Another local builder is challenging Metro’s practice of requiring infrastructure improvements before granting project permits.

In a complaint filed last month in Davidson County Chancery Court, Fair Lane Properties contends that Metro’s requirement that it pave two alleys and the street in front of its Edgehill-area residential project was unconstitutional. According to the complaint, the work cost more than $69,000, and the company is seeking a return of the costs and a court declaration that the permitting demands are unconstitutional.

The company built four million-dollar homes on Alloway Street.

The developer’s lawyer, Dominick Smith, has represented builders seeking to recoup sidewalk costs incurred under a policy since thrown out by a federal appeals court. The Alloway project already has recouped its sidewalk costs, he said.

The other permitting conditions are “unconstitutional for the exact same reasons,” he said.

“Metro is always trying to see what they can squeeze [and] get them to do,” Smith said, calling Metro’s permitting regime “the Wild West.”

The newly filed case echoes the complaints of another developer, which sued Metro in federal court in September. In that case, a company alleges that it was forced to replace a waterline as part of Metro’s “extortionate” permitting regime.

Though Metro has declined to comment on the cases, city lawyers filed a response in the federal case last week. In the filing, Metro denied that any of its requirements were unconstitutional and reiterated that the expanded waterline was necessary for modern fire protection needs.

“The conduct and actions of all Metro officials regarding the issuance of the building permit that is the subject of this complaint were objectively reasonable and justified under the circumstances,” Metro lawyers wrote.

The post CFPB Opens Investigation Into Hailey Welch's HAWK TUAH Memecoin appeared first on Nashville Banner.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday over Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care for transgender children, and the decision could have an impact far beyond the kids at the center of the case.

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority appeared supportive of Tennessee’s 2023 law, which banned gender-affirming care for minors. Chief Justice John Roberts, on multiple occasions, implied that he did not believe the Supreme Court should be getting involved in the issue and should instead leave it up to the states. 

“We might think that we can do just as good a job with respect to the evidence here as Tennessee or anybody else, but my understanding is that the Constitution leaves that question to the people’s representatives, rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor,” Roberts said. “It seems to me that this is something where we are extraordinarily bereft of experience.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who is the author of a 2020 decision banning workplace discrimination against trans and gay employees and is considered to be the plaintiffs’ best chance at flipping a conservative justice, stayed silent throughout the entire proceeding. 

Meanwhile, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito both seemed skeptical of the science behind providing gender-affirming care for the health and well-being of trans kids. Alito, at one point, posed the question of whether or not transgender people are an “immutable class,” a requirement to be subject to the stricter scrutiny of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“I acknowledge Justice Alito that there is a lot of debate happening here and abroad about the proper model of delivery of this care and exactly when adolescents should receive it and how to identify the adolescents for whom it would be helpful,” U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said. “But I stand by that there is a consensus that these treatments can be medically necessary for some adolescents, and that’s true no matter what source you look at.”

Prelogar and ACLU attorney Chase Strangio contended that Tennessee’s law breaches the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating along the lines of sex.

One core argument is that by denying masculinizing treatments to children assigned female at birth but allowing those same treatments for children assigned male at birth and vice versa, Tennessee is discriminating based on sex. 

“The problem with Tennessee’s law here is not that it’s just a little bit over-inclusive or a little bit under-inclusive, but that it’s a sweeping, categorical ban where the legislature didn’t even take into account the significant health benefits that can come from providing gender-affirming care, including reduced suicidal ideation and suicide attempts,” Prelogar said.

She referenced a similar debate in West Virginia, where legislators opted to require an extra diagnosis of gender dysphoria rather than ban treatment outright.

One of the most notable moments came during Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s questioning of Tennessee Solicitor General Matt Rice. Rice’s stance largely revolved around the idea that Tennessee’s law was not based upon the sex of the person at all but upon the application of the treatments being used, meaning it would not be subject to the Equal Protection Clause. 

“Given your argument, you’re saying your state can block gender treatment for adults too,” Sotomayor said.

“Your Honor, we think that if we’re assuming a similarly-worded statute, that there still would not be a sex or a transgender-based classification,” Rice responded. 

Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson’s questioning of Strangio opened a different area of concern when she said that she worried that a ruling on this case could undermine precedents that were set by cases such as the one that allowed interracial marriage. In the landmark  Loving v. Virginia case, the state made a similar argument to the one posed by Roberts, that this is not a constitutional issue and, therefore, the Supreme Court should leave it up to the state. 

“If we’re just sort of doing what the state is encouraging here in [Loving v. Virginia] where you just sort of say, well, there are lots of good reasons for this policy, and who are we as the court to say otherwise, I’m worried that we’re undermining the foundations of some of our bedrock equal protection cases,” Brown said.

A ruling is expected sometime in the spring.

The post Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Tennessee’s Ban of Gender-Affirming Care for Minors appeared first on Nashville Banner.

A legal battle over the expansion of Murfreesboro-based Middle Point Landfill, which is expected to approach capacity by 2028, went before the Tennessee Court of Appeals for oral arguments on Tuesday. 

Operated by Republic Services, Middle Point landfill has served 37 Tennessee counties, including Davidson County, since it opened in 1988. But it is quickly filling up, and in recent years, Davidson County and Rutherford County have become the sole users of Middle Point, according to attorneys on Tuesday. But when BFI Waste System Services, Republic Services’ subsidiary, attempted to expand the landfill by 100 acres in 2021, the Murfreesboro Regional Planning Board denied the request. 

At the chancery level, Chancellor Russell Perkins ruled that errors made by the board in following the correct procedure for rejecting the plan were “harmless,” denying BFI’s legal bid to overturn the board’s decision. The company argued in its appeal that while there could be valid reasons to deny the expansion of the landfill, errors in the procedure could not be overlooked. 

“The board and then the court erred in not properly applying the roles of a board of review for a landfill expansion and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Commerce — excuse me, Conservation — as to what its role is,” said attorney Bob Boston, who represents BFI. “It conflated the two, and it resulted in an adverse decision that should be reversed.”

Boston argued that in its decision, the board considered factors that were not under its jurisdiction, such as odor, pollution and the wishes of the residents. 

“‘Waste Management’s request to expand the southern landfill may be denied only if inconsistent with the board’s waste management plan,’” Boston said, reading an opinion from a similar case that appeared before the Court of Appeals in 2007. “It says ‘necessity, compatibility and desirability, notwithstanding.’ That’s what TDEC exists for, to handle those three things.”

But attorney John Rogers, on behalf of the board, argued that BFI was ignoring the fact that the board was upholding the region’s solid waste management plan, which had been submitted to and approved by TDEC.

“BFI never once addressed the board’s denial on the basis that expanding the Middle Point Landfill was inconsistent with the plan, and that the region plan indicates that the priorities for the region in the next five years are to increase recycling opportunities,” Rogers said. “BFI also never meaningfully addressed other bases for denial, such as the expansion itself is unnecessary, it’s not environmentally acceptable, and it’s not cost-effective.”

Judge Neal McBrayer was the most inquisitive of the three-judge panel, taking center stage as Judges Jeffrey Usman and Andy Bennett mostly stayed silent. But McBrayer did not seem to show a preference, and was instead critical of both sides. He seemed skeptical that the procedural mistakes made by the board were actually meaningful enough to overturn their decision. Concurrently, he also seemed unconvinced that the board had not inflated the meaning of the regional solid waste plan. 

“You’re reading more into this plan than is actually there,” McBrayer said. “The statute directs the board to match up the application to what is in the plan. I see where it’s encouraging disposal of waste in other ways than landfill, but it doesn’t exclude the possibility that landfill would continue to be a part of the process.”

The panel did not indicate when a decision could be made.

The post Battle Over the Murfreesboro Landfill, Home to Nashville’s Trash, Lands in Appeals Court appeared first on Nashville Banner.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that will determine whether or not transgender children in Tennessee have access to healthcare. Here’s what to expect from both sides and how we got here. 

What’s at stake

L.W. v. Skrmetti arose out of a challenge to a 2023 Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors. Not only does the law ban surgery intended to cure gender dysphoria — an extremely rare procedure — it also forbids the prescription of hormone blockers, a practice major health organizations have cited as crucial to the health and well-being of minors who experience gender dysphoria.

Twenty-six states currently have laws banning gender-affirming care. According to the Human Rights Campaign, about 39 percent of the country’s trans kids live in those states. Research shows that these prohibitions have a severe negative impact on the mental health of trans kids. 

