I’m not going to debate the merits of the project because you’ve heard the arguments from both sides for the last few months. Supporters of the Music City Center say it will create jobs, opponents say that those jobs will not go to Nashvillians in significant numbers. Supporters claim that the MCC will not be paid for by Davidson County taxpayer dollars, opponents have very credible evidence that it will leave residents holding the bag before all is said and done. All of these types of arguments are largely irrelevant now that votes have been cast (though it still remains to be seen whether Dean will renege on his promise not to push for a publicly-funded hotel, in which case, the debate will return in full force). But what is still relevant are the political implications of the MCC vote and how – if certain events unfold – the so-called “progressive” Metro Council we have now could end up being a footnote in the city’s history.
 
First, let’s take a look at the numbers and how the votes were cast on Jan. 19. In order for the Music City Center resolution to pass third reading, Mayor Dean needed 21 votes. He got 29. That means that eight members who did not need to vote for the MCC did so anyway. In their efforts to run up the score, Mayor Dean and his people may have put several council members at risk by asking them to vote for the MCC even though their votes weren't actually needed.

By now, everyone who has been following the MCC debate is fully aware of the WSMV poll that came out on Jan. 8. That poll revealed that 50% of Nashvillians were against the MCC, 26% were for it, and 21% were undecided. There were other equally significant findings in the poll, including that 72% wanted the project put up for a referendum vote by the people. Also, it is worth noting that of the people who were opposed to the MCC, 87% of those intend to vote against their representative in the next election if they supported the MCC. This last number should be a huge concern to those on the council who have to run for re-election in 2011, but the WSMV poll isn’t the only evidence of the public’s distaste for the project. For those of us who attended the community meetings across the city over the holidays, we saw firsthand what voters thought of the Music City Center. Whether it was city employees who thought that their raises and benefits would be at risk by the MCC’s cost, libertarians who didn’t think it was government’s role to build convention centers, or grassroots progressives who thought the MCC was just more corporate welfare at the expense of more important priorities, the response by the public at these community meetings ranged from skeptical to outright hostile at nearly every meeting. In the meetings I personally attended, the only people who were supportive of the MCC were people from the Chamber’s campaign who had a personal vested interest in supporting it. Astro-turfing at its finest.

So who are we talking about? Who would be considered to be the most “at-risk” by their vote for the Music City Center? The most obvious targets are going to be the At-Large members, who have to face a county-wide electorate. Ronnie Steine, Megan Barry, Jerry Maynard, Tim Garrett, and Charlie Tygard all voted in favor of the MCC. Of those, Maynard received the least amount of votes when he was elected in 2007. Another group of folks who could invite a challenge and will arguably have to spend a lot of 2011 fighting for their political lives are members who barely won their elections last time and who live in districts where the MCC was unpopular. Sandra Moore, who represents a working-class section of the city, was barely elected by a margin of only 48 votes. At Moore’s community meeting, a former council member was present and was forcefully arguing against the MCC. Will Moore face a challenge from a former member after only barely getting elected last time? Edith Langster also may have invited trouble by casting a Yes vote when she didn’t need to. She won against Harold Love Jr. in a nail-biter by only 20 votes. Lonnell Matthews, who chairs the Black Caucus and is by all accounts a thoughtful and accessible member of the council, won in a run-off election by a convincing 500 votes, but Matthews’ former opponent, Ken Jakes, was a vocal opponent to the MCC who spoke strongly at the public hearing on Jan. 11. Other members who ended up in run-offs in 2007 and who will likely seek that all-enticing second term (which earns a council member free parking and health insurance) are Karen Bennett, Darren Jernigan, and Anna Page. At one point, all three of these members were undecided about the MCC and their reasons in voting with the Mayor when he already had his majority are perplexing, considering the lack of support in their district and the lack of benefit their constituents will see from the MCC. 

