20 July 1999
 

Any Progressives in this Race?
Four Questions for the Big Three

Where do our mayoral hopefuls stand on issues of particular concern to Nashville’s progressives? I put four questions (three of direct local concern, plus a red herring, as you’ll see) to the campaigns of Richard Fulton, Bill Purcell, and Jay West; each responded through a spokesperson.

Question 1: Was Metro’s decision a few years back to extend the life of the Downtown Thermal Plant for a couple more decades a good move or a bad move? Although it targets a past decision, this question goes to the intersection of two essential city issues going forward: solid waste management and urban core development. Alternatives (granted, complicated ones) existed at the time of the decision, but Phil Bredesen refused to seriously consider them, and the Metro Council went along for the ride. The result: a trash burning plant in the midst of the Downtown core for years to come. Among the mayoral contenders, only Bill Purcell is willing to second-guess, calling Metro’s action "a bad decision." Jay West toes the timid establishment line, calling it "a good decision at the time." West declares that "we must plan for the post-Thermal years," but this rings a bit hollow in light of his support for an action that pushed those years far into the future. Fulton’s spokesman refused to label the decision good or bad but did venture that the thermal plant is "not Dick Fulton’s preferred way of disposing of solid waste."

Question 2: Would you support or oppose an ordinance that would outlaw housing and employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? Such discrimination is perfectly lawful, except where state and local governments have enacted measures to end this legalized form of bigotry. Sadly, none of our big-three mayoral candidates have the guts to stake a claim on this one for Nashville. Jay West observes that "discrimination in any form should not be tolerated" but is unwilling to go on record as favoring an ordinance on sexual orientation. Fulton similarly evades, saying he opposes discrimination but won’t commit to legal protection locally. Fulton does promise an executive order outlawing sexual orientation discrimination in Metro government. Purcell opposes an ordinance on the grounds that local governments may not have the constitutional discretion to enact a law restricting landlords and employers in this way. (Of course they do – several states and municipalities already have, and the Supreme Court, in a key ruling a few years ago, upheld that discretion.)

Question 3: Would you support a "living wage" ordinance – requiring firms doing business with the city to pay employees at a level (above the federal minimum wage) that makes it possible for a small family to meet basic needs?  Living wage ordinances take many forms, but in general terms require employers having sizable city contracts or receiving local government subsidies to adhere to a wage floor that keeps workers and their families somewhere close to the poverty line, which the federal minimum wage does not accomplish. Business interests typically react to living wage proposals with scorn, but they have been enacted with no dire consequences in cities as diverse as Detroit, San Antonio, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Los Angeles, New Haven, San Jose, Des Moines and Indianapolis, among many others. Purcell and West oppose such measures on the grounds that business should operate freely without this sort of regulatory interference. Fulton sidestepped this question, his spokesman noting instead that "as a practical matter, the real minimum wage is already significantly above the [legal] minimum wage." He didn’t say if it bothers him that the "real" minimum wage still leaves a small family well below the poverty line.

Question 4: Do you favor or oppose a federal constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to outlaw flag burning? Obviously, this is not really a local matter; even if the U.S. Senate is loopy enough to pass the amendment adopted last month by the House of Representatives, the ensuing ratification process happens in state legislatures, not city halls. But mayors and city councils do wrestle with meaningful civil liberties issues – everything from social protest to law enforcement to jail conditions to freedom of information. The flag-burning controversy is a nice test of one’s civil libertarian bona fides and something of a window on the political soul. Opponents of efforts to criminalize flag burning understand that chipping away at First Amendment rights is a curious way to celebrate your patriotism toward a country founded on the principle of freedom of expression. Alas, none of our mayoral candidates rises to the challenge. West and Purcell both support the effort to weaken the First Amendment with a constitutional amendment on flag burning. Fulton dodges once again, taking no position on the proposal now before Congress; he favors finding a way to "protect the flag that would not trample the constitution."

This is pretty depressing. Among Nashville’s three primary mayoral candidates, we see little in the way of outrage at the city’s retrograde solid waste practices, minimal interest in actively addressing employment and housing discrimination, and no stomach for using public policy as an instrument for boosting poverty-level wages. For all the talk of moving Nashville into the ranks of big time cosmopolitan cities for the 21st century, blah blah blah, there is little basis for optimism. The questions I raised are hardly fringe – they address basic issues of environmental management, human rights and subsistence economics that "world class" cities are confronting energetically. When will Nashville do likewise? 

Return to home page.