Macro trends in Apartment Building Point to Oversupply of Luxury Apartment Complexes

Sometimes we tend to think we are in our own little cocoon here in Germantown, and what goes on in LA, NYC, and Atlanta has nothing to do with us. Well, we are different (our population is stable rather than increasing), but that doesn't mean that macro trends don't affect us. The Great Recession proved that. 

All along, Germantown citizens have protested that there are too many "luxury" apartment complexes in various stages of approval in the City, and they have questioned the marketing studies of the developers. Where is the demand?  These citizens have always felt that the downturn in the housing market was short-lived, and that the trend towards renting would be reversed. The number of apartment units planned for Germantown reeked of overbuilding. And what happens if the supply of luxury apartment complexes exceeds the demand?

I watched a report on CNBC this morning (not online, will link if one appears) which explained the trends affecting luxury apartments. First let's look at four variables that affect current building conditions:

1. Shortage of skilled labor- Most of us have noticed that contractors are hard to come by, and often won't even return calls. They are simply too busy, and the skilled labor is not available. There are a lot of factors that contribute to that--recent natural disasters, immigration policy, and increasing demand for single family homes.

2. Prices of commodities are rising at an alarming level. Lumber cost has been rising steadily since the great recession. You can select your time frame here and look. I selected six years: 

3. Demand for single family homes is increasing, mostly due to demographics. 

4. We have had an exceptionally low interest rate environment.

As I now explain, these factors affect the current and future supply and demand for luxury apartments.

Developers have been planning and building luxury apartment complexes all over the country over the last few years, but the projects are often delayed due the shortage of labor. Thus, the finished product is often completed a year or more after the marketing studies are completed.  Developers cannot swiftly shift their plans when demand changes. The "numbers" (marketing projections) on each project only "work" if the developments are luxury, high-rent units, due to the high construction costs. Unfortunately, the demand is for lower-priced apartment units. Further complicating the issue is that the marketing studies often only take into account current complexes (as competition) rather than totals of current complexes plus those in various stage of planning.

The low interest rate environment fuels the need for pension funds to find higher-return alternatives than corporate and government notes and bonds, and they have been turning to owning apartment complexes for a stream of income.

All this adds up to a projected oversupply of luxury apartment complexes in the future.

I have been told by several sources that many of the developers of apartment complexes planned for the City did not know of all the other projects that are being planned. The City does not offer that information when approached by developers. Thus the developers' own marketing studies are underestimating the supply. And are the developers here taking into account the 700+ apartment units planned in Memphis by Shelby Farms? LISTEN UP DEVELOPERS--Do your homework! Follow the Planning Commission meetings. Join the Developments in Germantown Facebook Page and check out Developments in Germantown, TN!  Citizens, if there are developments in your neighborhood, don't be shy about calling the developer and letting them in on what you know about other competing developments.

Current trends are favorable for single family homes, and unfavorable for luxury apartment complexes. Yet, in our City, approved luxury apartment complex units greatly exceed single family housing approvals.

The conclusion that I reach is that, unless plans are altered, Germantown will likely have a glut of luxury apartment complexes, unless developers recognize the macro trends, and change course.

Please see these articles about falling rents around the country: 

This Could be the Year of the Falling Rents 

Manhattan Rents Drop Most in Six Years 

Could Apartment Rents in New Orleans be Falling?

Apartment Rents are Falling in the Most Expensive Markets

Seattle Rents Drop Significantly for First time this Decade as New Apartments Sit Empty 

Denver Neighborhoods with the Fastest Falling Rent 

Apartment Rents in Miami are Finally Falling

Superintendent Manuel's Proposed Contract Extension

On June 18, Superintendent Manuel's proposed new contract will be considered:

Superintendent Manuel's Proposed Contract  

Salary $166,464 (approx. $3000 raise)

The benefits in the proposed contract are the same as his previous contract, and include: 

Car Allowance $400 per month 
The Board pays the premiums for family health insurance, a $450,000 term life insurance policy, cell phone and laptop, etc. 
Annuity Plan $200 per month 

On May 1, in Jason Manual Wants New Contract from GMSD Board, I speculated that Superintendent Manuel was seeking to lengthen his contract, and that has been proven correct.
 
This contract is extended to the summer of 2022, whereas his current contract expires in 2020. 