Now, a case can be made that the Music City Center will be water under the bridge by the time of the next election. A few council members I’ve talked to about a possible backlash over this have told me that they believe the voters will have forgotten all about the Music City Center by the time of the next council election. They shouldn’t be so sure about that. After all, by August, 2011, we can expect to see stories in the press about cost overruns on the MCC – possibly in the millions of dollars. It is also likely that by Election Day, we will have seen stories where the city did not meet its goal of using 20% minority-owned businesses for the project. That would be especially bad news for Maynard and Matthews, who made the supposed benefits to minority businesses their central argument for voting for the MCC. We will also certainly see underwhelming numbers on how many Nashvillians have gotten work out of the Music City Center – a rationale parroted by everyone from Moore and Page to Buddy Baker and Bo Mitchell (all of them on the ballot in 2011). And we’ll probably have gone through a heated debate and subsequent vote on spending even more money on a publicly-financed hotel (which will have its own set of cost overruns). Throw in even more bad news about layoffs of city workers, more cuts to services like parks, libraries, and social services, budget shortfalls in Metro Schools, a likely downgrade in the city’s bond rating, and maybe even a report or two about broken water pipes or the city’s decaying infrastructure, and you end up with an electorate that will remember which Mayor and which Council members got the city into a big, honking fiscal mess. And heaven help these so-called “progressive” council members if local Libertarians and Teabaggers decide to organize and make a run at the Council while public opinion on the MCC is on their side. In Metro Council races, which have ridiculously low turnout, some of these normally marginalized folks could slip through the cracks and turn our progressive Metro Council into one big Tea Party come 2011.

I personally don’t want that. A lot of these council members I think are genuinely good people who want to do the right thing by the citizens. To that end, I am going to end my piece by offering my unsolicited advice to the Metro Council members who are up for re-election in 2011:

1. Do not vote in support of a publicly-funded hotel. You will only make matters worse by adding to the liability of the city and the risk to taxpayers. It is the responsibility of the Mayor to recruit a private hotelier and keep the political risk away from you. Don’t make the same mistake you did on Jan. 19 and hand Dean a victory at the expense of your own political career.
2. Do not allow any layoffs of Metro employees. Aside from the fact that they and their families represent a significant voting bloc that is already angry at you, by allowing these layoffs, you undercut your own claims that you voted for the MCC because you support jobs. Someone who truly supports jobs supports people who already have jobs. You should reject any budget from the Mayor that includes layoffs.
3. Keep your distance from the Chamber. The national mood is turning against Wall Street more and more every day and will almost certainly get worse as the President and his party plan to wage a war against corporate America for the next year. The Chamber will be associated with that mood and you would do well to stay out of the way. As a practical matter, the Chamber has little to offer in helping you get re-elected. They may have money, but they can’t deliver on what really matters on Election Day - getting out the vote. Council races aren’t all that expensive to run and in small districts with low turnout, the Chamber’s money is of little use other than to keep direct mail firms and political consultants employed. We saw evidence of that as nearly $1 million was spent hiring P.R. firms and “consultants” to push the MCC through and yet, the people were still strongly against it.

Finally, before the supporters of the MCC decide to reflexively attack me and the Union with various charges of “sour grapes” and “get over it”, know this: SEIU is a membership organization and we have a duty to represent the interests of our members – thousands of whom work for Metro Nashville. It is their interests we put first and in this case, our opposition to the Music City Center just so happens to be justified by the facts. Whether it’s the results of the opinion polls done by WSMV or Nashville’s Priorities, the dire warnings in Goldman Sachs’ feasibility studies (which weren’t revealed to council members until the day of the vote in Budget & Finance), the downward trends in the convention industry, or the very real threat to the General Fund, our opposition is based on hard facts and logical reasoning, not on the cloying, emotional advertising slogans used by the Chamber. “I Believe” is not the way to run a government – especially in tough economic times - and council members who voted in favor of this kind of hollow, faith-based government would be fools to believe that voters will forget how they voted come election time.