Tag: lawsuit

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

Slowdown Coming

Photo: Georgios Kollidas | Dreamstime.com

With pressure building for potential tax increases in Memphis city government, the outlook for additional aid from state government took a hit Monday, as the State Funding Board acknowledged weaker-than-expected revenues and set a deliberately slow growth rate.

The board, composed of the state’s three constitutional officers and the state finance commissioner, set a growth rate in general fund revenue of 1 percent to 2 percent and total tax growth at 1.25 percent to 2.15 percent for fiscal 2025-26. That is on the heels of an estimated total growth rate projection for fiscal 2024-25 of -1.68 percent to -1.34 percent. 

Economic growth has ground down considerably in Tennessee after a double-digit revenue windfall of two years ago. Among other factors, the state is facing a $1.9 billion business tax reduction stemming from legislative approval of Governor Bill Lee’s proposal to eliminate the property portion of the state’s franchise and excise taxes. That move followed additional tax breaks for businesses the previous year. The Department of Revenue has processed nearly $900 million in rebates this year, and more are expected.

On the eve of the oncoming 2025 legislative session, the weak budget outlook could affect lawmakers’ decisions, leaving in the lurch not only localities’ requests for aid but funding requests from state agencies totaling over $4.2 billion. The revenue forecast isn’t expected to come close to matching that figure, even with anticipated federal funds covering some of the costs.

• Two Memphians are finalists to succeed soon-to-be-retiring state Court of Appeals Judge Arnold Goldin of Memphis: Shelby County Circuit Judge Valerie Smith and interim Memphis Chancellor Jim Newsom. A third candidate is Jackson Chancellor Steve Maroney, a former chair of the Madison County Republican Party.

Smith was a member of a three-judge chancery court panel that dismissed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the state’s school voucher program. The decision was later reversed by the Court of Appeals. 

Newsom was named in 2015 to a Chancery Court position by former Governor Bill Haslam but was defeated for re-election in 2016 by current Chancellor JoeDae Jenkins. He was reappointed interim chancellor this past summer by Governor Lee to assume the duties of Chancellor Jim Kyle, who has been disabled by illness.

• The three gun-safety measures approved resoundingly by Memphis voters earlier this month via ballot referenda have predictably come under legal challenge. The Tennessee Firearms Association has filed a lawsuit in Shelby County Circuit Court seeking to block city government from activating the measures. 

In a sense, the gun-lobby group’s suit is pointless, in that backers of the referenda conceded that voter approval of the measures was conditional on the will and pleasure of state government, which had made clear that state policy at this point would disallow the implementation of the three measures.

State House Speaker Cameron Sexton had angrily opposed the referenda as antithetical to state law and threatened to retaliate by cutting Memphis off from various state-shared revenues if the measures were enacted.

The measures, certified for the ballot by the city council, would re-institute a requirement locally for gun-carry permits, ban the sale of assault weapons, and enable the local judiciary to impose red-flag laws allowing confiscation of weapons from individuals certified as risks to public safety.

Mindful of Sexton’s attitude, backed by Governor Lee, the Shelby County Election Commission originally acted to remove the referendum measures from the November ballot, but they were approved for the ballot by Chancellor Melanie Taylor Jefferson.

• It begins to look as though the beleaguered Shelby County Clerk Wanda Halbert will survive various ouster attempts and will survive in office until the election of 2026, when she will be term-limited.

Her latest reprieve came from Circuit Court Judge Felicia Corbin-Johnson, who disallowed an ouster petition from attorney Robert Meyers, ruling that such an action had to be pursued by Shelby County Attorney Marlinee Iverson, who had recused herself.

Judge Corbin-Johnson had previously disallowed an ouster attempt from Hamilton County District Attorney Coty Wamp, who was acting as a special prosecutor. 

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

Lawsuit Filed Against Tennessee Law Banning Gender-Affirming Care For Minors

(Credit: Sharon McCutcheon on Unsplash)

Organizations and families are challenging Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors.