Removed from the proposed contract is the requirement that he pay $15,000 to GMSD if he decides to leave his position before the contract expires. Although Mr. Manuel has stated that this clause was illegal, I am doubtful that this is the case, assuming that $15,000 is a reasonable estimate of the cost for GMSD to search for a new Superintendent. 

Should the Board become dissatisfied with his performance as Superintendent before the term expires, two different provisions apply, and these are the same as the previous contract. They may terminate his contract, but pay him in full until the end of his contract, or they may replace him and move him to another position, with full pay until the end of the contract period.

The consideration of the contract takes place before the Citizens to Be Heard on the Agenda:

Please *Like* and *Follow* The Shining A Light on Germantown Facebook Page. 

Old and New Business Removed from June 4 PSEC Meeting Agenda

In my last two posts, Audio Recording of PSEC Meeting Purposely Destroyed and Why Does the Chair of the PSEC have a Problem with Alderman Massey? I described the effort by the Chair of the Public Safety Education Commission (PSEC) to request Alderman Massey's removal as the liaison alderman.

Because the agenda for the PSEC meeting Monday night has been changed, it appears that there will be no vote held then requesting that removal. (Note: I believe it would still be possible to modify the agenda again Monday night, although I hope that would not occur.)

The previously circulated agenda for the June 4 PSEC meeting was as follows: 

On May 31, this email was sent by the Chairman to the members of the PSEC:    

On the new agenda, no "old" and "new" business is listed:   

Please *Like* and *Follow* The Shining A Light on Germantown Facebook Page.   

Why Does the Chair of the PSEC have a Problem with Alderman Massey?

In my May 28 post, I discussed the serious transparency issues that arose at the May 7 Public Safety Eduction Commission Meeting (PSEC). In this post, I discuss the background leading up to the May 7 fireworks.  

Many of you will want to skip over the Deep Background, and go directly to the eruption by the Chair at Massey in the April 7 meeting. Simply scroll down to the heading Public Safety Education Commission. The embedded YouTube is under that heading, and the remark that Massey made that caused the Chair to begin screaming is at the 48:24 mark and is highlighted in orange in my discussion. My comments follow that, including a speculation that the uncalled-for reaction by the Chair could be related to the "Cherry flip-flop" incident.

Deep Background: 

Alderman Massey's relentless quest for transparency in governance is well documented. He searches large volumes of public documents obtained through his open records requests, and he openly questions the numerous redactions (blank pages, etc.) that often infect the City's document production. 

Alderman Massey's Massey for Germantown Facebook page has been very helpful to me. A few of my posts, such as Carrefour Exempt from Apartment Moratorium?, Request from Economic Development Commission, were based solely on City documents that he had uncovered, and I found buried in the uploads to his Facebook page. 

My April 6 post, Alderman's Open Records Request Yields Key Forest Hill Documents, details a particularly dramatic example of an open records request that bore fruit. Due to Massey's extensive searches of City documents, "Covenantgate" was born. Massey found a covenant on the Reaves property next to the new school, a covenant that was not disclosed to the aldermen voting on a zoning change.  

Because of the disclosure of the covenant, the third reading of a BMA zoning change to increase the allowed density of development on that property from estate to residential zoning (with a further possible PUD) has been on hold for several weeks. The legal status of the covenant is in limbo; I have seen no formal, written legal opinion from the City Attorney on the enforceability of the covenant, which, if enforceable, would prevent the rezoning. Although the City and the developer claim the covenant is not enforceable, the residents and their attorney claim otherwise. Had it not been for Alderman Massey, the Forest Hill area neighbors would never have known about the covenant. Alderman Barzizza also played an important role in this saga by filing an open records request that revealed that the covenant had actually been written into the minutes of an earlier BMA meeting. The covenant's inclusion in the minutes is apparently a key fact in the pending controversy regarding the enforceability of the covenant. As I understand it, it is possible this may negate the failure to record the covenant with Shelby County. 

Thus both Aldermen Massey and Barzizza are thorns in the side of the current power structure. The Mayor and his allies are big proponents of dense residential growth, as evidenced by the fact that recent approvals of apartment units have greatly exceeded approvals of single family homes. Aldermen Barzizza and Alderman Massey are proponents of slower growth, emphasizing traditional single family homes, citing increased traffic, less green space, crowded schools, and the necessity of large infrastructure costs as the negatives associated with fast, dense residential development.

