Jump to content

Nashvillain

Members+
  • Content Count

    927
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by Nashvillain

  1. 50 minutes ago, rookzie said:

    Well, in expressing my perception or a lack thereof, I never claimed to be the most discerning and intuitive boy on the block (as you already know)..:fun:

    Sorry, you got kind of lumped in with my response. You're absolutely the hero of the Transportation and Mass Transportation Mega Thread

    • Like 4
  2. 3 hours ago, Rockatansky said:

    I've often heard the opposite?

    I questioned myself as I wrote that. But I think it might come down to how engaged and assertive any given council group is versus any particular executive administration. I think there is a lot of room in the framework for each to assert its will. But, maybe you're right, as the executive is staffed by full time people with incentives--time, money, legacy, to do that job, as opposed to the council, which is a body of citizen-legislators. 

    Maybe I was thinking it's the other way around given the tremendous turnover in the mayor's office that Nashville has experienced since... Purcell? 

  3. 1 minute ago, BnaBreaker said:

    Well said, and I agree.  The bike lanes in Nashville are largely a joke.  A shoulder doesn't magically become a bike lane just because you paint a little bicycle on it, city government.  

    It doesn't hurt. Narrowing traffic lanes can help with traffic calming. But I'm not sure how you get more people to actually start utilizing the bike lanes. Maybe companies incentivizing not coming to work in a car, cash back for not using a parking space, etc.

    • Like 1
  4. 1 hour ago, Binbin98 said:

    Maybe if/when more large tech companies come to Nashville there could be bus lines connecting all the tech hubs to different neighborhoods (ex: the Amazon line or oracle line). I know that’s silly but it would be cool if it happened, this is assuming Nashville city government gives a crap about public transportation haha

    I think, by and large, "Nashville City government" does give a crap about public transportation, but you have to keep in mind that Nashville City government is council strong and executive weak. And the metro council is 40 members with constituencies in far-flung areas of the county ill served by public transit. Hard to get citizens and their representatives on board with infrastructure they don't stand to benefit from (i.e., they don't think they stand to benefit from). Not to mention, Nashville is a somewhat progressive city in a conservative state, the government of which goes out of its way to hamstring transit initiatives and funding for its big cities. 

    • Like 2
  5. 4 hours ago, AsianintheNations said:

    I've noticed that a lot of new apartment complexes, single-family homes, and commercial spaces (including the adjacent Stocking 51 expansion) are dark gray/black. Doesn't this end up absorbing more heat and increase cooling costs during the summer? Or is this not really a big deal in the grand scheme of things?

    Whereas architects and developers used to be context sensitive and site aware--nowadays they're like ... "Money, money, money. YOLO!" 

    • Haha 2
  6. 2 hours ago, AsianintheNations said:

    Glad the blight of block-sized surface parking lots is slowly receding. Will be exciting to see how the other side of the river will develop, as it looks like there was never much going on there even in the 1951 photo.

    Apparently we understood the flood plain and that the East Bank wasn't a good spot for intensive development. But nowadays ... YOLO! (Is YOLO still a thing?)

  7. 6 hours ago, rookzie said:

     

    To the guy who tweeted from Detroit:

     

    I don't know what planet he landed from, but even long before Detroit lost its big-city status and still offered a sizable streetcar network (until the mid 1950s), Detroit never was a urban district expected to be anything other than car-centric.

    Besides the usual I-75/94/96 urban expressway network, the old arterials haven't changed which convey the multitudes into and out of the center city:

    Woodward Ave, (M1)
    Gratiot Ave. (M3)
    Grand Ave (M5)
    Michigan Ave. (US-12)

    Since the 2013 city bankruptcy, Quicken Loans' Dan Guilbert has infused a half dozen or so $billion into realty and redevelopment of the city's central core, just to restore it into some state of viability, after decades of being a "lights-out" district.  So Detroit is NOT a good example for comparison IMO ─ not at this point, anyway.
     

