Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Barry / Politics Referendum Schmeferendum ... Let's Do a Poll!
Posted by Bruce Barry on Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:33 PM
The group Nashville's Priorities is collecting signatures on a petition urging a non-binding referendum under section 7.05 of the Metro Charter. (Funding for MCC relies on revenue bonds, the approval of which is shielded by law from a binding public vote.) County election officials estimate that conducting a referendum would cost taxpayers about $300,000.
That's a pretty hefty price tag for what would inevitably be a highly flawed measure of public opinion on the proposed project. Ordinarily, voting is important because regardless of who shows up, it determines an outcome. In this situation, however, voting on a non-binding ballot issue is meaningless because it determines no outcome. Having a vote with poor turnout is a fine way to fill a public office or approve/disapprove an initiative because it serves democracy--those who choose to show up get to participate. But when the goal is merely to find out what the people think--as in this case--a low-turnout ballot initiative isn't the best way to do it.
For a whole lot less than $300K we could accurately take the pulse of the city's taxpayers with a high-quality professional poll. Polling experts tell Pith that a well-executed survey with a properly drawn sample of 500 would run about $25,000 or so, depending on questionnaire length. A follow-up tracking poll, if there's time, would add another $12-$15K to the tab. So for less than 15 percent of the cost of a meaningless referendum, we could take an accurate snapshot of public opinion across the county.
Who would foot the bill? Leaders of Nashville's Priorities have floated the idea of a media-created poll financed jointly by their group and the pro-project MCC Coalition. Both The Tennessean and SouthComm (publisher of The City Paper and the Scene) have been approached but each declined to become involved--understandably so, since it would be dubious journalistic form for a news organization to commission a poll in cahoots with advocacy groups having a stake in survey results.
Polls on two occasions have gauged public support for the convention center project; both occurred before the economic downturn, and each showed underwhelming public enthusiasm. One of them, a SurveyUSA poll commissioned by The City Paper in July 2007 during the mayoral race at the time, simply asked if Metro should build a new downtown convention center. Among likely voters, 37 percent said yes, 51 percent said no and 12 percent were not sure. The other (private) poll, conducted around the same time, presented respondents with basic arguments for and against a new convention center, finding 30 percent of likely voters favoring a new convention center and 54 percent opposed, with 16 percent unsure or undecided.
There have been no new legitimate polls on this issue in almost two and a half years. Local media organizations are justified in avoiding a polling collaboration with advocacy groups, but there's nothing to bar them from partnering with each other. Times are lean in Nashville's newsrooms, no question, but surely the city's newspaper publishers and TV news operations can collectively manage to scrape up $40,000 or so to accurately assess community sentiment on this important issue.
If we really want to know what Nashvillians think about a new convention center, all we have to do is ask.
Comments (30)
Showing 1-30 of 30
The referendum is just a $300,000 stall tactic. The opponents know they don't have the votes on the Metro Council, so they want to waste taxpayer money just to put off a vote.
like
dislike
council members make 15k a year each. why dont they scrape together some funds? also, mtsu does free polls, no?
It's non-binding, but to call it "meaningless" is hyperbole. If election returns swing strongly either way it could have an affect on council in spite of CM claims that it would not, because some of them are thinking about the next run for office.
In the absence of a poll a referendum is the only meaningful chance the public has to touch the course of this plan. Do I like $300,000 going to it? Nope. But I didn't like $458,000 going to McNeely, Pigott, & Fox to influence public opinion, either, and I had no say over that brutal Metro expense.
The MCC backers' response that the public had a say in the Mayor's race is disingenuous. The number of people who voted for candidates primarily on the single issue of a convention center probably doesn't extend much beyond the Chamber of Commerce membership rolls.
I know that the pro center forces like Floyd believe that the votes are there for the MCC, but I am less sure. Out in South Nashville the sentiment from community members to councilpersons is strongly opposed to the MCC project as currently proposed and funded. The decision to separate the hotel from the rest of the project has likewise made some previous supporters a bit nervous. I know of at least two councilpersons who were listed in the Tennessean list as firm supporters who have since said that their support is waning, so let's not count our chickens yet.
$300,000 for a referendum to let the council know what we want is indeed smaller than the $458,000 in public funds used to have MPF lobby the council and to help the mayor with his speeches to also lobby the council.
I also do not buy that the people supported the center when they elected a mayoral candidate who supported its construction. Even if it were a single issue campaign, which candidate were we going to vote in instead? Do not use the mayoral campaign as a mandate and smile as you do it. Its as much a lie as saying tourism is the 2nd largest industry and this center will create 30,000 new jobs.
