Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

marmar

(77,089 posts)
Tue Apr 5, 2016, 10:26 AM Apr 2016

Nashville Voted To Give Poor People, Locals New Construction Jobs. But the State GOP Blocked It.


(In These Times) Last summer, with the backing of regional labor leaders and community groups, the city of Nashville approved an ordinance requiring large, municipally funded construction projects to devote 10 percent of their hiring to low-income residents. The ballot initiative, which also stipulated that 40 percent of such hires should reside in Nashville’s Davidson County, came amid an historic surge in building projects in the city’s downtown area.

Last year, the New York Times reported that more than $2 billion worth of construction projects that developers have initiated in the city are poised to reshape Nashville’s skyline. The local hire ordinance, known as Amendment 3, sought to make sure that the city’s poorest residents saw some benefit portions of the city’s building boom by leveraging the Nashville’s government’s contracts with private businesses in an attempt to reduce local poverty, which stands at nearly 20 percent for adults and at roughly 30 percent for children in the Nashville area.

Yet within weeks of the ordinance passing into law, Republicans in the state legislature introduced a bill to roll back Nashville’s new law and prevent other cities in the state from implementing anything like it.

In September, a Republican representative also requested that the state’s Republican attorney general issue an opinion on whether the city law was legal in the first place. After the attorney general’s office asserted that the local-hire rule indeed violated a state law that governs licensing, the bill to invalidate Nashville’s new law moved steadily through the legislature. .............(more)

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/19009/republican_prohibition_on_nashville_municipal_local_hires




10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

dembotoz

(16,826 posts)
2. there is big money in these contracts which means big contributions
Tue Apr 5, 2016, 11:03 AM
Apr 2016

to hire locals would interfere with all that

remember in milwaukee when the big downtown interchage was rebuilt.
multi year projects very near black areas of the central city...

workers were reported to be very white and from out of town.
there was uproar and some token was done but not much

Drahthaardogs

(6,843 posts)
10. Because contractors are on the take and
Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:20 PM
Apr 2016

The legislators are in cahoots with them. Try being a federal employee with their pay frozen while you watch Contractors make twice what you do for the same job. Then you get to listen to your Congressman complain about Federal employees while he uses the mail for free and bemoans it not arriving fast enough.

Volaris

(10,274 posts)
5. These are the same fuckers who clutch their pearls and complain to high heaven
Tue Apr 5, 2016, 11:16 AM
Apr 2016

That the Feds don't have any place telling state governments how to behave or that attempting to do so is Tyranny of the first order.

If I were a Republican I would be congratulating the hell out of Nashvilles city government as being THE MODEL of local and Small Government taking matters into their own hands and NOT NEEDING the federal dept of labor telling them how things should be done.

They're just pissed because Local Control is being used to promote and enact policies that are actually liberally useful to actual People.

Fuckers.

Victor_c3

(3,557 posts)
8. So much for giving poor people jobs that might help the pull themselves up by the bootstraps...
Tue Apr 5, 2016, 12:02 PM
Apr 2016

Isn't that what they say poor people need to do instead being on public assistance?

socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts)
9. Yep. I voted for Amendment 3 personally, but........
Tue Apr 5, 2016, 12:06 PM
Apr 2016

even before it was enacted the right-wingers in the state were saying that it would never be enforced. This was not a surprise. Just another example of RW hypocrisy.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Nashville Voted To Give P...