The plaintiff’s argument

American Civil Liberties Union attorney Chase Strangio will argue on behalf of the plaintiffs in the case, three transgender adolescents, their families and a medical provider. The ACLU contends that Tennessee’s law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that all people be treated equally.

“SB1 falls squarely within the heartland of sex-based classifications that arise from sex-based generalizations,” the ACLU’s brief reads. “It imposes differential treatment based on the sex an individual is assigned at birth.”

Under Tennessee Law, prescribing masculinizing treatments to a minor-assigned female at birth is prohibited, even though those same treatments can legally be prescribed to a minor-assigned male at birth. The ACLU argues this is discriminatory. 

“SB1 enforces this sex-based rule for the express purpose of imposing a government preference that minors conform to overbroad sex-based generalizations,” the brief reads. “That is a classic sex classification, and it triggers heightened scrutiny.”

The state’s argument

Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti’s office argues that the state has a right to make laws regulating medical practices. 

“It is not unconstitutional discrimination to say that drugs can be prescribed for one reason but not another,” their brief reads. “Weighing risks and benefits, states (and the federal government) draw age and use-based distinctions for drugs all the time.”

The AG’s arguments largely depend on denying scientific evidence that gender-affirming care is necessary for the health and safety of trans children. 

History in Court

In June 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Eli Richardson, a Donald Trump appointee, blocked Tennessee’s law. However, the next month, a three-judge panel in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned his ruling, becoming the first federal court to allow a ban on gender-affirming care. The Supreme Court granted the case a hearing in June.  

Following Tuesday’s arguments, a decision from the majority-conservative Supreme Court will be expected in the spring.

The post Supreme Court to Hear Arguments in Trans Care Ban appeared first on Nashville Banner.

The main event at Tuesday night’s Metro Council meeting was continued discussion around Fusus, a software program that would have allowed the Metro Nashville Police Department to access security camera footage from willing private business owners. 

The legislation failed by a single vote, as the Metro Council voted 20-18 in favor of it. The resolution required 21 votes to pass, and two members (Jennifer Gamble and Sandy Ewing, who told the Banner she was planning on voting no) were absent.

Mayor Freddie O’Connell and interest groups applied pressure as the vote approached. Groups including the NAACP, Community Oversight Now and the Urban League urged councilmembers to vote no, citing concerns about privacy and federal or state misuse of the footage. Business groups and O’Connell were among those asking councilmembers to approve the contract. 

After a public hearing last month at which the vast majority of speakers opposed Fusus, Tuesday’s public comment period was split evenly between those in favor of and opposed to the legislation.  

The administration offered a substitute proposal this week that sought to assuage community and councilmember concerns. The new language would have established a “kill switch” that would end the contract if the tech were misused and explicitly prohibited the use of facial recognition. 

Metro Councilmember Bob Nash, a former police commander, said he supported the guardrails included in the substitute proposed by the administration.

“I know people are scared,” he said. “We have to move forward with doing things that are right for this city.”

Metro Councilmember Joy Kimbrough said no level of guardrails could make the proposal palatable. 

“I don’t think this is something we can play around with,” she said. “We can’t even entertain this.”

Supporters of Fusus have been warning in recent days that an adverse vote on this or the looming license plate reader contract would attract state intervention, with any state-level implementation lacking the guardrails instituted by local officials. House Majority Leader William Lamberth said as much last year, warning of state action on license plate readers if the Metro Council voted them down. 

The council held off on other pieces of public safety legislation on the agenda. A proposal from a local nonprofit police advocacy group to fund an MNPD subscription to a public survey tool was withdrawn. Some councilmembers had questioned whether the survey software should be overseen by an independent agency or whether the program would violate residents’ privacy. Police officials said the software mostly asks social media users their opinions about the police department. 

Councilmember Jeff Eslick moved to defer his resolution, calling on MNPD to ramp up its traffic enforcement for two meetings. He said he is continuing to discuss possible changes to the language and wanted to avoid the drama of the Fusus debate. Nashville traffic enforcement dropped 95 percent between 2012 and 2022. 

