Indrani Ray
Twenty-one candidates qualified to run for at-large seats on the Metro Council.
The campaign for at-large is unique. Because the top five vote-getters win, candidates typically remain positive, and surprising candidates can sneak into the winners’ circle.
Early voting for Metro Council and mayoral elections starts July 14, with Election Day following Aug. 3. A runoff, if needed, would come in September.
Our latest Q&A with an at-large candidate features Indrani Ray, a consultant and former financial analyst at TennCare and Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
Previously, we spoke with candidates Burkley Allen, Russ Pulley, Quin Evans Segall, Marcia Masulla, Jeff Syracuse, Zulfat Suara, Delishia Porterfield and Jonathan Williamson. This interview has been edited for length.
You said: “The state has every reason to be concerned about the direction of the city. The state pours significant amounts of resources in Nashville. Recent investment of $500 million in the proposed stadium, supporting Nashvillians via TennCare, free post secondary education through community college and TCAT, supporting food stamp recipients, are all components of billions of dollars that Tennessee pays to support Nashvillians.”
The Tennessee Lookout did an analysis that showed Davidson County puts far more into state coffers than it gets back, significantly more than any other county. With that in mind, do you still think the city is receiving a lot of benefit from the state as opposed to the inverse?
When there's talk about one city funding the entire state, that is usually not true, because the state also receives a lot of federal money. The state is in the middle of a two-way money flow from the federal to the local. The taxpayers of Nashville, they are voters and they are who I'm going to represent, and they should get back the value of the tax that they pay to the city. That is not very clear. We're spending so much money for our schools; our school qualities are nowhere near, say, Williamson County.
Your argument about taxpayers of Nashville getting what they pay in, shouldn't you be saying that the state should be paying us more every year for schools and other things if Nashville is putting so much in?
Those numbers need to be taken into consideration for sure. I have started looking at the numbers. Those numbers have to be discussed in correct platforms, in terms of who is spending what. I'm talking as an economist. Since it's a city election, I don't want to talk about the state and the city numbers right away. But if I am elected, those are going to be my very first duties of figuring out that the numbers are consistent. Currently when I'm looking at the budgets, I have already noticed inconsistencies, and I have reached out to city officials as well as state officials to get the correct numbers of who is funding what. From the perspective of an economist, if the numbers are not consistent to start with, if two sources are reporting different numbers, it's very difficult to figure out exactly which number is correct.
First, I need to get clarity on the reported numbers. My research indicates there are inconsistencies. My main thrust is Nashville taxpayers should get what they deserve. We know how much we're paying. Our property taxes are pretty straightforward. It's a bill we all receive. As a voter, I definitely know how much tax I'm paying. But as an economist I really don't have a clear picture of how much money is going into our schools. Right now I'm focusing on things I know for sure.
You mention property taxes a lot, especially the 2020 increase. Do you think we should lower that rate?
It is very difficult for me to say because things don't usually work that way. Things go up and especially under the current situation of inflation and we have already promised higher salaries for city staff. Things moving in the other direction in terms of lowering the rate is very difficult from a practical point of view. I wish we could say that. I wish we could do that. All I want at this point is make sure our expenditures are in directions of improving our welfare. Expenditures for our schools should improve the quality of our academic performance. Increasing taxes should be used for social welfare or our elderly population. Davidson County has a higher percentage of elderly population who don't feature at all in any of the debates or forums, but they have paid their taxes for so many years, and they are on a fixed income. Currently there is the property tax raise freeze but how long can we allow that? Having that balance of expenditure and income is important for every group of people that we have.
Can you think of anything specific that we're spending money on that we should tighten up or cut back on?
It is not just in terms of areas. Education is a big bulk of our budget. There are some schools that have a good teacher-student ratio, and some have double that. If we had spent the money in a way that could have helped, we could have hired more teachers. That's where the whole stadium deal comes into focus. When we commit money to a capital expenditure like a stadium, we are not able to spend money in places where it's needed. More teachers, I am definitely for it. There are many schools where we really don't have enough teachers. I just went through the budget. Some schools really have a very high student-teacher ratio and we can do better there.
The council's role traditionally has largely been just allocating money to the school board. You talk about literacy rates and other education outcomes in your campaign materials. How can the council actually be involved in that beyond just giving more money?
