction was the historic barn, and behind the courts the horse and walking trails ran through the woods. Eight of us played tennis, and afterwards talked in the shade by the court as we sipped lemonade or sweet tea. I thus became familiar with Germantown.  I visited the Germantown Commissary when it was still a country store, experienced Old Germantown when it was much larger than it is today (and still located on a country lane), and drove past the famous horse speed limit signs. Occasionally, I even went to the polo matches at the field just down the street in Memphis (this was long before before 385 was built), or went to a party in the barn or The Big House. If there was a band, it was generally The Settlers (listen to Germantown Blues by the Settlers). 

Sadly, Lynn was diagnosed with breast cancer just a few short years after I first met her. Following her initial treatment, Lynn decided to skip the polo season in Palm Beach. Instead, she went to Oxford, England to study Shakespeare, and, upon her return, she taught English at Germantown HIgh School. She had a passion for her job and she loved inspiring the average student even more than those that were more accomplished. Her interest in innovative teaching methods led to the establishment of The Lynn Warren Taylor Excellence in Teaching Award at GHS, which exists to this day. Unfortunately, she eventually succumbed to her disease. I lost a wonderful friend. 

Melanie and Calypso, with Gold Medal

Later, I was pleased to learn that Lee had remarried-- to Melanie Smith, a member of the Hugh Frank Smith family, well known in the Germantown horse world. By then, Melanie was a world-class rider, having won a gold medal in the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles for team show jumping. She remains active in horse circles, and serves as an analyst on NBC for horse show competitions. She authored a book, the favorably reviewed Riding With Life, Lessons from the Horse. From the Mid South Horse Review-- 

Against the backdrop of her life story, Melanie presents a wealth of detailed exercises, instructional photographs, and valuable advice, as well as details about the many horses that have helped shape her approach.Throughout, she encourages us to appreciate and honor the nobility of the horse and forge a true connection with this wonderful animal.   

Melanie and Lee, from her book Riding with Life

Here she answers some questions put to her by The Eclectic Horseman. I was happy to read that Melanie stresses the importance of wearing a helmet.

Audrey Taylor Gonzales, Lee's sister, is another author in the family. She has lived all over the world. When she returned to the Memphis area, for a time she served as a minister at Calvary Episcopal Church downtown. Audrey's Blog gives "musings" from her life. Of particular interest to us is a post that describes her early life in Memphis and Germantown. She was the focus of a piece by David Waters-- Lifelong Journey Leads Woman of Privilege Back to Memphis Priesthood, and the Poor. Here she is talking about her novel South of Everything. 

Lee Taylor, now deceased, was the "heart and soul" of Wildwood Farms, according to Melanie. "Without Lee, there would be no Wildwood Farms." His devotion to the equestrian way of life was inspirational to everyone in the area. 

In addition to overseeing the operations of the farm, Lee used his considerable business acumen to solidify the family business by diversifing from cotton into other areas--a prime example being the company's acquisition of Holly Farms Chicken (later purchased by Tyson Foods).  

Lee was an outstanding polo player, even competing with Prince Charles in Palm Beach. Because of his commitment to the sport, the Memphis Polo Club games were moved from the Hunt and Polo Club in Memphis to Wildwood Farms. One year, he was called upon to host the U.S. Open of Polo, when the Oak Brook, Illinois location had issues that prevented it from hosting the event. After 385 was built, the Memphis Polo Club games were moved out of town.

One View of Historic Barn

I recently chatted with Melanie, current owner of Wildwood Farms. When I asked the how and why of the listing on The National Register of Historic Places, she said simply, "It needs to have its history preserved. This is a good first step." She stated that in completing the long application process she learned a good deal about the history of Wildwood Farm. It is believed that there was a Civil War encampment located there, as evidenced by the artefacts found at the site with a metal detector. The historic buildings on the property are the marvelous barn, the shop, and the manager's house. (The Big House is gone.) These buildings were designed and built during the Great Depression, in a time frame of just six months. Paul Mueller was the architect who laid out the plans for the farm. His son, Bart, remained in Germantown and started the Longreen Fox Hunt. Bart and the late Sonny Foster were the two people who started the Germantown Charity Horse Show.

The barn from another vantage point

When I asked her if the preservation efforts were limited to the buildings, Melanie answered with a resounding "NO." She said that all 360 acres need to be preserved as a unit. "I am taking measures to ensure that." It is her personal mission to see that the preservation is done correctly. 


We should all be happy that the future of Wildwood Farm is in the hands of Melanie Smith Taylor, a determined woman with an appreciation for the preservation of history. 