    IMG_7999-2.thumb.jpg.1c1f1d3d22f8298ca9b73ffffd0db47b.jpg

    Detroit was Motor City after all

    • Like 2
  8. At the risk of being too reductive, but also with the hope of clarification so that there is a common starting point for people to argue from, here's what the Metro Charter says about what Metro Nashville government does (the literal list is in blue italics which I provided): 

    Sec. 1.05. - Functions within general services district and urban services district.
     
     
     

    The metropolitan government may exercise within its general services district those powers and functions which have heretofore been exercised by the County of Davidson or the City of Nashville, or both, and shall supply the residents of said general services district with those governmental services which are now, or hereafter may be, customarily furnished by a county government in a metropolitan area.

    The metropolitan government may exercise within its urban services district those powers and functions which have heretofore been exercised by the City of Nashville or the County of Davidson, and shall supply the residents of said urban services district with those kinds of governmental services which are now, or hereafter may be, customarily furnished by a city government in a metropolitan area.

    The functions of the metropolitan government to be performed, and the governmental services to be rendered throughout the entire general services district shall include: general administration, police; courts, jails; assessment; health; welfare; hospitals; housing for the aged; streets and roads; traffic; schools; parks and recreation; library; auditorium, fairgrounds; airport; public housing; urban redevelopment; urban renewal; planning; electrical code; building code; plumbing code; housing code; electricity; transit; refuse disposal; beer supervision; and taxicab regulation.

    The additional functions of the metropolitan government to be performed and the additional governmental services to be rendered within the urban services district shall include: additional police protection; fire protection; water; sanitary sewers; storm sewers; street lighting; street cleaning; refuse collections and wine and whiskey supervision.

    Nothing in the foregoing enumeration and assignment of functions shall be construed to require the continued maintenance or furnishing of any governmental service which the council by ordinance has determined to be obsolete and unnecessary.

    Nothing in this section shall be deemed to limit the power of the metropolitan government to exercise other governmental functions in either the urban services district or the general services district, or to provide new and additional governmental services in either the urban services district or the general services district.

    • Thanks 1
  9. 5 hours ago, dragonfly said:

    Please I would like to see documented evidence of the last administration's "attempt to undercount minorities." How did that "attempt" play out. What would be the rationale? Or the supposed benefit? In case you're interested, here is how your state and my state and every other state with R majorities possibly were intentionally undercounted this time. It's interesting how the D states all beat their projections with the census figures and the R state failed to meet the projections. Really interesting. All of the projections were off as if they were all about politics. Here you go read on:  https://townhall.com/columnists/stephenmoore/2021/05/04/why-did-biden-census-bureau-add-25-million-more-residents-to-bluestate-population-count-n2588890?fbclid=IwAR2c5wDgPJnxSTHhp7Zz1g808U2EhTucmG2wLbH-Obb6mP7CcDancERZDK4 

     

    Consider the source: 

    "Townhall.com is the #1 conservative website. Townhall.com pulls together political commentary and analysis from over 100 leading columnists and opinion leaders, research from 100 partner organizations, conservative talk-radio and a community of millions of grassroots conservatives.

    Townhall.com is designed to amplify those conservative voices in America’s political debates."

    That is copy and pasted directly from the about page on the Townhall website that you linked to. Media literacy is increasingly difficult in this partisan age, but just trying goes a long way

     

    • Like 2
    • Haha 1
  10. 47 minutes ago, MLBrumby said:

    Well, now that's a question for others who have alleged (not saying they're wrong) that the mere asking of the question is intimidating.  Maybe they've got the answer to your question.  

    Um, OK. I don't think it's a question for anyone else considering you're the one who said that asking a certain question on the current census "skewed" results on prior censuses. To me that seems like a logical fallacy or space time continuum bending impossibility, but I'm willing and able to be wrong. But I see that we're playing games here based on what content isn't allowed on this forum. But it sucks that you can obscure political speech with purposefully vague language then try to deflect when asked directly to clarify.

    How bout those Nashville Bits & Pieces? Someone is building some tall skinnies on John Mallete Dr. and Manchester Ave. in Bordeaux. 

