Inner Loop - CBD, Downtown, East Bank, Germantown, Gulch, Rutledge

[markhollin]

Water Tower Condos (5 stories, 37 units) update: Foundation walls forming, more rebar/pillars rising.

Looking east from 1st Ave. North, 1/2 block north of CSX tracks:

Looking south from 1st Ave. North, 1/2 block north of CSX tracks:

[markhollin]

The Belonging Church (conversion of former warehouse in MetroCenter) update.  Nearing completion.

Looking Great Circle Rd., 1/4 block north of Vantage Way:

[markhollin]

First Baptist Church expansion (3 stories) update.  Signage starting to be mounted.

Looking NW from 6th Ave. South, 1/2 block north of Demonbreun:

Looking NE from McGavock St., 1/2 block east of 7th Ave. South:




Looking SW from intersection of Broadway and 6th Ave. South

[GreenHillsBoy]

5 hours ago, markhollin said:

First Baptist Church expansion (3 stories) update.  Signage starting to be mounted.

Looking NW from 6th Ave. South, 1/2 block north of Demonbreun:

Looking NE from McGavock St., 1/2 block east of 7th Ave. South:




Looking SW from intersection of Broadway and 6th Ave. South

Another valuable piece of property not getting any tax revenue.

[Skyscrapergeek]

58 minutes ago, GreenHillsBoy said:

Another valuable piece of property not getting any tax revenue.

Because tax revenue is all that matters. 

[smeagolsfree]

Churches and non profits do not pay taxes, and I do not have a problem with that. They contribute to the community in many other ways.

[PaulChinetti]

They don’t even pay property tax?

That’s a hell of a deal. 

[donNdonelson2]

1 hour ago, smeagolsfree said:

Churches and non profits do not pay taxes, and I do not have a problem with that. They contribute to the community in many other ways.

The churches do many things for the community AND all of their congregants pay income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. 

[ruraljuror]

4 hours ago, donNdonelson2 said:

The churches do many things for the community AND all of their congregants pay income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. 

You're right that a lot of churches do a lot of good things for the community, but the fact that congregants pay income/sales/and property taxes isn't really relevant here.  Also, there are a lot of non-religious organizations that do many good things for the community, as well - and those organizations still have to pay property taxes - so I'm not sure that aspect of the discussion is particularly relevant ether. 

In terms of church congregants paying income/sales/property taxes, it should be noted that the congregants of the honky tonks all pay income/sales/and property taxes, too. The same goes for country club members, visitors to the museums, office workers, etc. 

The relevant difference here is that country club fees and honky tonk tabs aren't generally tax deductible, whereas donations to a church are. So in effect,  the congregants of churches may actually pay less in taxes than other non-church-related congregants, which kind of undermines the point you were trying to make with the AND. 

To be clear, I think it's probably a good thing and  the right policy to give churches tax-exempt status. That said, in exchange for that status, I do think there should be limits on how much the church (or any other non-profit organization) should be able to pay their leaders so that people can't enrich themselves on the back of tax-exempt donations, but I digress.  With regard to property taxes, I also don't think it would be a bad idea to apply some portion of back taxes that were forgone in the present if/when the property is ever sold for a profit so that way church leaders aren't tempted to get into the real estate and/or land banking business with an anti-competitive advantage. 

Edited August 3, 2020 by ruraljuror

[UTgrad09]

14 minutes ago, ruraljuror said:

To be clear, I think it's probably a good thing and  the right policy to give churches tax-exempt status. That said, in exchange for that status, I do think there should be limits on how much the church (or any other non-profit organization) should be able to pay their leaders so that people can't enrich themselves on the back of tax-exempt donations, but I digress.  With regard to property taxes, I also don't think it would be a bad idea to apply some portion of back taxes that were forgone in the present if/when the property is ever sold for a profit so that way church leaders aren't tempted to get into the real estate and/or land banking business with an anti-competitive advantage. 

I agree with this perspective.

[donNdonelson2]

In Tennessee many religious, charitable, scientific, literary and nonprofit educational organizations may apply for property tax exemptions. Most nonprofit organizations pay no sales taxes. It’s not just churches who take advantage of these tax laws passed by the legislatures.

[titanhog]

1 hour ago, ruraljuror said:

You're right that a lot of churches do a lot of good things for the community, but the fact that congregants pay income/sales/and property taxes isn't really relevant here.  Also, there are a lot of non-religious organizations that do many good things for the community, as well - and those organizations still have to pay property taxes - so I'm not sure that aspect of the discussion is particularly relevant ether. 

In terms of church congregants paying income/sales/property taxes, it should be noted that the congregants of the honky tonks all pay income/sales/and property taxes, too. The same goes for country club members, visitors to the museums, office workers, etc. 

The relevant difference here is that country club fees and honky tonk tabs aren't generally tax deductible, whereas donations to a church are. So in effect,  the congregants of churches may actually pay less in taxes than other non-church-related congregants, which kind of undermines the point you were trying to make with the AND. 