Everything else

• Funding for the mayor’s proposed capital spending plan was deferred by rule and will be considered further at an upcoming meeting. 
• As part of the consent agenda, the council approved legislation requesting the creation of a new advisory committee to oversee the implementation of Mayor Freddie O’Connell’s newly established dedicated funding stream for transit projects. 
• The council approved a resolution seeking funding for an environmental grant that includes funding for a study of possible uses for the closed Bordeaux landfill. Councilmember Joy Kimbrough, who represents the Bordeaux area, was the lone no vote. 
• The council voted to accept funding to study potential contamination of riverfront land on the East Bank.

The post Fusus Surveillance Proposal Fails by a Single Vote at Metro Council appeared first on Nashville Banner.

Tennessee is going all-in on new nuclear energy to meet the state’s growing demands and – hopefully – gain a foothold in the small modular reactor industry. In its final report, the governor’s nuclear advisory council co-signed the aggressive investments.  

Gov. Bill Lee has deemed new nuclear energy to be the future of the state’s power supply and economy. In just two years, Lee has earmarked $60 million for the Tennessee Nuclear Energy Fund and formed the Tennessee Nuclear Energy Advisory Council to advise the state on growing the “nuclear energy ecosystem.”

The council came to an end last month, releasing a final report which urges the state to continue to leverage its resources to encourage companies both directly involved in nuclear energy and involved in the supply chain of materials needed for nuclear energy to come to the state. 

“If America has a nuclear future, and they’re going to have to buy products and parts and components, we want to build them in Tennessee. If they’re going to be doing a lot of research, we want it done in Tennessee,” State Rep. Clark Boyd (R-Lebanon), who served on the advisory council, said Monday. “And if we can have more nuclear energy to replace our coal? Well, we’d like that too.”

At the center of the state’s heightened interest in nuclear energy is the race to build the first SMR and the infrastructure to produce parts for subsequent ones. 

While the Tennessee Valley Authority contemplates its next couple of decades, considering a number of forms of energy, it also seeks to build the first small modular reactor to beef up its available nuclear power. However, 43 percent of its load already comes from existing nuclear energy. 

As TVA moves away from carbon-heavy coal and less reliable old nuclear reactors, the utility seeks to build the first SMR, a smaller, safer and more easily assembled nuclear reactor. By working with smaller quantities of enriched uranium, using passive cooling to cut down on human intervention and being more easily shut off in the event of inclement weather or other disasters, SMRs show promise for being more reliable and safer than traditional nuclear reactors. 

“This is not your granddaddy’s nuclear energy, this is a lot safer,” Boyd continued. 

“And if we’re going to get away from fossil fuel and coal, the only thing that can provide the amount of energy that America is going to need is going to be nuclear energy,” he added. 

If TVA builds the first SMR — and it works as planned without going significantly over budget — proponents believe that would assert Tennessee’s dominance in the new nuclear industry the way Oak Ridge played a pivotal role in the Manhattan Project, shoring up the state’s relevance in the first wave of nuclear plants. 

Beyond the bragging rights, officials hope investments could position the state — especially areas around Chattanooga with existing nuclear infrastructure and new projects planned — to gain manufacturing jobs for materials needed to build SMRs in other areas.

The state’s Department of Economic and Community Development has leveraged that nuclear fund to attract new companies to contribute to the nuclear industry and are currently attempting to get existing manufacturers to help produce components needed for SMRs. 

“We’ve gone so hard for it because we want have as much as many of these companies manufacturing here, doing their research and development here as possible,” Chief Policy Officer Braden Stover said, adding that the department will “take everything that we can get to make sure that we keep the lights on and keep the growth that we’re seeing in Tennessee going.” 

However, that kind of industry dominance will require some serious investment up front. 

Big Spending

Tennessee has spent an unknown amount of the $60 million — the number is not public because of the preliminary status of some of the contracts — but reports over $12 million in grants to four companies so far, and will likely involve serious tax incentives, according to Stover. Incentives are never fully public under state law.

One of the four projects, a multi-billion dollar uranium enrichment facility to be built in Oak Ridge that would bring more than 300 jobs, gives Orano USA a $6 million grant, according to the ECD website, if the contract announced in September is finalized. Oak Ridge planning documents from September also suggest the company will receive a 50 percent tax increment financing deal.

