The public policy impact is absurd. One’s opinion on the bill is irrelevant. To clarify, it doesn’t matter to me whether you’re a supporter of the bill or part of the loyal opposition or just against its passage. There can be little debate about this being bad public policy. Enforcement will be virtually impossible.

Many members of the loyal opposition to the chicken bill were also some of the strongest advocates to save the fairgrounds. One of the strongest positions—due to its truth—in the fight for preservation, is that every resident of Davidson County owns those 117 acres. In other words, no priority given to nearby citizens—all are equal. As a consequence, each council member was free to vote based upon their constituency—councilmanic courtesy be damned. If councilmanic courtesy would’ve prevailed, the bulldozer’s work at the fairgrounds would be done by now (71% approved Charter amendment).

Councilmanic courtesy

Councilmanic courtesy is a powerful force (although less frequent than many think). I am familiar with its power from experience (Cleveland Street zoning, 11 meetings over 12 months) in 2009, which ultimately spawned a recall election, among other things. This courtesy is usually limited to zoning matters. However, in limited instances, it is used elsewhere. One such limited example was the fairgrounds. It didn’t bear fruit, as we all know. And it will be much harder to employ in the future on this topic. Hens = zoning.

The chicken bill is a demonstration of this courtesy, but not in a fashion apparent on its face. Instead of being able to defeat the legislation by keeping 21 from being posted on 3^rd reading, the representatives for those 8 districts were able to collect an 18-17 count for adoption of the amendment. This is when I realized a rule requiring 21 votes to adopt an amendment on all zoning bills would be a good one. A prohibition against exempting a district from an ordinance or resolution with county-wide application is another.

The opt-out amendment movement was designed to defeat legislation short of being able to keep 21 from being posted. There are many ways to defeat a bill, but only one way to pass one. The opt-out is a much easier way out and takes less time. “It is so ridiculous” went the notion that if so allowed to amend, the sponsor would recognize defeat and move for deferral or withdraw. An example to illustrate is necessary.

Opt-out movement spawned

The opt-out amendment movement was spawned last council term relative to another controversial city-wide zoning matter. CM Erik Cole sponsored what was known as the cottage bill. During the run-up to the vote, members were asking for the districts they represent to be excluded from its application. In the face of many of these opt-out amendments being added to the bill, Cole withdrew the bill. At the time, I failed to thank CM Cole for doing the right thing. I am now making up for lost time: Thank you, Erik. Too bad others didn’t follow your example (I give the freshmen a pass in this instance). Cole recognized the obvious and felt more obligated to the long-term policy impact on the city than in scoring a short-term political “victory.”

Now back to the inconsistency in this type of councilmanic courtesy. One of the biggest policy arguments in the push to demolish the speedway was that other council members should respect the desires of the district’s representative above all—deem them to have a super-voter status. There were op-ed wars in The City Paper on this very point. And that was only the public face of the dispute.

So, fairgrounds supporters had to overcome councilmanic courtesy. Yet it is that very courtesy the opt-out amendment sponsors proffered to have the districts they represent exempted from the application of the bill. The argument is the other side of the same coin when asking others to go along with a zoning bill because it won’t impact other districts. Here, the law will apply except in those districts because the citizens “of my district don’t want certain people to have chickens.” During the fairgrounds debate it was “the citizens of each district are equal,” which is heads. Now, “the citizens of district __ don’t want this law to apply to them,” which is tails. The coin is public policy by councilmanic courtesy.

The lone power remaining exclusively in the hands of the local legislative body is zoning power. Today, it’s a mess more than ever thanks to this patchwork policy. This is terrible public policy and sets a dangerous precedent. Consistency used to be valued. It is no victory—political or otherwise—to have patchwork application of zoning laws across our city. The impact of such a policy runs counter to the argument that the Council should be a co-equal branch of government.

Yes, the point made during the fairgrounds debate that citizens of other districts are equal to the citizens of the district of the fairgrounds is still true. Yet it cannot continue to be made consistently by those who opted-out of the chicken bill. Consistent application of our general laws is important to those who care about our public policies—even if we disagree about what our policies should be. I’m looking forward to the result when a citizen is hauled into Environmental Court when cited for owning hens in an opted-out district, especially if it’s close to the line of an included district.

Next thing you know, sponsors of zoning bills vehemently opposed by outraged citizens will ask unaffected council district representatives to opt-out (even though it doesn’t apply outside the affected district) making it highly likely citizen engagement will decline further. Assuming citizen engagement indeed has room to decline. This is a terrible step in the wrong direction. Here’s to hoping someone in the body will sponsor a bill to end this terrible policy much earlier than its 2-year sunset and restore credibility to the body responsible for setting our public policy. Then, if the sponsor can get 21 again, get them. If not, let it go until it’s possible. If allowed to stand, it’s hard to imagine us being rationally considered a consolidated, metropolitan government.

Yet, I guess it’s not as bad as advocating social welfare reform while simultaneously ignoring the need for corporate welfare reform.

This is my opinion. What’s yours?