To be clear, I think it's probably a good thing and  the right policy to give churches tax-exempt status. That said, in exchange for that status, I do think there should be limits on how much the church (or any other non-profit organization) should be able to pay their leaders so that people can't enrich themselves on the back of tax-exempt donations, but I digress.  With regard to property taxes, I also don't think it would be a bad idea to apply some portion of back taxes that were forgone in the present if/when the property is ever sold for a profit so that way church leaders aren't tempted to get into the real estate and/or land banking business with an anti-competitive advantage. 

Churches aren't meant to be money-makers (I realize some mega-churches kinda blow that out of the water...but that's another matter).  People aren't paying dues or buying anything...they are giving to the congregation and it's normally meant to support the preacher, the building. loans on the building...and  for spreading the gospel in foreign nations through preachers who need financial help (missionaries)...helping foreign churches with bibles, etc and local churches too...and for social programs that help the city.  BUT...more than anything, because of the first amendment and our founding fathers...the church is meant to NOT be tied to the government in any way.

And...preachers pay income tax.

Edited August 3, 2020 by titanhog

[Skyscrapergeek]

Speaking of FBC, they are directly responsible for the existence of The Next Door and gave $1,000,000.00 toward their new building. 

[smeagolsfree]

This is not just a state & local issue this is a federal issue. They are protected, so if you dont like that churches, synagogues, mosques and non profits do not pay taxes, then call your congressperson and senator, BUT you will not get anywhere.

Non profits are not only religious institutions, there are some hospitals, community organizations that do great work for many communities around the nation, food banks, etc., so you have to remember what you do to one you have to do to all.

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR!

[GreenHillsBoy]

On 8/2/2020 at 1:50 PM, smeagolsfree said:

Churches and non profits do not pay taxes, and I do not have a problem with that. They contribute to the community in many other ways.

As long as they do contribute in many ways, charitable donations, clothes pantries, homeless shelters, etc...I really don't have a problem with that either.  On the other hand, MANY of the mega churches do not contribute little , if any, but have super wealthy ministers, coffee shops, full scale work out facilities, stage political rallies, etc. and we tax payers do contribute to them having free fire protection, police protection, garbage pickup, etc.  My point is I do not personally want to subsidize these and maybe there should be some formula to at a very minimum have some tax contribution to pay for the services they get from the city.  If you drive up Hillsboro Rd from 440 toward Green Hills, count the amount of property occupied by churches, other than a few homes around Golf Club, the right side of Hillsboro is all church untaxed property within a few properties from Green Hills Mall. 

[smeagolsfree]

Again, what you do to one you have todo to all. Pick your poison. You cant pick and choose who or what you like.

[PaulChinetti]

There could be zoning where non-profit status is guaranteed in percentages, zoning can do all kinds of things. 

Though not sure what the benefit would be other than, giving us more developments to talk about, but look at Lexington, KY, all the horse farms have had an effect on how the city has developed. 

 

 

[markhollin]

Another large site (5 acres) that includes a 77,500 sq. ft. warehouse has sold for $7.1 million in MetroCenter at 210 Cumberland Bend. Dore Frog LLC is the buyer.  Unclear what their intentions are.  This plot is immediately north of two proposed residential developments (The Duke II with 192 units, and Wood Partners with 300+ units).  This very well could be another one in the making.  It faces the Cumberland River to the east.

More behind the Nashville Post paywall here:

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/development/commercial-real-estate/article/21142582/metrocenter-warehouse-sells-for-71m

 

[markhollin]

Bode (short term rental boutique), courtesy of Travelzoo:
 

[Armacing]

On 8/4/2020 at 2:36 PM, GreenHillsBoy said:

My point is I do not personally want to subsidize these and maybe there should be some formula to at a very minimum have some tax contribution to pay for the services they get from the city. 

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that you are opposed to the concept of individuals and/or institutions receiving benefits from the government without contributing anything to the government in return, correct?  Because you don't like the fact that you pay taxes and this other party gets the benefit of those taxes, but they don't pay anything and so you don't get any benefit, right?  You're opposed to that type of arrangement,  is that what you're saying?

Edited August 10, 2020 by Armacing

[smeagolsfree]

12 hours ago, Armacing said:

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that you are opposed to the concept of individuals and/or institutions receiving benefits from the government without contributing anything to the government in return, correct?  Because you don't like the fact that you pay taxes and this other party gets the benefit of those taxes, but they don't pay anything and so you don't get any benefit, right?  You're opposed to that type of arrangement,  is that what you're saying?

It sort of the same as saying I dont have kids, so I dont want to pay that portion of taxes that go to schools. Same difference.

[Armacing]

3 minutes ago, smeagolsfree said:

It sort of the same as saying I dont have kids, so I dont want to pay that portion of taxes that go to schools. Same difference.

Exactly. 

[PaulChinetti]

Educating kids helps everyone not just those with kids. 

[Armacing]

36 minutes ago, PaulChinetti said:

Educating kids helps everyone not just those with kids. 

Yes, I think that's the point Smeagolsfree was making.

[smeagolsfree]

1 hour ago, Armacing said:

Yes, I think that's the point Smeagolsfree was making.

That is the same point with non profits, the benefit may not help you directly but it benefits the overall community. But the point is mute. No one can change the status of non profits but the federal government as they are protected under federal statutes. That filters down to state and local levels. Again what you do to one you have to do to all.