While Stover says the return on investment is there, it’s too soon to say how much bang the state is getting for its buck. Meanwhile, other utilities are aware of and working toward creating small reactors. 

Some previous nuclear projects in other states have surpassed their budgets and become unfeasible, creating expensive, long-lasting mistakes, like an expansion of the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia, which was originally estimated to cost $14 billion, but swelled to $35 billion, saddling consumers with the cost.

Boyd said the Georgia project is a great example of the faults with old nuclear technology, adding that the SMRs should be a safer investment. He said that the state is not directly funding the TVA-run SMR project. 

Stover also says the state grants are designed to prevent over-investment, explaining that the company has to do the work establishing the committed infrastructure before any funds are transferred. 

“We did that in a way to protect the state’s investment, so that if a company were to not work out, there’s at least hard infrastructure in place for another company to come in and pick up where they would have left off,” he said. 

Boyd also argues that the risk is minimal, because even if Tennessee isn’t first, the state could stand to benefit from manufacturing.

If TVA continues to increase rates while building a multi-billion dollar SMR, but that doesn’t come to fruition, its customers might feel the sting. 

“The biggest concern about next-generation nuclear is the first-of-a-kind cost,” said Chris Jones, president and CEO of Middle Tennessee Electric, which services 750,000 people in the area surrounding Nashville Area, primarily in Rutherford, Williamson and Cannon Counties. 

Still, with the promise of more reliable zero-carbon energy and 18 months on the council, Jones said he is increasingly optimistic about the plan. 

“This was the governor’s initiative, and then other members of the state government and staff members of the state have really leaned into this, and that’s very encouraging to me,” Jones said.

To ease any remaining qualms about the cost of a first-of-its-kind project, Jones said the federal government, which oversees TVA, should be investing in the SMR project., while the state bolsters the surrounding industry 

“​​Think it’s fundamentally important for the federal government to be extremely engaged and participatory in furthering the nuclear energy strategy for our country, but particularly helping to curb those costs,” Jones said.

The post Tennessee Nuclear Advisory Council Encourages All-in Approach appeared first on Nashville Banner.

Former District 28 Metro Councilmember Tanaka Vercher is suing Tennessee State University, alleging the school fired her from her role as director of financial aid for refusing to participate in illegal activities. 

According to a complaint filed in Davidson County Chancery Court on Monday, Vercher worked in TSU’s administration for 21 years. In her position, she performed a “reconciliation” process where she confirmed that students who had applied for federal financial aid were eligible for that aid, a necessary step before the government can distribute funds. But she alleges that in August, amid the school’s economic troubles, consultants and school leadership attempted to pressure her into requesting the distribution of federal financial aid before the reconciliation process was complete. 

The suit alleges the issue came to a climax on Aug. 27, when Vercher met with then-TSU Chief of Staff Curtis Johnson, Barbara Tharpe, who now works in Vercher’s former role, consultant Beau Briggs and other top administrators, including members of the president’s office. 

“During this meeting, Ms. Vercher estimated that more than twenty percent of TSU students had been admitted without proof of a high school diploma or its equivalent,” reads the suit. A high school diploma is required for a student to be eligible for financial aid. “Her refusal to request funds for these students meant a loss of approximately $7,000,000 in available cash to TSU. Mr. Briggs repeated that TSU could not wait until the reconciliation process was complete in October for distribution of these funds.”

On Aug. 28, Vercher received an email from TSU informing her that she had been fired. 

“She had previously received highly favorable performance reviews and had just been given a raise in July, one month earlier,” reads the suit. “No reasonable explanation exists for Ms. Vercher’s termination. The only explanation is that TSU was retaliating against her for her refusal to request government funds for TSU, to which she knew TSU was not entitled. The action that TSU was requesting Ms. Vercher take was illegal and a violation of important public policy.”

Vercher, who is represented by Elizabeth Hart of the Franklin-based Swafford Law Firm, is asking for back pay, front pay and damages. 

The suit is yet another bump in the road for TSU during ongoing issues. On Nov. 22, the school’s board unanimously voted to fire the school’s top lawyer and cease payments to former president Glenda Glover, who was set to be paid $1.7 million over the next four years.