The delay in the approval of the Reaves property rezoning is likely not sitting well with the Mayor and his developer allies. Massey's opposition to the Mayor's dense-growth agenda helps us put in proper context the events leading up to the May 7 meeting. I promised to discuss the April 2 PSEC meeting; before doing so, however, I want to briefly explain how commissioners are selected.

Commissions:

I am grateful for the service of the commissioners who willingly volunteer their time to help the City. Unfortunately, however, there seems to be a dearth of political diversity on many of the commissions. The Mayor has a tendency, from what I have been told by a number of people, to place politcal allies on these commissions. The alderman liaison does get input on some of the selections, as Alderman Massey stated that he picked the members because of their backgrounds. I am advised of at least one instance in which a commissioner in a different commission was not reappointed when she was perceived to be making waves in opposition to administration wishes. The Mayor's ability to influence commission membership is facilitated by his alliance with three of the aldermen (Mary Anne Gibson, Forrest Owens, and Rocky Janda), who invariably support the Mayor and his dense-growth vision for the City. These three also approve the Mayor's recommendations for the commissioners and alderman liaison positions. The Mayor selects the Chairs.

The Chair of the PSEC is a political ally of the Mayor.

Consistent with the foregoing, the Mayor, last  December, did not recommend Alderman Massey's reappointment as liaison to the Personnel Advisory Commission. Massey simply asked too many questions. Massey, it seems, was too eager to get to the bottom of personnel issues that could prove embarrassing to the administration and key staff. As an example, Massey sought the complete list of former high-level employees, including certain former aldermen, still covered under the questionable "key man" life insurance policies detailed in my 2016 post Protecting Upper Level Employees Comes at High Cost to Taxpayers. Massey also wanted an estimate of the future cost of premiums to the City, and a legal review of whether payments on these costly insurance policies must be continued.  

The Public Safety Education Commission

The Mayor undoubtedly thought it would be safe to ensconce troublemaker Massey on the Public Safety Education Commission. After all, that Commission typically does such things as promoting the summer camp for kids to learn safety in the streets (I hear it is wonderful!), and  the program the City sponsors to dispose of prescription drugs safely. Massey himself recently enthusiastically promoted "Touch a [Fire] Truck" for kids on Facebook. 

But Alderman Massey has a degree in Criminal Justice, and has a big interest in not only fire trucks, but also crime statistics. This interest apparently got him into hot water with the PSEC at both  the March and April 2018 meetings. Here is the audio of the April meeting:


 
I will now include my notes on the April 2 PSEC meeting that describe the interactions of Massey and the PSEC Chair. These notes are unedited, and based on my listening to the recording the first time; I do not want to listen to this twice. Just pretend you are following an event through Twitter: The most contentious part of the discussion is highlighted in orange. You may skip to that if you want to hear only the most heated interaction.

At 5:28 a police representative talks about statistics during his report, and the various classifications of crime, and why classifications of crimes can change. Alderman Massey talks about the Commission looking at more information.  Alderman Massey says he does not want information on particular instances of crime, but trends, in order to inform citizens  Click  Massey continues speaking, and

At 9:58 Alderman Massey said he wants the Commission to have more responsibility in educating the community, if the Commission chooses to do that. The chair seems to agree about more education, but not about more in depth statistics, the problem is getting information out, not getting information in. Chair's tone sounds a bit hostile to me, judge for yourself  Click   

At 11:41 Massey says he wants an easier way for the Commission members to get the information rather than search for it online, just wants a report, not oversight, just education. Click  

At 13:01 A Commission member states he wants to discuss the idea of whether they need more data (as Massey had suggested), and the Chair says that needs to wait for new business Click  

***************

Aside: Someone mentions crimereports.com  My comment: It really is an interesting website. They have a cool crime map there. I have seen it before and came to realize that crime is not evenly spread out throughout the City. Take a look.  Obviously the commercial properties attract crime, but western Germantown, where I live, is getting disproportionately hit. 

I am listening right now and will continue to listen until I hear something that will give a clue as to the "personal conflict". Very interesting discussion about wiring, I am learning a lot. Not pertinent to discussion.  