    • Like 2
    • Confused 1
  11. 2 hours ago, MLBrumby said:

    Agreed! 

    I've been aware of the battle over the citizenship question in this census.  I think it's interesting how some people conflate the two (immigrants and minorities). As a minority myself, I do not want non-citizens to be getting representation that would otherwise go to a state that's grown with legal immigration. I'm all for legal immigration and do think green-card and citizenship applications should be counted, but not (yet) included in the official count.  

    Having said the above, I think there's probably some impact from the citizenship question on this census that might have skewed previous ones. So I won't disagree with @Nash_12Southpoint above. Thanks for the feedback. 

     

    I'm just trying to understand, how could citizenship questions on the current census skew previous censuses? 

  12. 18 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

    Good points all around, Smeagols. I also think you hit upon a really key point that gets to the core of a lot of the issues we're talking about when you said that 'everyone wants a radical solution.'

    Progressivism is designed to be radical and challenge the status quo. It is based on the idea that no matter how bad or how good things are going right now, there are changes (from minor tweaks to major overhauls) that can be made to the systems around us that can lead to better outcomes. 

    Conservatism, on the other hand, is designed to protect the status quo. It is based on the idea that no matter how bad or how good things are going right now, any changes that are made (big or small, no matter how well-intentioned) have a very real possibility of making things worse.

    Both of these ideas are true, but the result is that there really is no such thing as radical conservatism whereas the very core of progressivism requires some degree of radicalization. That's why radical progressives were responsible for promoting a lot of ideas that have become common and mundane despite being radical at the time (e.g. workplace protections, minimum wage, food/drug regulation, social security, interracial marriage, lgbtq rights, etc...) whereas I can't think of a single concept introduced by "radical conservatives" or the far right that has become similarly woven into the social fabric. That's not because conservatism doesn't have good ideas - in fact, it's because conservatism is founded on one of the most singular and important ideas that could possibly exist in the political realm. To borrow the wording from the medical field, that idea is 'first do no harm. I would argue that any political commentary or policy coming from the right that is not rooted in this very foundational idea is in fact not conservative at all.

    So you're right, Smeagols, everyone is looking for a radical solution but the problem is that one side's political philosophy is entirely incompatible with radicalism. As a result, instead of radicalism what we get is a reactionary response and radical regressivism, which are very different things than traditional conservatism and which we could use a little more of these days.

    As an analogy, lets pretend that our government is actually just a pretty great recipe for chili.  Different factions of progressives are going to spend a lot of time doing research and making the argument that our recipe for chili should have the ingredients apportioned differently. Some progressives think the recipe should have fewer beans, and some think it should have more cheese, and some of the more 'out there' progressives think we should forget about making chili at all and instead should shift gears toward tomato soup or a beef and bean stew. Given the opportunity to experiment, some of these progressive groups are going to make some damn tasty chili and some of them are going to go overboard and end up with a giant bowl of soggy onions or a big mound of melted cheese and chili powder that tastes awful and no longer resembles the serviceable chili we used to enjoy. Thus is the nature of progressivism: it will probably lead to some recipes that are arguably better than the status quo, but unchecked it's almost certainly going to lead to a lot of really terrible, inedible recipes too. 

    Our conservative chili cooks, however, think we've got a pretty good chili recipe already, and they're right that a lot of the kitchen experiments proposed and attempted by progressive chili cooks will ultimately lead to worse outcomes. Many conservatives will even prefer the original chili recipe over a lot of the new recipes that progressives believe are superior to the original, though many will also come to appreciate the new recipes over time and will slowly come around to preferring it even (e.g. the "get your government hands off my medicare!" meme). Thus is the nature of conservatism: it's never going to win top prize at the chili cook off, but it's going to be much more consistent in flavor and quality relative to the progressive batches.