We probably need to have some more collaboration there. Let's sit at the table, have those collaborative meetings. Our governments should have the same goal: the welfare of the citizens. School board and the council should have the same goal: that students are doing better. In that way we can introduce some new accountability. We all have annual reviews. Let's start with some annual review, some kind of [Key Performance Indicator]. That goes for the entire budget, not just for the schools. Someone told me that government doesn't work like the private sector. When you use the word KPI, that's private sector jargon. But there may be some things we can learn from everywhere. Government can learn something from the private sector, and the private sector probably can learn something from the government. We don't need to close down on things.
How would you land on the current racetrack negotiations?
It's the same thing [as the Titans]. These are very big expenditures we are talking about that have an effect for 20-30 years down the line. Fully funding any of these expenditures through public money is not an economically viable situation, and I think pretty much every economist will say that. We can have some public subsidies and private-public partnerships for such capital-extensive projects is what I am for. But I cannot agree that these can be fully funded by public money. Some schools may need a few more teachers and I will any day vote for more teachers versus a budget for a recreational capital expenditure. You know that wants and needs thing that every kid probably knows. It's not a personal thing at all. From an economics perspective, we have this cost-benefit analysis. If one person wants some recreation but it is harming 100 others, we have to let that one person spend their own money. Why take away the benefit that could have gone to 100 others?
You've said you will be a strong advocate for law enforcement. The state recently did away with Nashville's Community Oversight Board. Would you support replacing that with something else? Would you support suing over that? Do you think there should be oversight of the police?
When I'm saying law enforcement, let me be very clear: A law is supposed to protect the private rights, private property rights. If a legal situation goes down in any community, we all lose there, because our property values go down. If you have been following the San Francisco news ... did you get a chance to follow that?
Which part of San Francisco news?
All the shops closing in the downtown area. The hotels are closing down. They're fleeing. If our law enforcement is not where it can make sure those businesses can run, businesses start closing down. Who loses? The entire city. We lose all that income, those taxes. When I'm saying law enforcement should be enforced, it is to save our businesses, save our property values. From a social perspective, I am straight in the middle. From a spending our money perspective, I think we have become too short-sighted. Let's have a little longer timeframe. The San Francisco thing, it's something I'm really worried about.
So do you think there should be oversight of the police?
The way the Community Oversight Board and the things I've heard, there were individual complaints about police interfering. Those are individual issues. The first thing I looked at was the budget. There is some kind of budget. It's just moved from the Community Oversight Board to whatever the new [body is]. There is going to be some kind of body. The budget allocation is still there so there is still going to be some kind of activity. It's just going to be much more collaborative rather than one person on top of another. It was mostly because of a few individual cases where one party was over the other's decision-making. That is something I'm not into. Those boards were made of people, so I'm assuming this body will also be made of people. When people decide on working together, they can achieve goals. I do have that faith in democracy. I'm an immigrant from India and I have seen another type of democracy. The way American democracy is run, I am extremely proud about that. I think it's still the best country in the world.
You said "the supply of housing units vastly exceeds the demand for the same." How can that be true when so many Nashvillians are paying 40, 50 percent of their income on housing and there's people living on the street?
The word that differentiates between the two is "affordable." People cannot pay. What happened when the tax went up, even the landlords passed on that to their renters. People have moved out of Nashville. Teachers, policemen staying in a different county. They come here, they do their job, and they go away. It's the affordability thing that is the question here. There are vacant houses. Many people don't want to rent [their homes] because of the new laws regarding eviction and things like that. People are choosing to keep their houses empty. What has gone wrong is the affordability. That is a very big question we as a city need to ask. It was the tax and then it was the inflation and now interest rates are so high, so people are not even able to put a down payment. That has really got skewed. We hear about the Barnes Fund, which has gone up. We need to figure out, is it good enough? Or do we start talking about new ways of having affordable housing. There are so many empty houses, not just houses.
How do you do that from Metro Council?