A referendum may not be pointless, but it would likely be uninformative. My point is simply that a good poll would be more effective and less expensive than a bad referendum.
Agree with Moost that the mayoral election cannot itself be regarded as an indirect referendum on MCC since all major candidates in round 1 and both candidates in the runoff were pro-MCC. Voters had no significant anti-MCC option on that ballot.
Well, well, the known MCC opponents and the Gaylord shills are all clamoring for a referendum.
Come on, you don't have the votes and you know it. This debate has been going on for 11 years. It's time for the Metro Council to cowboy up and do its job.
It's time for us to get busy building the Music City Center.
No polls needed here. The Germantown/ENashville/Nation cluster will vote against and the regular folks will vote for it. This all reminds me of the vote on the Titans. Now, who among us does not love the Titans, great stadiun and all, even if you never go to a game?
If these wormy, elitist slackers would demand some tax reductions I might have more sympathy, but I do not think that will happen.
Someone is equating the Titans and the fantastic entertainment value of NFL football with a convention center used by out-of-towners looking to get some strange while away from home?
It's a good analogy because if you've lived here long enough,you know that change has always been opposed: Metro form of government, integrating schools and restaurants, I-440, Titans Stadium, no smoking in public places, menu labeling etc.
Let's not forget the fancy West Nashville women that keep discounting those "low-paying" and "unsustainable" jobs the convention center will create. Maybe they think unemployed Nashvillians can come clean their Belle Meade and Belmont houses.
The Con Center represents "change"?
...wow, talk about Orwellian. If The Clean Air Act made the air cleaner, or the Patriot Act protected civil liberties, then you might be on to something.
This thing is a 16 acre/ $1 Billion/ 30 year roadblock to smart growth.
The only reason SoBro exists is because true city leaders faught off an interstate corridor, in order to create Korean War Vets Blvd and a mixed use development zone.
What is the #1 thing Nashville needs to improve?
We're number 1 in the country for air pollution from vehicles, third for the most miles driven, per capita, among large cities, and received an "F" grade from the American Lung Association for its air quality, according to a 2004 report by Public Interest Research group. We have the 6th worst carbon footprint in the country. Nashville has the highest incidents of respiratory infections, and is the third most expensive city in the country for driving, according to a 2005 study by Sperling's Best Places.
"Every $1 billion invested in public transportation capital and operations supports an average of 36,000 jobs. These 36,000 jobs result in roughly $3.6 billion in business sales and generate nearly $500 million in federal, state, and local tax revenues... Every dollar invested in mass transit has a $4 to $9 return in economic activity" -publictransportation.org
"Common revenue sources [for transit] usually consist of taxes on vehicle registration, HOTEL ROOMS, or RENTAL CARS...
Last year a survey of 1,800 Nashvillians found that public transportation was their most prominent concern."
http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/nashvilles-brt-lite-alternative-alternative-transportation
If we're going to get to projects like improving our public transportation, don't we need more tax revenue? Isn't the point of the new convention center that it will increase business and bring in new tax revenue?
We keep hearing about all the conventions that are pre-booked for the new facility. Wonder how many would actually fit in the current center?
Um, Bruce, where have you been? The Nashville's Priorities people have already done a poll! One that showed that between 60 and 65% of voters are AGAINST the Convention Center. Don't you remember how Dave Cooley, Mark Brown, and Randy Rayburn all tried to say that it was a push poll - even though it wasn't?
Clearly you're not understanding what these folks are trying to do.
An opinion poll is "hands off" since voters are just responding to questions by a pollster, while a petition drive gets the community engaged so that they have skin in the game. Nobody decides to call their councilman or attend a community meeting because they got polled. But they do after they've talked to a canvasser and signed their name to a petition.
Boy, for someone whose wife is on the freakin' Metro Council, I'd think you'd know a little more about how politics works. This is Activism 101. Sheesh!
@Snuffy: The Nashville's Priorities people have already done a poll!
There has been no NP poll having any substance or deserving any weight. As Michael Cass reported last month, NP did some kind of bizarro telephone survey thing undertaken by a contractor that the head of NP couldn't or wouldn't name. I am aware of no public disclosures of poll methodology or results, and there is no reference to that poll or any results anywhere on the NP website.
Nobody decides to call their councilman or attend a community meeting because they got polled.
