Stephen Yeargin

Late last week, Nashville's municipal elections were certified and we will have a new mayoral administration and mostly new Metro Council starting in October. Freddie O'Connell's election in particular signals that there is a strong desire for the city to change its direction. An oft-cited Vanderbilt University survey backs that up, with a majority believing the city is "on the wrong track," which lends itself to many interpretations. It was the first time since that survey began in 2015 that respondents were more pessimistic about the direction. For many, this was just "New Nashville."

A few things jump out:

• The longer you have lived in Nashville, the more pessimistic you are.
• The more money you have, the less pessimistic you are.
• The 55-64 set really isn't happy with the direction of the city.
• Using public transit isn't top of mind, and actually getting worse.
• State legislature actions on council size, run-off elections, etc. are not popular, sometimes even among Republicans.
• Had the new NFL stadium gone to a referendum, it would have likely failed.
• The Imagine East Bank project is mostly a mystery to residents.

Nearly a third of respondents in that poll said they would leave the city if they got the chance. As the mayoral campaign began in earnest, O'Connell's campaign sent out a mailer with a rather simple message: "I want you to stay." I would contend that message moved the needle the most for his campaign. While there are plenty of explanations for why he ultimately won in a run-off (most of which include who else entered the race and crowded each other out), that simple message resonated with many who are wary of trying to make a life in Music City when it feels like everything is made for someone else.^[1]

The "It City" monicker arrived on the heels of a New York Times article in 2012. I can't argue that this era in Nashville history is one of its most consequential. The city is a regular sight in national media for tourism, music and culture. So much so that I don't even feel the usual surprise when I see hear about it.

I've dunked on Nashville every year since 2010 in the annual "You're So Nashville If ..." feature in the Nashville Scene. Each year, it gets harder to summon the snark. Not because there isn't enough material to choose from -- there's plenty. I recognize less and less of the city I moved to in 1999 when I look at Nashville today.

This is not a rant against progress and I know that change is inevitable. And if you look close at the late 1990s and early 2000s, there were plenty of things that weren't great. Metro had plenty of struggling neighborhood schools that they tried to solve with a complex busing program. East Nashville was definitely not the place to find million dollar houses. The main transit "hub" was bus parking spaces along Deaderick Street without a roof over it. Bud Adams fleeced the city to build a stadium that we're going to tear down before it turns 35. The bastards closed Opryland.^[2] Bellevue Mall was still somehow open.

All of that was before the May 2010 flood. After that, the city has spent (or has at least committed to spend) billions on a convention center, baseball park, soccer stadium and new football stadium. None of those things have a direct benefit to residents without them shelling out even more money to take part in it.^[3] The mood quickly became that city leaders were more concerned about building playthings for tourists and not nearly enough about solving any of our longstanding issues.

The Tourist Industrial Complex takes hold because it's insanely good for business, even those without a direct stake. Raising the profile of the city means the companies that are based here are taken more seriously at the negotiating table. Or at least, have an easier sales cycle when entertaining potential clients. It also helps that Nashville has rather generous tax incentives for bringing new jobs to the city. It seems lately that those lofty hiring targets announced at the press conference are rarely hit, instead blaming market conditions.^[4]

O'Connell's campaign also had the "building a Nashville for Nashvillians" slogan that several other candidates for mayor and Metro Council adapted for their own campaigns. It captured the sentiment that not everything "good" that has happened in the last several administrations was necessarily good for the people who live here. Most of the city's 600,000 residents will never set foot in any of those new buildings or work for the companies that moved to town. But all of us pay the rising property taxes and rents to fund them. Meanwhile, transit and education continue to falter. We look at Lower Broadway with disdain -- the party scene seems to come at our expense.

So what does a new "New Nashville" look like? I believe O'Connell's administration has to find the right balance between big ideas and fully funding the things that Nashvillians depend on. Big ideas include major investments in public transit and education. Could we finally see a rail connection to Nashville International Airport? Fare-free bus service? Raising teacher pay to the point where every job is competitive instead of having hundreds of vacancies to start the school year? A reversal of the trend of turning high school into mere prep for trade school?^[5]

Answers will come in time. O'Connell stands in stark contrast to his run-off opponent and most others in the field. If Matt Wiltshire or Jeff Yarbro would have won, I wouldn't have expected any fundamental change to the way city government operates. They would have surely seen where the wind was blowing and offered incremental changes to keep ahead of anything that made them look like a second John Cooper term.^[6] O'Connell may discover that the reason the last five or six mayors seemed to read from the same playbook is because it is the only way to get things done.

I take a pragmatic view of it all. The Chamber of Commerce will still have outsized influence on the city's priorities. As will the machinations of the Tennessee General Assembly. Karl Dean really wanted the AMP to run down Broadway/West End, but the Koch Brothers had other plans. John Cooper discovered that sometimes you get dealt a hand (tornado, COVID-19, downtown bombing^[7], RNC bid rejection fall-out) that dictates what happens next. Megan Barry (a few months after she'd already resigned) discovered that referendum voters aren't always on board with big projects if they don't see the value.

It also may take more than one administration to accomplish the goals, or at least get us closer to them. The next time that Vanderbilt survey rolls around this spring, maybe the right track/wrong track numbers will reverse. If they do, O'Connell should have an easier time enacting some of those bigger, legacy-defining initiatives.

As long as it isn't another stadium.