Update, 2 p.m.: A day later, TSU emailed the following statement:

“Tennessee State University has been made aware of the lawsuit filed yesterday and does not comment on pending litigation. We are committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity and will address the matter appropriately as it progresses. All further questions should be directed to the State Attorney General’s Office.”

The post Former Metro Councilmember Alleges TSU Fired Her Because She Wouldn’t Break Federal Rules appeared first on Nashville Banner.

The Metro Council returns for its first December meeting on Tuesday. The highlight of the agenda, which can be reviewed here, is a police department request to deploy a software program that allows business owners to provide access to their security cameras.

Check out our full rundown of the meeting’s lineup:

On public hearing

The council will hold several zoning-related public hearings, including for legislation related to allowing a hotel near First Horizon Park, a 12South mixed-use proposal and a residential project in The Nations.

Resolutions

RS2024-791: An independent nonprofit is seeking to fund a Metro Nashville Police Department subscription to a public survey software aimed at gauging public opinion about safety and the police. The resolution has been deferred multiple times as some councilmembers have questioned whether the survey technology would invade people’s privacy or whether it’s appropriate for the police to conduct the study itself. The organization told councilmembers on Monday that it would withdraw its donation so city leaders could continue discussing the proposal or similar ones. 

RS2024-792: Likely the focal point of Tuesday’s meeting, the council will consider granting approval for MNPD’s use of Fusus’ surveillance camera collection software. Read the Banner’s full coverage of the proposal here.

RS2024-880: An early step toward the implementation of Mayor Freddie O’Connell’s transportation improvement program, approved by Nashville voters last month. The resolution would request the establishment of a new advisory committee to oversee the work and prescribe regular updates on the program.

RS2025-882: This legislation would approve issuing more than $500 million in general obligation bonds to pay for the projects included in O’Connell’s capital spending plan. Read the Banner’s coverage of the plan here.

RS2024-890: The council is considering settlements for two Metro lawsuits. The first, for $50,000, is related to a retaliation complaint against former Metro Parks leadership. The second, for $155,000, is related to a motor vehicle wreck involving a garbage truck.

RS2024-905: Several councilmembers are asking MNPD to ramp up traffic enforcement after traffic stops plummeted 95 percent in a decade. The resolution also asks Nashville transportation officials to improve infrastructure protecting pedestrians. Read the Banner’s coverage of the request here.

On second reading

BL2024-626: This legislation would increase from $25,000 to $50,000 the threshold for competitive sealed bidding or requests for proposals. The change would follow state law and is in response to “inflation and reduced buying power of the previous limit.”

The post Your Guide to Nashville’s Metro Council Meeting: Dec. 3, 2024 appeared first on Nashville Banner.

The mayor’s office and the Metro Nashville Police Department are making what could be a final push to secure Metro Council’s support for a surveillance footage centralization system sought by police. 

Consideration of a resolution expanding MNPD’s use of Fusus has been delayed in recent weeks as councilmembers probe the necessity and safety of the program, but the legislation faces a vote on Tuesday night. At the council’s most recent meeting, several dozen residents spoke out about the contract during a public hearing, the vast majority of whom were opposed to Fusus. Some residents and councilmembers expressed concerns that the program could be co-opted by state or federal agencies to enforce laws related to immigration, abortion or gender-affirming care.  

If the legislation is approved, MNPD could use Fusus, a system operational in dozens of cities around the country, to access private surveillance footage from camera owners who volunteer for the program. Police could review the footage in prescribed scenarios, including in response to higher-level calls for service. 

The mayor’s office and MNPD have been seeking to assuage concerns in recent weeks, and a new amendment could help sway wavering councilmembers in what promises to be a narrow vote margin. 

According to Dave Rosenberg, Mayor Freddie O’Connell’s director of legislative affairs, the amendment does three things: It allows for the immediate termination of the contract if an entity (state or federal law enforcement, for example) seeks to use the system in a way that violates Metro policy; it prohibits the use of facial recognition or artificial intelligence; and it prohibits Fusus from unilaterally changing its terms of use. 