If the goal is to show that taxpayers don't support the project, a petition drive to urge the arrangement of a non-binding referendum is a clumsy, expensive, and ultimately ineffective way to do it. If such a referendum were held, do you think that a voting result with a turnout of, say, 15 percent (and I suspect it would be lower than that) showing more opposition than support will be taken seriously? Yes, there is of course room for activism on this issue. NP has not shown they know how to do serious activism effectively, and time is running out.
Snuffy, So are you one of Collin's or Crafton's shills being funded by Texan- Robert T Rowling's(20% owner of Gaylord stock who pushed for the referendum to give his Ombni Hotels taxpayer funding in Dallas recently) puppets at Gaylord or one of Crafton's who lied to everyone about the 98% source of funding for English Only referendum being from out of state, other than Crisp fooling Lee Beaman out of a significant donation locally? Bredesen's and Karl's 'good friend' Lee and his friends are behind this financially as well as Gaylord/Rowling. "Boycott on Beaman" sounds good to me.
Bredesen's announcement of the Mecical Mart sealed the deal for the MCC and the Council. The NP folks know it, as Emily was schooled by Bovender last week and that is why they are desperately replaying the petition/referendum again, that was turned down by the Council a few weeks ago.
How's that Federal Judgeship campaign looking this morning Kevin? Film at 5,6 and 10?
Next- The man(Collin) who brought casino gaming to New Orleans for Harrah's(great book on this by Pulitzer prize winning reporter- available on Amazon) and previous Hotel GM's publically revealing to Gaylord's assembled hotel management team about their long term plans for our Cumberland River's own Gen.Jackson riverboat/ casino conversion upon his arrival there a few years back. This about more than just stopping the MCC.
More to follow. -30-
Let us all tell the truth. Was not Titan Stadium opposed by by the same bunch that is posting busily here in opposition to the MCC?
If the city grows and prospers things like the MCC are needed to help pay for little childrens' schools, public transportation and the much loved Metro Star even if no one rides it.
Bell's Bend seemed like a bad idea and it went away with hardly a murmur. But, not because of a few rich families who had owned 37 acres nearby for 90 years (or just 10 or so) rather because, well, it was a bad idea, bridges and all.
Back to taxes. what better way to get more taxes? I do know you would prefer gouging the people with an income tax; the MCC should seem more palatable since you are not getting the income tax in your lifetime.
"Yes, there is of course room for activism on this issue. NP has not shown they know how to do serious activism effectively, and time is running out."-bb
The broad opposition movement has been a slow builder, so the more the public understands, the less they like it. Ufortunately, tax-funded propaganda campaigns have relentlessly bombarded the media, public, and officials.
We the people don't have blank checks to crank out slogans!
Who are these "Johns" spinning yarns about Gaylord, blah, blah. Boring people to death helps the MCC?
Quality polling is a good idea. What about the City Paper poll mentioned above, "Last year a survey of 1,800 Nashvillians found that public transportation was their most prominent concern."
Karl Dean campaigned more on transit upgrades than a Con Center, but apparently that was just populist hot air to get elected.
We have to decide between the MCC and every other better idea to generate economic growth. As stated above, $1 billion invested in mass transit supports 36,000 jobs, $3.6 billion in business sales, and nearly $500 million in federal, state, and local tax revenues.
“Money dedicated to a long-term project such as the convention center is necessarily unavailable for other projects that might also provide lasting value,” says Dr. Bill Fox, UT Business Center Director and lead author of a 2006 UT report on the subject.
Besides a good poll, what are some effective methods of activism? An event we could all rally around sounds good.
We should use these message boards to flesh out ideas, commit to them, and make it quick!
AdamD,
You are making an assumption that the NP information is correct. That is the problem, it is not. Since when did the attorney Kevin Sharp become so schooled in the ways of meetings and conventions? I don't pretend to practice law, he should quite pretending to understand this issue. Unless of course he has help......
We have to decide between the MCC and every other better idea to generate economic growth. As stated above, $1 billion invested in mass transit supports 36,000 jobs, $3.6 billion in business sales, and nearly $500 million in federal, state, and local tax revenues.
Quite right, and this is the critical conversation that has never been initiated. MCC was put on the table four years ago as a near-inevitability, or at least as a convention center solution to a convention center problem. Alternatives and opportunity costs have never been part of the discourse. MCC advocates insist that the project's merits have been thorough aired and debated, but it is only the merits of the project in relation to some other version of the same narrow notional objective (sustaining and expanding Nashville's trade show economy) that have been in play.
Let's be fair here: no group with another economic development idea has brought funding to the table. Nashville's hotel industry did just that for the Music City Center. They agreed to a self-imposed tax in order to fund this project.