******************* 

At about 21:02 Massey starts a discussion about the proposed water tower, and whether a water tower is needed. I don't think the Chair had a problem with this, but the Forest Hill residents might be interested. Click 

Around 32:50 it is clear that the Chair is wanting the role of the Commission to be the narrowest possible, he talks about the "chain of command". They are talking about speed limits. Obviously anything that broadens the interests of commission is not okay with him. Massey, however is not part of this discussion. Click 

Well, at 39:45 Massey did have input on this, where, in general he supports the "broad" view of citizen commissions on the issue of not just speed limits, but everything, as he says Germantown prides itself on being run by citizen commissions, he wants to put his background to use, he picked people from the community that had experience, we are not trying to tell police what to do, he needs more information for the legislative process. Click 

42:52 Police representative-- said they will give everything the Commission wants except personal information re:crime, they are receptive, wants to be as helpful as he possibly can, very little they cannot share Click (my comment: that sounds good, not sure what the problem is?? wondering when I will get to it) 

Okay I finally came to it. 

48:24 Here is where Alderman Massey says the reason the citizens need to be involved is if the politicians are allowed to control the information flow they will eventually use it to their benefit. The Chair loses his cool! After Massey makes the statement, the Chair explodes, shouting, "We are not getting into politics. I am the Chairman of this commission and I have the right to shut you down right now." Click   

Thankfully one of the members stepped in and brought up the subject of crime statistics again, and voting on some of the ideas that Alderman Massey brought forth. 

54:40 Alderman Massey said it helps him in the legislative process to get feedback when they have discussions like that. Click  

58:10 police representative says he can work with the committee to give more detailed crime statistics, seems very willing, everyone seems on board with discussing it at the next meeting Alderman Massey cautions about using email to discuss things because that could be interpreted as a meeting and against sunshine laws, The Chair agrees but the reason he gives is because he does not want things in writing that can be discovered. Click 

The meeting was adjourned.

*********************

My Comments: Alderman Massey is a non-elitist and is always making general statements that favor citizen involvement rather than top-down decision making. He did not refer to any particular politician in the statement that angered the Chair, and, in my view, it was not intended to disparage anyone. The Chair's reaction to Alderman Massey's statement was__________ , well, judge for yourself.

In all honesty, I was a tiny bit concerned about even listening to this meeting. What if Massey really did say something offensive? I couldn't imagine it, but I still was thinking-- what if something really bad happened at the April meeting to cause the subsequent ambush at the May PSEC meeting? Alas, I couldn't find anything.

Remember the Cherry Flip-Flop Ladder Incident? 

Because the Chair's reaction, not only in the April meeting, but in the May meeting as well, seemed so over the top, I am wondering if something in addition to the difference of opinion regarding city political issues is behind the Chair's hostilty towards Massey. I realize that I am speculating, but the August 2017 Cherry flip-flop ladder incident did not surface publicly until the latter part of April. I believe that, by the time of the April 2 meeting, the City had become concerned that the Cherry incident could hit the front pages. In fact, sources have told me that rumors about the incident were already circulating. The City may have felt that Massey's quest for more specific crime data might out the Cherry scandal. Keep in mind that Alderman Massey was not asking for personal information from the crime reports. But he does have a good nose for sniffing out clues, and the City may have been worried that his initial request for more specific data could lead to further inquiries that might, in turn, uncover the Cherry incident. Just thinking out loud..........

The Mayor may have even been concerned that Massey's call for more specific crime data signaled that Massey had already heard about the Cherry Flip-Flop incident! I realize that my speculation may sound like a stretch for some, but I am compelled to speculate because I cannot find anything that Massey said during the April meeting that merits his forced removal as alderman liaison. However, given the City's desire to keep a lid on the Cherry flip-flop incident, Massey's otherwise innocuous statement, "the reason the citizens need to be involved is if the politicians are allowed to control the information flow they will eventually use it to their benefit", may have seemed to the Chair to be a veiled reference to  the Cherry flip-flop incident. I am convinced, however, that this was not the case. Having combed through many of Alderman Massey's Facebook posts to review documents, I am very familiar with the rhetoric that he typically uses. The remark that so angered the Chair is absolutely typical of those Massey makes in all sorts of contexts.  

In any case, this whole Administration vs. Massey incident is--Strange. Baffling. Bizarre. Disturbing.

But, it is all here for you to judge for yourself. Far be it from me to be the ultimate arbiter of facts. That is why I am a transparency nut. You are free to disagree with me. And, because I have included the actual recording, you can clearly see I am not hiding anything. 