Raising questions

A coalition of more than two dozen community organizations including the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, Open Table Nashville and the Nashville People’s Budget Coalition has also come out against Fusus on the grounds that the MNPD cannot be trusted with the technology. A letter sent to councilmembers last month pointed to the disproportionate effect of other policing strategies on marginalized communities. The initial rollout of license plate readers in Nashville, for instance, was found to focus primarily on areas with higher minority and low-income populations — although the MNPD’s proposal for a full LPR rollout would see cameras more equally distributed around the county.    

“Because of the nature of policing, FUSUS technology will be used in the same biased and unwarranted patterns against low-income and otherwise marginalized communities, including individuals seeking pregnancy care, gender-affirming care and the tracking of unhoused and alleged undocumented persons,” the coalition letter read. 

According to Rosenberg, the technology is not the panopticon its critics claim it is. Although anyone in Nashville can register a security camera with the MNPD — informing police that a camera is operating at a particular location — the proposal would only allow cameras on commercial properties to be integrated with the Fusus system. That means security cameras at single family homes would not be included. But cameras at multifamily housing properties — like apartment complexes, which are considered commercial properties — could be. 

The system allows business owners to offer up their surveillance camera footage to police under certain circumstances. For instance, camera owners could give MNPD permission to access live footage from a camera during an active call or restrict the department to viewing a certain amount of footage prior to an alleged incident. The footage is stored on a device at the business and can be accessed by police if an incident is taking place nearby. Businesses are notified when footage is accessed and can pull out of the program when they want. 

Police already seek that footage, but it is a time-consuming process that, given the storage and technical limitations on many business’ security systems, can critically delay investigations, according to MNPD Deputy Chief Greg Blair, who oversees the Crime Control Strategies Bureau that houses the Fusus system. Seeking the footage in person can also increase overtime costs, Blair said.

“It makes the job easier and doesn’t do anything we can’t already do,” Rosenberg said.

Rosenberg is an interesting person to lead the push. Prior to joining the administration, Rosenberg fought to establish protections against surveillance technology while a member of the Metro Council.

“I stand by that, and I’m thankful that this is an issue that the mayor and I have always aligned on,” Rosenberg said. “Fusus does not add tools for surveillance. It’s giving police access, when specifically authorized by business, to video under very specific circumstances that they could otherwise [get]. … Fusus is not built to be a real-time monitoring of video tool. First of all, MNPD is not equipped to be everyone’s security company for free. But second of all, it’s set up in such a way that when they activate a camera, it has to be in association with a call for service.”

“What we are doing is improving our service, providing a better service, a faster service, and saving our detectives time by having the video ahead of time so they don’t have to go get it,” Blair added.

At a meeting of the council’s Public Health and Safety Committee last month, Councilmember Jordan Huffman asked MNPD Deputy Chief Chris Gilder if the Fusus system would have been helpful to police in responding to a recent fatal shooting at a Hermitage bowling alley. 

“The responding officers … had to go in, had to find somebody who operated the camera system, look at the camera footage,” Gilder said. “If they’re a donor camera, that’s something that could have been done literally as the call came out as officers were still on their way to the call and possibly have intercepted the people who were involved on the way there.” 

The administration is proposing a “kill switch” that would end the contract if outside actors seek to use it. Even without that provision, Rosenberg and Blair contend that Fusus would be an impractical tool to achieve what critics warn it could be used for.

“Fusus would be a terribly ineffective way of doing terrible things,” Rosenberg said. “It can be tempting to attach to Fusus all of the unrelated possibilities out there, but that’s not what this product is. The products that were being described in public hearing were terrifying, and I’m thankful that those are not Fusus.”

Making the case

In recent weeks, MNPD has been inviting councilmembers and the community to its Family Safety Center to see the tech themselves. On a recent tour, Blair showed off the Fusus interface, currently deployed but without the donor camera feature enabled. The version of Fusus now in operation allows police command to see where each patrol car is located in the city as well as the locations of registered private cameras.

More than 1,000 private business and residential cameras are currently registered with police. That does not mean police have live access to footage. Instead, police can see where cameras are located, along with owner contact information, to speed up the process of seeking and collecting footage related to incidents.

Blair brushes off concerns about federal or state intrusion in the system.

“The feds don’t need our help to go do whatever their mission is,” Blair said. “They just don’t. We’ve been here for two years and no federal partners [have] called down here whatsoever.”

Additionally, he said he is skeptical that outside law enforcement could figure out what footage to look for, and how that footage alone could prove any crime related to, for example, travel out of state for abortions.