More details can be learned about Wildwood Farms from Melanie's book, or from a display at Saddles 'n Such on S. Germantown Road. 

Display at Saddles 'N Such

Next Year's Budget, the Proposed Property Tax Increase, and The Special Called FAC Meeting Last Week

After writing two click bait articles about nothing, well, about the "outrage" that easily available public information had been inadvertently made, ahem, a tiny bit more visible, the "right-sizing" Commercial Appeal finally got around to covering something substantive-- the special called Finance Advisory Commission meeting last week.  

Two Alternatives Could Lead to the Reduction of the $.23 tax increase 

Oddly enough, despite being presented with two less costly alternatives, the FAC voted for the full $.23 increase that had been passed on the second reading by the BMA three days prior to the called FAC meeting. Here is the full audio of the FAC meeting (Please note: This audio is not available on the City website. I paid five dollars for it to be put on a flash drive. I could have listened to it for no charge if I was willing to listen to it at City Hall. I present this YouTube as a public service to the citizens of Germantown) : 

Here is the FAC meeting packet: (click to enlarge the smaller ones)

I want to note that there were only two private citizens that attended the called FAC meeting, and one of them was kind enough to upload the above information to Facebook. It made me kind of dizzy trying to get everything to face rightside up. Hopefully I didn't lose any lines or columns in coverting it into something easily readable.

The Commercial Appeal article quotes Mary Anne Gibson as saying she is open to reducing the $.23 tax increase based on the new information presented to the FAC, and Alderman Massey as saying that due to projected fund balances which are adequate, there is no need for an increase in the property tax rate this year. 

Rocky Janda's position was not quoted, which is odd due to his position as the financial liaison to the Financial Advisory Commission. The vote on the $.23 tax increase begins at 56:30 in the above video. Alderman Janda votes "yes" for that motion, along with the majority of the FAC. Three members vote "no." 

What is notable about this called FAC meeting is that it was three days after the public hearing on the budget at the BMA meeting, and that it gave more options-- a possible reduced tax increase, all while staying within guidelines of an adequate cash reserve and maintaining a AAA bond rating. No expenses or capital projects would need to be cut from the budget!  

The pretext for the called FAC meeting was that the Forest Hill Irene Road improvements had bids which were less than expected. This "new" information had been available for ten days or so, according to the administration. Yet the citizens and aldermen had not been told of this before the public hearing on June 12. Furthermore, the lower bid did not even seem like a large enough difference to completely rework the budget. 

The public hearing at the second reading of the June 12 BMA meeting itself was a bit of a sham, since public comments began after most people go to bed, and several people had to leave before Patrick Lawton finished his 90 minute presentation. Again, that presentation did not include the new information that was prepared for the called FAC meeting later in the week. It also appears that by the time of the June 12 meeting, the administration had already decided it needed a new FAC meeting, as the mayor stated the administration's desire to "gather the troops" at about 2:44.30 of the City recording at that meeting 

Thus the public hearing was a waste of time, as it did not provide complete information to the public prior to the meeting, or even at the meeting; nor did it furnish the public with the opportunity to speak about budget issues at a reasonable hour.

Even though a lot of citizens had gone to bed, a former City employee, took the time during the June 12 public hearing to point out some things about the budget:

At the second reading of the budget at the June 12 BMA meeting, two aldermen voted against the budget and proposed $.23 tax increase: Aldermen Barzizza and Massey. The other three aldermen voted for the increase. Alderman Barzizza objected to lack of detail in the budget and the need to follow the Code by voting on the City Administrator's salary. Dean Massey agreed with him on those issues, and he also noted that he does not want any raise in the property tax this year, due to the fund balance being more than adequate (over 40%) using the administration projections. Here is a sample of some of his points from the BMA meeting, and some of the administration responses:  

Alderman Massey prepared this spreadsheet to demonstrate what he believes are excess reserves (over 40%) produced by the Administration's budget: 

Alderman Massey points out that the City has often cited 40% as being an adequate fund balance. In listening to the FAC meeting, it seems that most of the members cited various "what if" (some may say doomsday?) scenarios to justify the full $.23 tax increase this year.  What one person feels is fiscally prudent may strike another person as unnecessary padding. But listen to the FAC meeting yourself and form your own opinion. 

The citizen comments at the BMA public hearing begin at about 2:45 (two hours and forty five minutes), and the discussion by the aldermen begin at approximately 3:42 (three hours and forty two minutes) here.

Road Improvement Plans Unchanged by School Site Choice

When the Commercial Appeal first discussed the Germantown budget, I did a little double take, as it said the "bulk" of the proposed $.23 property tax hike increase was for the new school. Yet, the breakdown of the 23 cent hike showed that .$10 of the hike was for the school, and .$03 was for the widening of Forest Hill Irene Road, by the school.  