Senate Bill 1 was signed into law by Governor Bill Lee on March 2nd and prohibits healthcare professionals from administering gender-affirming care to minors. The law is set to take effect on July 1.

This legislation will make gender-affirming hormone therapy and puberty blockers inaccessible, and trans people in Tennessee will not have access to this care until they reach the age of 18. Similar restrictions have been made in states like Arkansas and Alabama.

The Flyer also reported in March that the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, and Lambda Legal (a national organization “committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people, and everyone living with HIV”) issued a statement where they had promised legal action against the Tennessee law that will prohibit gender-affirming care for minors.

According to the Campaign for Southern Equality, these organizations, along with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld LLP, have filed the case, L.W. v. Skrmetti, on behalf of “several trans youth, their parents and a medical provider.”

The preliminary statement of this complaint said that the law was passed “over the sustained and robust opposition of medical experts in Tennessee and across the country.”

“It was also passed over the pleas of families across Tennessee who urged lawmakers not to interfere in the medical decision-making of parents, their minor children, and their doctors,” the complaint stated.

The complaint also said that this law will disrupt and prevent medical care for “hundreds of adolescents across Tennessee,” and that it violates the constitutional rights of minors and their parents. 

It also stated the effects of gender dysphoria, which was defined as a “serious medical condition characterized by clinically significant distress caused by incongruence between a person’s gender identity and the sex they were designated at birth.”

“All of the major medical associations in the United States recognize that adolescents with gender dysphoria may require medical interventions to treat severe distress,” continued the complaint. “In providing this medically necessary healthcare, sometimes referred to as ‘gender-affirming care,’ medical providers are guided by widely accepted protocols for assessing and treating transgender adolescents.”

According to the complaint, this law prevents healthcare providers from following “evidence-based protocols.”

Phil Cobucci, founder of inclusion tennessee, said they have heard many families were worried about the passing of this law since the beginning of this legislative session.

“We’ve been working tirelessly to prepare and ensure their transgender adolescents and their families can continue to access care in their home state,” said Cobucci. “The filing of this lawsuit gives us great hope, and we appreciate the legal organizations and plaintiffs for their leadership in court. As we await a decision in this groundbreaking legal case, we will continue to support trans youth and their families every way that we can.”

Rev. Jasmine Beach-Ferrara, executive director at the Campaign for Southern Equality, stated the law is “flatly unconstitutional” and should be struck down.

“We hope that the court will grant relief so that trans youth in Tennessee can continue accessing the health care that they need and deserve, without leaving their home state,” said Beach-Ferrara.

The Campaign for Southern Equality, inclusion tennessee, and OUTMemphis have set up resources for families of transgender youth to access out-of-state providers by providing emergency grants of $250.

Categories
News News Blog

Journalist Sues City for Body-Cam Footage of “Taser Face”

CREDIT: Marc Perrusquia/Twitter

Marc Perrusquia/Twitter

A Memphis journalist is suing the city of Memphis for access to body-camera footage from a Memphis Police Department (MPD) officer.

Newspaper veteran Marc Perrusquia teamed with the nonprofit Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) in the suit filed Monday in Shelby County Chancery Court. In the suit, Perrusquia claims the city’s refusal to release the footage violates the Tennessee Public Records Act.

“The city of Memphis’ refusal to release the bodycam footage requested by our client raises serious transparency concerns,” said Paul McAdoo, the Reporters Committee’s Local Legal Initiative attorney in Tennessee. “Public access to police bodycam footage is a crucial aspect of police accountability.”

Perrusquia, who leads the Institute of Public Service Reporting at the University of Memphis, first asked for the body-cam footage in July 2020, according to the RCFP. He sought footage from three separate incidents of alleged use of excessive force by MPD officer Colin Berryhill. The officer earned the nickname “Taser Face” for multiple uses of his electroshock Taser gun, according to Perrusquia’s July 2020 story about Berryhill in The Daily Memphian.