“I don’t know how the state is even going to prove that case,” Blair said. “People can drive. … They want to go to another state, they want to go to another country, they can go anywhere they want. They’re not breaking any laws.”

Blair said MNPD’s surveillance policy is pulled from Fusus policies in Orlando, Minneapolis and Lexington. It includes a “duty to intervene” if police employees observe colleagues misusing the product.

“If you don’t follow the rules, or you access information [you’re not supposed to], your job’s on the line,” he said.

“We need to be responsible,” Blair said. “I get that. But I think this is a great opportunity for council to give us the opportunity to earn this trust in the space.”

Business groups representing Nashville’s hospitality and corporate sectors are coming out to back the MNPD’s use of Fusus. 

“In this technology-dominant era, we owe it to the public to give first responders the most innovative solutions that best enable them to limit and contain violent incidents,” the groups, including the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce and the Nashville Convention and Visitors Corp., wrote to councilmembers. “We can do this while simultaneously balancing privacy concerns and public safety while maintaining trust in our civic institutions.”

Prospects for passage

The amendment with new protections may be enough to convince some, but Councilmember Sandra Sepulveda was adamant at the previous meeting: “There are no amount of amendments that can be added to this legislation that can make people feel comfortable,” she said.

Sepulveda reiterated her opposition to the proposal in an interview with the Banner last week, highlighting the ways Donald Trump’s imminent return to the White House changes the context into which Fusus would be introduced. 

“With the stance that they have taken when it comes to mass deportation, immigration in general … reproductive rights, trans issues and a number of other stances when it comes to marginalized communities,” she said, “I think that technology that centralizes camera footage is dangerous. And I don’t know what the future holds.” 

She also expressed a concern that the Republican supermajority in the state legislature could pass legislation preempting any restraints Metro puts on the Fusus program. She has heard the argument that the system will simply make the MNPD’s current process for obtaining surveillance footage more efficient. 

“If they’re already doing that then why don’t they just continue with that process?” she said. “Do the concerns of the community not give them pause?”

But concerns from the community are also fueling some support for Fusus expansion. Councilmember Erin Evans, who chairs the Public Health and Safety Committee, told the Banner that her constituents in the southeast area of the county saw the program as a helpful tool during the brief period it was online before being paused earlier this year. In particular, she pointed to a number of properties in her district that have seen frequent turnover in ownership — sometimes to out-of-state owners — making it all the more difficult for police to obtain footage they need to investigate alleged crimes.  

She said confirming that apartment complexes and other multifamily housing properties could be part of the Fusus program is key to her support. The participation of those properties, she said, could contribute to a faster and better police response. 

As for why she does not share the concerns expressed by community organizations and other councilmembers, Evans emphasized her trust in the mayor as well as people in his administration, like former councilmembers Rosenberg and Bob Mendes, who were skeptical of surveillance. 

“I know that they’re not going to set us up in a situation where their values are going to be compromised,” she said. “I’m electing to put my faith in our mayor, Metro Legal, that they understand the concerns residents brought forward, the concerns other councilmembers brought forward, and are going to be able to address those.”

The post Mayor’s Office, Nashville Police Make Case for Video Surveillance Program appeared first on Nashville Banner.

For our premiere episode, we broke from our usual one-on-one format to bring you an abbreviated — but nonetheless colorful and complicated — history of the Nashville Banner: a look at the days of a two-newspaper city, from people who lived it, day in and day out, in the storied newsroom at 1100 Broadway.

This episode was first broadcast in April 2024.

Guests

• Parker Toler, paperboy
• Mary Hance, reporter aka Ms. Cheap
• Kay West, writer aka Betty Banner
• Robert Churchwell Jr., son of Robert Churchwell, the first Black reporter in Nashville
• Tam Gordon, reporter
• Bruce Dobie, reporter
• Larry McCormack, photographer

Credits

• Host: Demetria Kalodimos
• Producers: Steve Haruch and Andrea Tudhope

Subscribe to Banner & Company on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube or Amazon.

Further reading

• Alive, Dead and Alive Again: A History of the Nashville Banner

The post A Look Back at the Old Banner — From People Who Were There appeared first on Nashville Banner.