  
From the article  

The bulk of Germantown's proposed 23-cent property tax increase is rooted in a need to address growth in education — either by building a new K-5 campus or securing three namesake schools under control of Shelby County Schools.

….(snip)…… 

Of Germantown's additional 23 cents on the property tax rate, 10 cents is destined for purchase of a school site on Forest Hill-Irene, along with construction and furnishing the campus. An additional 3 cents is to improve Forest Hill-Irene south of Poplar Pike to Winchester, a segment of which passes alongside the proposed school site. 

That 13 cents will cover the $33.5 million bond issue for those projects. Officials have put the price of a new K-5 school at $27 million. The other 10 cents in the hike is to "keep the five-year model," Lawton said. 

The term "bulk" and the lumping of the school construction and road widening costs together in the article certainly seems to suggest that the road work is due to the new school.   

Indeed, the City website more directly links the improvements to Forest Hill-Irene to the school site: 

GMSD Growth - The need for a new elementary school and road improvements necessitated by the location of the school, combined with a significant reduction in state shared revenues from the Hall income tax requires the consideration of a property tax adjustment. The new K-5 elementary school including land, site work, construction and equipment has a budget of $27 million. The necessary safety improvements to Forest Hill Irene Road leading to the new school have a budget of $6.5 million. Collectively, this will result in a bond issue of $33.5 million and an increase in debt service payments of approximately $2 million annually.    

Yet this Commercial Appeal article shows that the improvements to Forest Hill-Irene were being considered prior to the selection of the new school site. 

Dean Massey emailed Tim Gwatney and asked how the school site selection had changed the budget for improvements to Forest Hill-Irene. Here is the exchange on this particular subject:  

Conclusion: For whatever reason, the City website, which claims that the road improvements are necessitated by the school location, is incorrectly characterizing the reason for the road improvements. The city engineer confirms that these improvements are necessary with or without the new school.

  

The FY 2018 Budget...And some Video Clips

As most of us are aware, there is a proposed property tax increase for this year for the City, explained in this Commercial Appeal article.  

CA Article on Germantown's Proposed Hike in Property Tax  

The City has more information and links on its website.   

Proposed Tax Increase Explained 

Proposed Budget Document 

Budget Highlights Presentation

Tonight (May 22) there is a BMA meeting, and if you have any thoughts about these issues, you have the opportunity to speak for three minutes in "Citizens to be Heard" if you desire. 

This year, citizens are especially interested in the budget due to the proposed increase in property taxes.  Last week there was a work session on the budget, and a citizen's film clips were made available to this blog, and are below:

Clip Number 1

Below Mr. Lawton explains that we need to keep the pension plan funded at least at the 80% figure (80% of projected pension expenses should be "funded"). We are assuming a lower return from the funded plan in the future, so we need to put more money into the pension plan. 

Although he states that this $890,000 figure in the budget presentation is due to increased pension funding, he then says that this also includes 3% salary increases. Well, does it include anything else? The budget should be detailed enough to show what amount is due to 3% salary increases, and which part is for adjustments for the pension fund, and the computations that went into both of these things. We also should be given historical returns on the pension fund, to help demonstrate why this is needed.

Clip Number 2 

The need for more detail on the budget is discussed in the clip below. The Charter requires that the BMA make available the entire budget for public inspection prior to a vote.  

A good example of where more transparency is needed is human resources.  Referring to Clip 1, what exactly is in the $890,000 increase requested by the City?  A part of it is for 3% salary increases, and a portion of it is for more dollars for the pension fund, to compensate for having lower returns. Again, we need the exact amounts and computation for these things. 

In general we need more transparency for the human resources budget. As has been discussed in this previous blog post, the City has a policy of allowing "vacation buybacks." That really isn't a particularly common practice among employers. The City has a generous vacation policy, and, the employees do not have a "use it or lose it" policy. How much does this cost this City?  Has that figure ever been calculated?  There are both costs and benefits to having this policy, but these costs and benefits should be discussed openly, and with full information. As citizens we have the right to expect this.

Also, how do the controversial variable insurance policies (discussed in this previous post) fit into the budget?  How are we accounting for those?

  

Clip Number 3 

According to our Charter, the administrator sits at the will of the Mayor and the BMA sets the salary. There was a big discussion of this last year, because the salary had never been voted on specifically by the BMA, but as a part of the overall budget. Yet, the raise in salary of the administrator was generally in the middle of the budget year, and never voted on by the BMA. This was discussed in this blog post at the time. 