City leaders denied Perrusquia’s request for the footage because “no responsive records exist at this time due to an administrative investigation.” According to the RCFP, this came despite the fact that the city said in a publicly released case summary that the investigation had been closed.

McAdoo, Perrusquia’s attorney, wrote to the city’s chief legal counsel, Jennifer Sink requesting the body-cam footage, the RCFP said. Sink said in a phone call that the records were exempt from disclosure because an internal MPD investigation could lead to criminal charges against Berryhill.

Perrusquia’s legal argument that there is no exemption for such adminstrative investigations and no body-camera-specific exemption apply. The suit also charges that since there’s no pending criminal action against the officer, the records aren’t exempt under state law.

Categories
News News Blog

Judge Temporarily Halts Voter Registration Law From Taking Effect

CREDIT: U of M/Facebook

U of M/Facebook

A voter registration event at University of Memphis last year

A state law that places restrictions on voter registration efforts was temporarily blocked Thursday by a federal court.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Tennessee filed for an emergency preliminary injunction late last month to halt the law from taking effect.

The law, signed by Governor Bill Lee in May, mandates a slew of requirements for those participating in voter registration efforts and penalties for those who don’t comply. It was set to take effect on October 1st.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee Judge Aleta Trauger granted the ACLU’s motion for emergency injunction Thursday.

Trauger wrote that the plaintiffs would “suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, and that the public interest strongly favors granting the injunction.”

The injunction means the state cannot take any steps to “implement, enforce, conduct investigations pursuant to, or assist in any prosecution” under the law.

[pdf-1]


Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the ACLU of Tennessee said that Trauger’s ruling “indicates that the court understands the dangerous burdens this law places on organizations simply trying to ensure that as many eligible voters can participate in the democratic process as possible.”

“This decision allows our clients to continue their important work of registering voters — including those who have been historically disenfranchised — this election season,” Weinberg said. “We look forward to the day when this unconstitutional law can be struck down for good.”

The ACLU, along with the Campaign Legal Center and Fair Elections Center filed a lawsuit in May challenging the legislation on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Tennessee, the American Muslim Advisory Council, the Mid-South Peace & Justice Center, Rock the Vote, Spread the Vote, Central Labor Council, and HeadCount. The lawsuit is still ongoing.

[pullquote-1]

Danielle Lang, co-director of voting rights and redistricting for the Campaign Legal Center calls the law in question “punitive,” noting that voter registration drives have historically been a way for marginalized groups to gain access to the ballot box.

“This law punished civic organizations for seeking to help register voters, particularly those in underserved communities,” Lang said. “As the court recognized, it struck at the heart of free speech rights and imposed needless burdensome regulations.”

Thursday’s ruling by Trauger is a “significant victory,” said Michelle Cohen, counsel at Fair Elections Center.

“The court’s ruling recognizes the critical role of these efforts in our democracy,” Cohen said. “Because the court stopped these restrictions from going into effect, the door to participating will remain open to community-based civic engagement efforts to engage fellow citizens, which are so badly needed in Tennessee.”

Earlier this week, the state moved to have the lawsuit dismissed, but Trauger denied that request, saying in her decision that the plaintiffs in the case have presented “plausible claims.” She raised many concerns about the law in her decision, calling the law a “complex and punitive scheme.”

Trauger also cited the low number of registered voters in her decision. There were 4,872,000 voting-aged Tennesseans, but only 3,183,000 registered voters as of November 2018, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission ranked Tennessee 44th out of all states in the percentage of its citizens registered to vote.

Categories
News News Blog

MATA Bus Drivers Sue for Alleged Unpaid Overtime

CREDIT: Facebook/MATA

Facebook/MATA

Bus drivers with the Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) are suing over alleged unpaid overtime wages.

The lawsuit was filed this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee by Donati Law, PLLC on behalf of the drivers. The defendant is MidSouth Transportation Management, Inc, (MTM) the Ohio-based company that MATA contracts to hire and manage its drivers. The company is a subsidiary of First Transit.

