Why does your page look like this?

Your browser was unable to load our style sheets. Most modern web browsers support Cascading Style Sheets. If you're using an old browser, you can download an updated one from:
Mozilla, Netscape, Microsoft, or Opera.

If you are already using one of the above browsers, you may have your security settings too high, or you may simply need to refresh/reload this page.


Nashville, Tennessee

.






Nashville Scene - Pith in the Wind

The Nashville Scene News Blog

Paving Wetlands for the Wealthy

Posted May 15, 2008 at 01:03:52 PM by Jeff Woods

Now that state lawmakers have decided to let certain commercial real-estate tycoons off the hook on taxes, they're desperately looking for an extra $15 million to plug the budget hole. One possible target? The state's land acquisition funds that are used to protect wilderness areas and wetlands.

It's a neat solution to the budget problem, isn't it? Lawmakers decide to keep giving a tax break to commercial real-estate businesses, which can then pave wetlands that would have been protected by the land acquisition funds if they hadn't been depleted to give the biz pigs the tax break.

Among the fabulously wealthy who benefit from the tax break are Nashville's May family, which started May Hosiery Mill in 1895 and now owns downtown properties, Belle Meade Plaza and Belle Meade Office Park. And that's not to mention lots of land at Bells Bend, which the family wants to pave for a Cool Springs-like shopping paradise.

Add or View Comments | 0 comments

Transgender Blues

Posted April 18, 2008 at 10:29:33 AM by PJ Tobia

Being a transgender Tennessean in need of a driver’s license isn’t going to get easier anytime soon.

Since 1977, Tennessee has been the only state in the U.S. that prohibits sex-change recipients from retroactively revising the sex designation on their birth certificates to correspond with their new gender identity. The law makes it difficult for those who have undergone such surgical changes to get driver’s licenses, passports and new Social Security cards, because obtaining such critical documents invariably requires a birth certificate.

610x.jpg

A bill in the legislature, which we wrote about here, would have dispensed with this piece of unnecessary moralizing, er, law. But last week, the sponsors of the bill—Reps. Jeanne Richardson and Mike Kernell, among them—withdrew the change after the health committee tacked on an amendment proposed by Rep. Jason Mumpower (at right in the image above). The amendment required that any change of sex on a birth certificate be reflected on the document, essentially creating a new category of sex. “A birth certificate can be amended with the designation MTF,” Mumpower tells Pith, “designating male to female, or FTM designating female to male.”

Mumpower says that it’s a security issue, though he doesn't say exactly how. “During one of these operations, someone’s appearance is changed…so if someone were to present a birth certificate with a changed name and an altered appearance, the fact of gender needs to be represented.”

When asked why Tennessee would need such specificity, when no other state or the federal government require it, Mumpower says, “I’m not a representative in any other state.”

Add or View Comments | 2 comments

Speaking of Hypocrisy....

Posted April 17, 2008 at 03:12:02 PM by Liz Garrigan

Tyreke-Evans-III-735419.jpg

Gaylord may be off the hook. This morning state Rep. Curry Todd, a Memphis Republican, made a statement on the House floor congratulating his hometown Memphis Tigers for signing Tyreke Evans to a scholarship. This would be the same Tyreke Evans who drove the SUV involved in a drive-by murder. From Sporting News:

Tyreke Evans was not charged in the case, but police complained that he did not talk to them until three weeks later—a few days before [his cousin] Jamar Evans was charged.

We realize this sort of meaningless boosterism and memorializing goes on at the state Capitol all the time, but could we please get back to congratulating Mrs. Smith's third-grade class for collecting pennies for charity? Using this public forum to honor someone who avoided by the hair of his chin being charged with accomplice to murder seems like a bad idea.

Too bad Philip Workman wasn't a star basketball player.

UPDATE: The video from this morning's session is now up. Todd's remarks come at about 18:30 or so.

Add or View Comments | 1 comments

Regression to the Mean

Posted April 08, 2008 at 09:27:39 AM by Bruce Barry

The state Senate Judiciary Committee’s calendar this week features SB3910, a retrograde piece of legislation that bans adoption not just by same-sex couples, but by any couples who are engaged in “unmarried sexual cohabitation.” The bill defines cohabitation as “residing with another person and being involved in a sexual relationship with that person.” So let me get this straight: If you live with someone you hate you can adopt, but if you live with someone you like a lot you can’t. With more kids needing homes than homes wanting kids, that certainly sounds like winning public policy.