Many of these buildings were taken by corporate tax breaks. One of the buildings that immediately comes to my mind is the Amazon building. Those two huge buildings downtown. I don't know how much of that has been occupied by their staff. Those building did get a lot of tax breaks. I'm just using the Amazon building as an example. Maybe 50 percent [occupied] at the most. There are similar buildings like that all over the city. That's not the only building I have in mind. I know of old-school buildings in Joelton, in Madison. When you provide affordable housing it can be spread all over the county. There are those buildings which can be repurposed for our city workers, our teachers, firefighters. People who have to commute, have to work here, should be given high priority for subsidized or affordable housing. It can be done. It's just political willingness. The space is there. Those empty houses are there and we can get those numbers for sure. It is just willingness. Those could be benefits for our staff. The people in private sector get fringe benefits. Why not our city staff? They could get some kind of subsidy, maybe $500 off or $1,000. It's just creative willingness to do that.
A few minutes ago you mentioned people not wanting to rent out their homes because of eviction protections. Do you think those protections should change? The city has helped pay for attorneys for people being evicted. Do you think we should do away with that?
It's a very difficult question. When you're talking about eviction, those contracts are written prior. That's why there's this lawyer. What I was suggesting was having a different kind of contract so these people don't have to face this kind of eviction. It's two different contracts that are in consideration. The cases you're mentioning, those contracts have already been executed and now the whole lawyer thing is coming into the picture because of a prior contract. What I'm suggesting is the next upcoming contract should be in a way that these guarantees are already in place. Those situations I don't think we'd need lawyers to defend the renters. It's an apple and orange kind of situation. It's a legal change upfront versus fighting for somebody.
What do you think Metro should do about homelessness?
In the current budget there is an allocation for an Office of Homelessness. When you dedicate a line item in a budget, there is some thought that that's going to increase. Otherwise you wouldn't be dedicating a line item for something. There is probably some expectation in some corners that the homeless situation is going to increase. That is my take. Given the budget allocation, I have been hearing different things from different parts of the city. In the Brookmeade Park, West Nashville people, they did not want an encampment there, and they made sure that went away. On the Donelson side, there is a big thing, and a lot of people don't want that. I draw comparisons with San Francisco. They have dedicated a whole area where people are putting their trailers out. In Nashville I'm wondering whether it's going to be that area. For sure, homelessness is something the prior city council has already figured out that's a problem that's going to escalate. I have already heard people say, "I don't want that to be my area."
So how do you solve that if no one wants that near them?
That is something the incoming council needs to take into consideration. I don't as an individual have any right to say this is the area. We cannot do that. What my question was to people is, where are these people coming from? Are they local people who have lost their home? The answer that kind of surprised me was, they are outsiders.
Why does that matter?
Are these people who have lost jobs who have been in Nashville forever? Or is it a different kind of problem? They do have room in the downtown area. There's a hotel. People do go there especially in the winter months. I know the council has done a considerable amount of work to make sure they have a roof. That part I should give kudos to the council. What is more important for me to know is are these people local or are they coming from somewhere else? That would be two different stories.
How would that inform what you want to do if elected?
We need to know whether our own people who have been for long, have they been not taken care of, have they been not heard? And hence they come to this position. Versus if they were people who came in from other parts of the country thinking about the Southern hospitality that Nashville treats everybody well. When I heard they were given this roof, they were given food, they were given security, that is good. If it were our own people who had been living here, then maybe the local administration has to step in to make sure that doesn't happen from the local [level].
Are you supporting anyone in the mayor's race?
I do have friends in the mayor's race. I'm refraining from making any statement. I hope they can all agree that the city needs to make sure the expenditures are going in places where it can help the city thrive and not go a Detroit way or a San Francisco way. That is the reason I stepped up. I see, from an economist's perspective, it going in a direction like Detroit and that's not going to help any of us.
What do you mean by Detroit?
It's many other cities across the U.S. The debts have gone up so much that the current tax base is not able to sustain those expenditures. If you follow the debt ratio, it's just going up and up and up. Since the interest rates are so high, any new bonds that we issue now will be at a much higher rate than the bonds that were issued five years back. Planning for the next five years, it cannot be run how it was five years back. We have to make sure we know exactly which direction we're going. Unfortunately there is no economist in the office of the mayor or the council. It's a $3 billion-plus budget. To have something of that scale and have no analysis done is pretty surprising to me.