**************

An Update to My Last Post:

Alderman Massey recently sent David Harris, City Attorney, a series of questions about the May PSEC meeting. Alderman Massey forwarded Harris' answers to me. The good news is that, in the future, all meetings will be recorded by City staff, and, therefore, there should be no further problems with recordings being deleted.  

Harris stated that the PSEC Secretary was a private citizen who recorded the meeting on her own equipment. However, in his answers to Massey's questions he made no attempt to defend her action. In my opinion, the fact that she used her own recorder has no bearing on whether or not she was authorized, or otherwise acted properly, in deleting the recording.  

Harris also responded to Massey's question regarding the content of the minutes. Harris said that motions made during a meeting must be included in the minutes. Massey told me that various motions were omitted by the Secretary in the draft minutes of the May 7 meeting. Hopefully, he can get these motions added back added back in "additions and corrections" at the June 4 meeting.

Harris further opined that minutes should contain "what is done and not said". Does that include the general expression of thanks by to the commissioners by the Mayor? 

This link references "Roberts Rules of Order" 

"Record the name of any guest speaker and the subject of presentation, but make no summary of the speaker’s remarks."  

I conclude that the Mayor, as a guest speaker, should have had his name and the subject of his speech included in the minutes.

For now, our only record of the Mayor's attendance at the May 7 meeting is, for now, simply the snapshot that Alderman Massey took of him attending the meeting and posted in my last blog post.

Letter From David Harris, City Attorney 

An Email from Alderman Massey to the Chair:


Please *Like* and *Follow* The Shining A Light on Germantown Facebook Page.  

Audio Recording of Public Safety Education Commission Meeting Purposely Destroyed, Suggesting Possible Tennessee Sunshine Law Violation

There were fireworks aplenty at the May 7 meeting of the Public Safety Education Commission (PSEC). Too bad we don't have the official public recording of the meeting!--more on this in just a second. 

The Commission Chair, without any notice to Alderman Massey--on the agenda or otherwise, unsuccessfully attempted to persuade the Commission to request that the BMA remove Mr. Massey as the Commission's liaison alderman. Not only that, the Chair refused to recognize Alderman Massey when he attempted to speak. To their credit, the members of the Commission, overriding the Chair, allowed Mr. Massey five minutes to defend himself after he objected to being muzzled. The Commission postponed the vote on the issue until the June 4 meeting.

The very next morning following the meeting, I made an open records request for the audio recording.  

"May 8, at 9:29am

Michele,

I am officially requesting the audio for the Public Safety Education Committee meeting last night. Please ask ASAP because I suspect it may be deleted. Hopefully I can get this by sending me a link.

Thank you.

If for some reason I have to fill out a form, let me know.Pauline" 

My request was denied because the Commission Secretary, who made the recording, had already deleted it, just hours after the end of the meeting. But, that’s not all. Get this: Immediately upon the meeting’s conclusion, Alderman Massey specifically asked the Secretary to retain the recording. Yet, as best I can tell, the Secretary, after telling Mr. Massey that she was not required to retain the recording, went home, listened to the recording, typed the minutes, without including the content of the discussion, and then deleted the recording. An elected alderman, chosen by the citizens to oversee the workings of the City, was stiffed when he made a simple request that a public record of the meeting be kept. It is my understanding that it is the customary practice to retain the recording until after the minutes are approved at the next meeting-- if this is not the practice, it certainly should be! 

Alderman Massey wrote about the meeting on his Massey for Germantown Facebook page immediately after he returned home. It was his recounting of the events of the night that prompted me to make my open records request the very next morning.  Mr. Massey's Facebook post is an eloquent plea for transparency. I urge you to read it: 



Am I missing something here? Is this how government is supposed to operate--brazenly defying an elected official's request to retain a public record?   

The Secretary's deletion of the recording may well have violated state law. I asked Deborah Fisher, the Director of the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government, to opine on the Secretary's action. Here is Ms. Fisher's response:

"Hi Pauline,

There is nothing in state law that sets out specifically how long an audio recording of a meeting must be kept. The law requires minutes to promptly be available. 

However, the audio record IS a public record from the moment it was created. And if someone requests to inspect a public record, that record must be made promptly available.

In this situation, Massey requested the record be preserved, presumably for the purpose of listening to it later. And the custodian instead destroyed it within a day of that request.

I think that shows a clear intention not to allow someone to hear that public record, and I believe this would be a violation of the law that requires public access to records.