But let’s be honest: This bill is less about marriage or cohabitation than about bigotry and homophobia. Currently all but five states allow same-sex adoption, and it’s apparent that millions of gay parents are successfully caring for millions of children in this country. Despite a lack of evidence that LGBT parenting harms children, we still see groups pushing the measure, such as David Fowler’s Family Action Council of Tennessee, asserting without foundation that “same-sex homes are much more likely to expose children to instability, insecurity and violence.” The American Academy of Pediatrics (a subversive group if ever there was one) couldn’t put it more plainly: “Children with parents who are homosexual have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment and development as children whose parents are heterosexual.”

It’s worth adding that most adoption agencies accept applications from homosexuals, and a clear majority of Americans agree that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to adopt children. SB3910 is the religious right’s favorite kind of legislation: a reckless solution in search of a nonexistent problem.

Add or View Comments | 1 comments

Our State Legislature At Work

Posted March 26, 2008 at 11:25:07 AM by Matt Pulle

state%20legislature.jpg

Unlike Jeff and Liz, I'm a bit naïve in the slippery ways of our state legislature. So count me as the lone member of your Pith crew who was surprised that the legislature effectively killed two bills that would have made it less onerous to purchase a bottle of wine.

I know what you're thinking: Enough already. It's not the end of the world if you have to hit an independently owned wine shop after visiting a chain grocery store. But there's a broader point here. If the wine—and—spirits lobby has such a stranglehold on the legislature that a bill allowing for wine sales at grocery stores withered and died in less than a month, what chance does any legislation have that might affect an entrenched special interest? Maybe you don't care where you buy your wine. But what if you want more alternatives to long-term care besides decrepit tinderbox nursing homes? You're SOL there too. Does this work for you?

Also yesterday, members of the Tennessee Ethics Commission didn't see anything unethical about Seigenthaler Public Relations publishing an anti-drinking website as a front for their clients in the alcohol industry. The site marshalled opposition to the wine legislation by leading a Reefer Madness-style assault on the evils of teen drinking, as if otherwise sober 17-year-olds were just waiting by their laptops to order merlot from Amazon.com. But the ethics commission didn't think this counted as lobbying. Whatever they're drinking, send us a bottle. From an independent authorized retailer, of course.

Add or View Comments | 2 comments

The Symbolism Is Beautiful

Posted March 26, 2008 at 11:07:21 AM by Matt Pulle

Well, this is appropriate. The state's website, Tennessee.gov, isn't working.

Add or View Comments | 1 comments

Up on the Hill

Posted March 25, 2008 at 09:53:01 AM by Bruce Barry

An intriguing employee rights bill comes before a Tennessee House subcommittee today: HB3263, a measure designed to prevent employers from forcing political opinions or religious beliefs on their workers. The bill’s essence:

No employer…shall require an employee to attend an employer-sponsored meeting or participate in any mandatory communication with the employer or the employer's agents or representatives, if a purpose of such meeting or mandatory communication is to communicate the employer's opinion about religious or political matters or to attempt to influence the employee's opinions or actions with respect to religious or political matters.

According to the bill, employers cross the line when employees face “an adverse employment action” for failing to listen to, read, participate in or respond to a political or religious message. This piece of legislation would extend needed protection to workers who find themselves pressured by employers to fall in line with company orthodoxy on political and religious matters that are unrelated to job performance—something particularly relevant in an election year when workers are often “invited” to smile and make nice during factory speeches by political candidates. A worker taking action under the measure could sue the employer in civil court for reinstatement, back pay and damages.

The bill, sponsored in the House by Joelton Democrat Gary Moore and in the Senate by Memphis Democrat Beverly Marrero, exempts communication about religious matters by religious organizations and institutions. It’s on the House Employee Affairs subcommittee’s calendar this afternoon.

Add or View Comments | 2 comments
---------------------------Advertisement---------------------------
---------------------------Advertisement---------------------------
.
.