Here it is explained that the City Administrator did not get a salary raise in the middle of the year. But since his salary has never been voted on past December 31 (as specified by the budget last year), there is concern expressed that we are not following the Charter. 

Clip Number 4

Below I learned that the City only has two accountants!! I have no idea who has been assuring compliance prior to this, and providing analysis. I am kind of shocked that we have been getting by without appropriate accounting support. This lack of support, of course, has enabled past "mistakes', such as the City Administrator taking a car allowance for several years, while also enjoying the benefits of a city-issued car.  I am ALL for internal controls and compliance! We do need a qualified person for this position, for sure. The only question I have is, why so late?

Clip Number 5 

This explains our property tax increase and how it was computed:

Clip Number 6 

What follows is a discussion of what happened to the proceeds of the last sales tax increase, enacted in 2012. This was sold as a way to finance the new school system, and led many citizens to believe that it would all be used for the schools. In fact, it does cover the minimum amount required by the state for the City to fund the schools; however, the required amount is actually based on a property tax rate, and the sales tax increase was not a dedicated tax for the schools. The tax was for the general budget, to boost the income in order to pay the minimum state required amount to the school system.

Clip Number 6 

This is a discussion of the Tennessee Hall tax (income tax on dividends and interest) disappearing. In 2004 we also had a tax increase that was purportedly due to the Hall tax disappearing. The explanation was slightly confusing to me, but you can listen to it. It involves some kind of a shift between the operating budget and capital projects budget, the recession, the length of time since then, etc.

Cheers! Part V Ordinance 2017-6

As if things weren't complicated enough, the language of section 3-116 in proposed Ordinance 2017-6, the so-called corrective ordinance being brought up for the third reading on Monday, appears to remove the ability of any restaurant in Germantown to sell alcohol, no matter where the restaurant is located.

Here is the language-  

The above states that alcohol is not allowed to be served in Germantown EXCEPT for the following:  a) Retailers (liquor stores) in certain areas, b) wine in retail food stores (in certain areas including T4), and c) in certain areas in retirement homes. There is no exception carved out for restaurants, wherever they are located!!  

WHAT??? That is right!! No alcoholic beverages in restaurants?

What are we to make of this?  Well, what are the possiblities? 

1. Our City does not want restaurants anywhere to sell alcohol.  

2. The third drafting error in alcohol ordinances in the last six months has just been made. 

or 

3. The City is purposely deciding to rely solely on the Smart Growth Plan to regulate alcohol sales in restaurants.  

At the present time, since the passage of Ordinance 2016-10 on November 28, there has been a been a direct conflict between section 23-763 of the Smart Growth Plan, and section 3-116 of the Alcohol Ordinance.  Alcohol sales are not currently allowed in T4 areas by section 23-763, and alcohol sales are allowed in T4 areas by section 3-116. The "corrective" proposed Ordinance 2017-6 does not remove this conflict in ordinances, because keeps it in place allowing T4 area grocery stores to be able to sell wine. Wouldn't you think that a truly corrective ordinance would remove conflicts between code sections?   

There is already evidence that #3 above is correct, and that the continued conflict could be used to remove all protections (other than liquor stores) that T4 areas have from alcoholic beverages sales by restaurants. After all, as described in the Cheers! Part I, The Ordinance Nobody Knew About, Ms. Wilkerson-Freeman discovered the alcohol change issue due to an attempt by the City, in proposed Ordinance 2016-11 (which was pulled by the City before the third reading), to allow T4 to sell alcohol in section 23-763! The section 23-763 changes in Ordinance 2016-11 were passed by the Planning Commission last fall without any explanation by the City of the consequences of making that change. Recordings of the Planning Commission meeting indicate that the page with section 23-763 changes was simply "skipped" in the City's explanation of the many zoning changes in Ordinance 2016-11 at the Planning Commission Meeting.


If proposed Ordinance 2017-6 is enacted, then the conflict between the "dueling code sections" remains in place.  The City would contend that they have no choice but to "fix" the problem of the conflict between between section 3-116 and section 23-763. It would be bad practice, after all, to continue to have conflicting code sections. This would be a way of forcing the Smart Growth section 23-763 to be changed to allow restaurant alcohol sales in T4 areas.  


Since section 23-163 only has "yes, no, or warrant" boxes, once the alcohol sales T4 box is checked, then "whoops"-- alcohol sales are now allowed in restaurants in T4 areas.  

As for the City appearing to not allow any alcohol sales in T4 under this proposed Ordinance 2017-6, the City will say that obviously the regulation of alcohol in restaurants is not covered by section 3-116 anymore;  it must only come under section 23-763 of the Smart Code!  