If he had requested a copy of the audio a couple of weeks later, and the person who recorded the audio routinely tapes over the audio and had already done so, that might be understandable. But in this instance, it appears there was no practical reason for deleting the audio except to make it unavailable. The person apparently intentionally destroyed a public record that is evidence of what happened at the meeting.

Also, if someone is taping a meeting for the purpose of transcribing or providing accurate written minutes, the reasonable and logical assumption is that you would  retain the minutes at least until the minutes are approved by the governing body at a later meeting. That way,  if there are questions, you can simply check back on the tape. To do otherwise, in my opinion, is very suspect. There would have to be a very good reason for deleting the tape or digital recording.

I would ask if there is a city policy that requires or allows the person recording the meeting to destroy the recording within one day, or before the written minutes have been approved. Lacking that, I believe the person recording likely acted intentionally to prevent someone from inspecting a public record — the audio recording of the meeting — by destroying it.  

Deborah Fisher
Executive DirectorTennessee Coalition for Open Government"

Massey put this snapshot of the
Mayor at the meeting on  
his Massey for Germantown 
Facebook Page.

I don’t know if the Secretary acted on her own when she deleted the recording. If you had to bet, how would you wager? Would you bet she did it it solely on her own without first talking to someone about Alderman Massey's request to keep the recording? Hmmm. I have sent emails to the Mayor, the Chairman, and the Secretary asking them why the recording was deleted, and asked each of them if they conferred about the deletion. If I learn something, I will let you know. But, I am not going to hold my breath.     

By the way, the Mayor, a political ally of the Chair, was present at the May 7 meeting. I cannot prove the Mayor was given advance notice of the Chair's intent to effect Alderman Massey’s removal. I do know the Mayor is far from a regular observor of the PSEC meetings, and, indeed, it may have been his first "visit" ever. 

I can also report that, in April, the PSEC Chair voiced, in an email to the Mayor, his displeasure with Alderman Massey. The Mayor, upon receipt of this email, forwarded it to the aldermen, including Mr. Massey. The Commission Chair's hostility to Alderman Massey was thus well known to the Mayor and others prior to the May 7 meeting. It bears repeating here, though, Alderman Massey was not told prior to the May 7 meeting that any action regarding his removal would be discussed.   

In this correspondence, the Mayor informs the aldermen that he is researching how to remove Alderman Massey as liaison to the PSEC, after receiving a request from the Chair  to appoint a new alderman liaison.The stated reason for the PSEC Chair request was that there is a "personality conflict."  (taken from Massey for Germantown Facebook page)

Upon learning that the audio recording of the May 7 meeting had been deleted, I asked for the draft of the minutes of the meeting:  

Draft Minutes of May Public Safety Education Commission Meeting 

First off, note there is no mention of the Mayor's presence at the meeting - even though the Mayor actually addressed the group!  I wonder why the Secretary omitted any reference to the Mayor's presence?  

Note also that the vote on whether to request that Alderman Massey be removed as the liaison will now take place at the June 4 meeting. 

It is also noteworthy that the agenda for the June 4 meeting fails to include the "alderman liaison report." Until the May 7 meeting, the liaison alderman had always been asked to provide his insight. The effort to muzzle Mr. Massey continues apace.



What is the backstory behind all this? Is this a genuine "personality conflict" or a political "hit job"? What we know now is that the Chair's hostility toward Alderman Massey is rooted, at least in part, in Mr. Massey's suggestions regarding the way crime statistics are reported. The minutes of the March PSEC meeting state: "Alderman Massey suggested that the commission members receive the crime reports. If possible, he would like to see more detailed information on auto thefts, assaults, burglaries, etc. Primarily for the purpose of providing insight for the commission to see areas that we can improve and initiate campaigns to roll out to the public."   

I will examine this backstory, as well as the specific conflicts that arose at the April PSEC meeting, in more detail in my next blog post. Alderman Massey's version of these events may be found in the Massey for Germantown Facebook page quoted above. Reporting on April's events will be easier because the audio recording of the April 2 meeting, unlike that of the May 7 meeting, was not deleted before people could request it. Lo and behold!   

I am now going to use my best persuasive powers to try to convince City officials to be transparent in the future, and to obey the Sunshine Laws:

Dear Mayor, City Administrator, and Commissioners,  

You proudly tout the Tennessee Baldridge award that the City received last year. In any future quest to win the national award, please remember that the organization that grants the Baldridge award considers transparency a "core concept."   