    Throughout the history of the US, we've had various proportions of conservative and progressive cooks in the kitchen all whipping up new variations of the American chili we've all been wolfing down for generations. At our best, the conservative cooks have put a stop to some of the worst of the progressive ideas so we don't end up with too many bowls of soggy onions and cheese mounds, and conservatives have also done a great job of then shaping some of the better progressive ideas into a dish that's more palatable to everyone. While this happens in reverse upon rare occasion too (e.g. Romney care morphing into the ACA), this sort of conservative moderation has truly been an essential function that has allowed our country to thrive for 245 years now.

    What does a radical conservative chili cook bring to the kitchen, however? When progressive cooks want to try more cheese in the blend, the traditional conservative chili cook may make the argument that the chili is pretty cheesy already and if we're going to add more cheese, then we should at least start out by adding just a very small amount of additional cheese and seeing how it goes. The radical conservative chili cook, however, responds to the progressive proposal by making the case that there should actually be 'less' cheese in the recipe, that the status quo is too cheesy already, and that maybe we should get rid of cheese from the recipe entirely. When the progressive cook makes the case that maybe less chili powder would yield better results, the radical conservative responds by making the case that more chili powder is needed, and maybe a lot more. To be fair, of course, the radical conservative may be "right" that less/no cheese and more chili powder will lead to a better recipe (or at least a recipe that radical conservatives will prefer), but the bottom line is that they are no longer adhering to the most fundamental element of conservatism when doing so. By becoming radical, by definition, they have become something other than conservative. That chili is no longer a safe bet. 

    These are the uncharted waters we find ourselves in today. What happens when the right becomes equally if not more radicalized than the left?  At the Grand Ole Tennessee Chili Cook-offs in the years to come, I think we're all going to be longing for a big old pot cooked up by the Bill Frists, Lamar Alexanders, Bob Corkers, and Bill Haslams of the world in the not-too-distant future. Their particular batches have always been a bit bland for my taste at least, but please sir, can I have some more. 

    Anyone else craving chili? 

    • Haha 3
  13. 14 minutes ago, ruraljuror said:

    Sorry if my post wasn't clear, Smeagols. I wasn't questioning your assessment of Nashville's economic situation, I was merely pointing out that it seemed you'd incorrectly identified your source as non-partisan. No big deal, of course, I just wanted to clarify. 

    The main point I was trying to make was simply that your attempt to equate both sides of the political spectrum in your post this morning isn't particularly accurate or helpful, which is an issue I've raised with you before. If you'd like to put your statistical research skills to use, however, maybe you can prove me wrong by showing how the 20% from the extreme left and 20% from the extreme right are equally culpable for problems in this country or that each side's activism is equally problematic. I'd certainly be curious how you arrived at those figures in the first place, unless I misunderstood your point. 

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, talking about politics in general is a waste of everyone's time and energy if we're not talking about the advantages and disadvantages of specific policies. I don't think we gain much ground by talking about what people or groups are good or bad in general, I want to hear about what ideas and policies you (or anyone) think are good and bad and why you think those are good or bad policies. 

    To reiterate, if one group thinks we should be driving on the left side of the road, and their political opposition all think we should be driving down the right side of the road, are centrists wise for proposing that we should all be driving right down the middle? Seems to me that's just a lazy answer and the only practical solution it provides is to the person using it to dodge the question at hand. 

     

    But the numbers, and framework, in the article that Smeagolsfree linked to come from Truth in Accounting... a Koch funded group. And never mind 

    • Like 2
    • Haha 1
  14. 58 minutes ago, markhollin said:

    The only problem with that site  from an aesthetics point of view (and it is a HUGE problem) is that MLB won't allow any configuration that would have a batter staring into the setting sun. The issue is that if you turned the stadium on this site in any other direction, you wouldn't see downtown, or perhaps just slivers of it, from the bulk of the grandstands.  Kind of defeats one of the main purposes of having a downtown location.

    I know you said "ONE of the main purposes" but, like the pedantic know-it-all that I am, I can't help but point out some other purposes, such as: accessibility--for transit, pedestrians, and drivers; proximity to other stuff people might want to do before and after a game; and inclusivity. The last might be symbolic and maybe not everyone feels this way, but the city is a welcoming place whereas the suburbs aren't. 

     

    • Thanks 1
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.