Ultimately, this entire debate is about jobs and economic development. Nashville is making a very smart move by investing in its two largest industries, health care (Medical Mart) and tourism (Music City Center).
As for the Nashville's Priorities petition, its real purpose is obvious: to collect data for the future campaigns of the opponents, namely for Eric Crafton's run for juvenile court clerk.
no group with another economic development idea has brought funding to the table. Nashville's hotel industry did just that for the Music City Center. They agreed to a self-imposed tax in order to fund this project.
That's a bizarre account of civic and municipal life. First of all, hotel taxes are not self-imposed by the hotel industry. We the citizens choose whether or not to impose these taxes, and hotels can pay them or move somewhere else. Are we supposed to be impressed that an industry that stands to directly benefit from this huge public investment wouldn't stand in the way? (And in any event, not all hoteliers around the county are all that thrilled with these taxes, which are partially regressive in terms of their effect on lower-priced hotels.)
Second, a view of economic development that entertains only initiatives from established "groups" that bring funding to the table is a sad and myopic way to enhance the social and economic fabric of a city and community. If we're only willing to entertain theories of development that come packaged with identified ready-made funding sources, we will remain a second-tier me-too city.
bb writes,"We the citizens choose whether or not to impose these taxes, and hotels can pay them or move somewhere else."
bb is usually too intelligent to write this. No businesses, even hotels, pay taxes. Businesses are conduits for taxes which they collect from customers and funnel to the government.
So, first a disclaimer:
1. I don't work for Gaylord
2. I didn't oppose the Titans stadium (although I've never been inside of it and have only ever seen it while I was walking by. I hear it's really cold in there. )
3. Much to my own surprise, I actually like Karl Dean and think he's capable of doing good things for the city
4. I support public funding for good ideas that will benefit my city. I am not someone who summarily discards a proposal because it depends on public dollars.
5. I have nothing politically or professionally to gain by supporting or opposing any particular dog in this race. I support the one I think is best for my city.
And I oppose the MCCC. Why? Because it's a bad use of public dollars and we don't have enough of them right now to use the ones we have badly.
You want a different idea for what to do downtown?
1. Renovate the existing center, adding twelve stories to its rooftop to create space for the medimart that was going to be downtown anyway.
2. Open the land slated for the new center for private investors to make the most of. Heck, maybe we can even put a Westin in there somewhere.
3. Break ground and finish the riverfront development that we were promised last May, particularly because its potential influence on tourism and downtown development is objectively and significantly higher, its initial investment recovered twenty-eight years sooner, and its benefit to people who live in Nashville for more than 36 hours at a time immeasurably greater.
I'm not a group bringing my own funding to the table, but neither are the folks who support the MCCC. Taxes are not private funding. Municipal debt that will take 30 years to pay off is not private funding. Private funding is not available for this project. Why? Because it's a bad investment. Maybe it's just a bad time to invest? Well, apparently not. Eakin's investing downtown. Tower's investing downtown. They're just not investing in a convention center. Why? Because it's a dying industry, even by the proponents' numbers. It won't turn a profit for thirty years. It will only increase our visitors from 170,000 per year to 209,000 per year (that's $25K per person, by the way), and we're going to have to wait five years for that.
I would like for the economy to be the same as it was when I initially supported this center, but it's not. A new economy requires new ideas, not a blind allegiance to models that just don't work anymore. Debt-laden construction costs for an industry that's dependent on high-dollar travel benefit a very small group of people in my city. I don't doubt that the benefits to that small group are important. The benefits to that small group are undoubtedly high. And it's a loud small group. It's a powerful small group. But it's a small group. And good government doesn't bend to the demands of small groups.
If a referendum is the only way to get the rest of our voices heard, I'll support it.
Support the referendum or the results of the referendum? Or both?
bb allows as: "We have to decide between the MCC and every other better idea to generate economic growth. As stated above, $1 billion invested in mass transit supports 36,000 jobs, $3.6 billion in business sales, and nearly $500 million in federal, state, and local tax revenues."
That does deserve an explanation. If true, then I'm all for more public transportation.
That's enough money for the MCC, too.
There has already been a poll regarding the proposed Music City Center Convention hall.
And the results are nothing that the MCC Coalition want you to be aware of.
Google This:
Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #12401
____________ I N S H O R T ___________
New Convention Center Opposed: Of likely voters in the Mayor contest, 37% say Nashville should build a new convention center; 51% say Nashville should not.
Geography Surveyed: Davidson County
Data Collected: 07/19/2007 - 07/22/2007
Release Date: 07/23/2007 9:55 AM ET
Sponsor: Nashville City Paper