I guess we will all have to wait and find out what happens next in this very long, complex saga, made much more difficult by the the following: 
  
City's drafting errors 

City's incomplete agenda item descriptions  

City's failure to answer Ms. Wilkerson-Freeman's questions  

City misleading the the aldermen by failure to fully disclose substantive changes at readings of Ordinance 2016-10 

Omitting from from the aldermen packets the red-lined section 3-114 changes in the third reading of Ordinance 2016-10 

Failure to discuss proposed changes in 23-763 at the Planning Commission meetings 

City's incorrect contention that restaurants in T4 areas have always been able to sell alcohol......

I recommend amending Ordinance 2017-6 by removing wine sales in grocery stores in T4 areas as an exception in section 3-116. That is the only thing that will remove the conflict that now exists between section 23-761 and section 3-116. Then, and only then, would section 3-116 truly be corrected to be in line with section 23-763.

The neighborhoods of Neshoba North and Germantown Heights were promised, when Smart Growth was originally passed, that alcohol sales would be banned in T4 areas. Does the City keep its promises to neighborhoods?

Now, here are is the proposed change to 3-114: 

Note that there still is no protections for private homes. Those protections were removed with the enactment of Ordinance 2016-10. I also recommend that Ordinance 2017-6 restore all distance protections to homes (from alcohol selling establishments), that were removed when the section 3-114 was changed by Ordinance 2016-10 in November. This was the code section change that was added on the third reading, and presented to the aldermen without the changes in 3-114 being red-lined.

Here is the complete list of posts in the series on the recent alcohol ordinances: 

Cheers! Part I, The Ordinance Nobody Knew About

Cheers! Part II, The City Muddies the Waters with Last Ditch Legal Argument.

Cheers! Part III, The City Fails to Adequately Notify the Public. 

Cheers! Part IV, Between the Second and Third Reading of Ordinance 2016-10, the City Eliminates Distance Protections. 

Cheers! Part V Proposed ordinance 2017-6

Cheers! Part IV, Between the Second and Third Reading of Ordinance 2016-10, the City Eliminates Distance Protections.

Material changes were made to proposed Ordinance 2016-10 between the second reading on November 14 and the third reading on November 28. These changes amended section 3-114, part of Article II of the Code of Ordinances. (Article II regulates intoxicating liquors.) These changes to section 3-114 were neither red-lined in the aldermen's packet so that the aldermen would take note of them, nor were theses changes addressed by the City during the November 28 meeting.  

I am including the before and after versions of section 3-114. These are excerpts from the aldermen's packets from the second and third meetings. (click to enlarge):

November 14

 November 28

Note the significant differences pertaining to distance protections in section 3-114 that were not red-lined in the aldermen's packets for the November 28 meeting.  

First, "residential neighborhoods" was ENTIRELY removed from section 3-114. Question: Does the city place so little value on our residential neighborhoods that it feels this removal of the distance protection for homes is of such little consequence that this change merits neither red-lining the version of section 3-114 that was given to the aldermen for the November 28 meeting, nor discussion during the public meetings? 

Second, the word "inimical" in the November 14 version (this version was the code section then in effect) has a much broader meaning than that of the replacement language added prior to the November 28 meeting - i.e., "cause congestion of traffic or interference with schools, churches interfere with public health and safety." 

I find it concerning that these changes were made before the third reading of proposed Ordinance 2016-10 without red-lined notice being given to the aldermen. Even worse, no notice was given to the public, who, as I have explained in previous posts, thought that proposed ordinance 2016-10 was about beer sales. Transparency was clearly tossed to the wayside.


The City did not explain these changes until the April 24, 2017 BMA meeting. The entire April 24 public hearing is found here:    

April 24, 2017  (1:01.39)

At 105:45, the City, through its attorney, David Harris, finally provided us with its reasoning for the changes to section 3-114. The explanation was that the City wanted to make section 3-114 consistent with a corresponding beer code section. The City thus was intended to change an alcohol code section; yet, when giving notice of the meetings, it told the public it was changing beer sections.

These changes should have been noticed to the public sufficiently in advance of the November 28 meeting so that citizens could have the opportunity to be heard before the final vote on proposed Ordinance 2016-10 on November 28. 

Here is the complete list of posts in the series on the recent alcohol ordinances: 

Cheers! Part I, The Ordinance Nobody Knew About

Cheers! Part II, The City Muddies the Waters with Last Ditch Legal Argument.

Cheers! Part III, The City Fails to Adequately Notify the Public. 

Cheers! Part IV, Between the Second and Third Reading of Ordinance 2016-10, the City Eliminates Distance Protections. 

Cheers! Part V Proposed ordinance 2017-6