Please *Like* and *Follow* The Shining A Light on Germantown Facebook Page. 

Choir Director Rayburn Goes Down Swinging and "Singing"

This past Monday, the School Board, at a special called meeting, in a 5-0 vote, dismissed Dr Rayburn with the following language:  

Dr. Rayburn was all over the media last week defending himself. He claimed that a 12 page document that he wrote exonerated him. Read it and see if you agree:  

Rayburn's Twelve Page Document 

My thought is that this is a "take no prisoners" type response. He charges that coaches are allowed to get away with worse things, and that an administration member accused him of promoting the African slave trade when the choir voted down participation in an event that would support a church's mission trip. Rayburn also claimed that he was forced to show the class a movie about the mission trip. There were other "gems" in there, such as his assertion that he was told to admit out of district private school students to the music program, rather than public school students. He seems determined to take others down with him. 

His so-called explanations for popping students on the rear and kissing them, viewing girls in states of undress, and yes, talking about someone's breast reduction surgery, are pretty laughable. The tone of the letter shows he is intemperate, and unwilling to take responsibility..... for anything. Everything is someone else's fault, or his actions were either "taken wrong" or his intentions were misunderstood. I guess it would have been better if he had chosen one person or situation to attack. Instead he takes the shotgun approach, and uses a poorly written, unedited diatribe and calls it a defense. If he thinks that in this document he successfully "defends" himself, and makes his chances of being hired as a school choir director better, he had better think again. He admits to things that should not have happened, and that should not be tolerated. However, the worst offenses he is accused of are either mischaracterized or not included. It is certainly one of the most bizarre documents I have ever read. He does not get into the specifics of what multiple students claim that he said to them in private.  

Now, the facts that are behind his attacks against GMSD staff probably need investigating. But seriously, he thinks that because others do bad things, he should get a pass? Uh, no, that is not how it works. If there is a culture at the school that allows coaches to treat students badly, then of course that should be addressed, but that would not excuse this behavior in any case. 

I do believe that people should be allowed to defend themselves. If there was something wrong with the process, then the Court will make that finding. I strongly believe that if this 12 page document alone is his defense, though, it will make no difference to the ultimate outcome. 

Carrefour Exempt from Apartment Moratorium??? Request from Economic Development Commission.

Those of you that follow the Massey for Germantown Facebook Page may have noticed the copy of letter that Alderman Massey posted: 

The letter was also posted in the Developments in Germantown TN Facebook group. 

As you can see, Jerry Klein, on behalf of the Germantown Economic Development Commission, requests that Mayor Palazzolo exempt Carrefour from the Apartment moratorium. The apartment moratorium was proposed last December by Mayor Palazzolo in response to the citizens' demands, and enacted by a BMA vote in January.

Carrefour is the shopping center at the Western Gateway (Kirby and Poplar), and is subject to Smart Growth zoning. The plan may have significant revenue associated with it, as the letter states, but it also may have significant cost. The whole reason for the moratorium was to give the City time to assess the true fiscal costs and benefits of additional residential units. As far as I know, there has been no concerted effort to do cost-benefit analyses for these type projects, taking into account the significant cost of school construction and possible need for yet another new school. It seems prudent to await those results before a developer embarks on building another large apartment complex. Thornwood is being built now, Watermark is fully approved, and Viridian and City Center are exempt from the moratorium. And, as this blog post has shown, approvals for apartment complex units have greatly exceeded approvals for traditional housing.

Residential construction of any type has a negative fiscal impact on our City, according to a fiscal impact study commissioned by the City. Is there a reason for Germantown to grow, increase traffic, crowd the schools, etc. without at least ensuring that this new, more hectic lifestyle doesn't also increase our taxes?  And, remember, a two million dollar sewer upgrade is needed for the Carrefour project.

Williamson County (near Nashville) certainly has not found that residential growth has had a positive fiscal impact. That county commissioned a study, and it was found that the county was justified in charging developers a fiscal impact fee for the cost of building schools. This upfront fee for residential units can go as high as $10,000 per home, although obviously smaller apartment units would be charged a smaller fee. Before giving exemptions from the moratorium for apartment complexes, we need to study the true fiscal impact of apartment developments, and, like Williamson County, consider charging developers an upfront fiscal impact fee.

I will cover more details of the Williamson County fiscal impact fee in a later post.