The drivers are alleging that the company has violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay them required overtime wages. The FLSA mandates that employees are paid at least 1.5 times their regular pay rate after exceeding 40 hours of work in a week.

Carlos Boyland, one of the drivers in the lawsuit, has been working as a bus driver here since 1997. He regularly works 100-hour weeks, but isn’t paid full overtime compensation, according to the complaint. Instead, the company paid Boyland and other unnamed drivers their regular rate and, at times, half their regular rate.

“[The] defendant does not and has not made a good faith effort to comply with the FLSA,” the complaint reads. “[The] defendant knew plaintiffs and the punitive collective worked overtime without proper compensation, and it willfully failed and refused to pay.”

[pullquote-1]

MATA bus drivers have been bringing concerns to MTM management about the failure to pay proper overtime wages for more than 20 years, according to William Ryan, one of the attorneys for the drivers.

“We are hopeful to come to a resolution that fairly compensates these hardworking individuals who work long hours to keep our city connected and accessible,” Ryan said. 

The firm is seeking back pay and liquidated damages for drivers who have been denied overtime pay within the past three years.

Nicole Lacey, MATA’s chief communications officer said the agency could not comment on the allegations at this time, as the litigation is ongoing.

First Transit, the parent company of MTM did not immediately respond to the Flyer’s request for comment.

Categories
News News Blog

Judge Denies State’s Request to Dismiss Voter Registration Lawsuit


A federal judge denied the state’s request to dismiss a lawsuit Monday that challenges a new state law that would put substantial requirements in place for groups that participate in voter registration efforts.

Judge Aleta Trauger for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee said that the lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Tennessee and the Campaign Legal Center and Fair Elections Center, will proceed.

Trauger said the plaintiffs in the case have presented “plausible claims.” She raised many concerns about the law in her decision, calling the law a “complex and punitive scheme.” 

Judge Aleta Trauger

“If Tennessee is concerned that voter registration drives are being done incompetently, it can engage in public education efforts without relying on a complex and punitive regulatory scheme,” Trauger wrote. “If it is concerned that the drives are being done fraudulently — for example, by a person or organization collecting forms and never turning them in — it can punish the fraud rather than subjecting everyone else to an intrusive prophylactic scheme that true bad actors would likely evade regardless.”


One of the judge’s key concerns is the lack of guidance that the legislation’s language offers.

“The ambiguity, as well, places too much burden on individuals who merely wish to exercise their First Amendment rights within the law,” Trauger wrote.

[pullquote-1]

The vagueness of the law leads to uncertainty which is “inherently likely to result in a chilling effect on organizations and individuals who wish to participate in voter registration but who cannot afford to find themselves on the wrong side of an enforcement action,” Trauger said.

The judge also noted that restricting voter registration drives in order to try to preserve election commission resources is “like poisoning the soil in order to have an easier harvest. There is no point in taking a step to preserve resources if, by doing so, one thoroughly compromises the reason that the resources were important in the first place.”

Read Trauger’s decision in full below. 

[pdf-1]

The law in question was signed by Governor Bill Lee in May and is slated to go into effect on October 1st.

Late last month, the ACLU filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. If granted, the injunction would prohibit the state from penalizing those participating in voter registration who don’t meet all the requirements of the new law.

There were 4,872,000 voting-aged Tennesseans, but only 3,183,000 registered voters as of November 2018, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission ranked Tennessee 44th out of all states in the percentage of its citizens registered to vote.


Categories
News News Blog

ACLU Moves to Stop State Voter Registration Law From Taking Effect

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Tennessee filed for an emergency injunction Friday in an attempt to stop a state law that places substantial requirements on voter registration efforts from going into effect.

The law, signed by Governor Bill Lee in May, mandates a slew of requirements for those participating in voter registration efforts and penalties for those who don’t comply. It is set to take effect on October 1st.

Some of the requirements of the law include providing the coordinator of elections with information about any voter drive prior to holding it, completing a training session, and filing a sworn statement stating an intention to obey the laws and procedures pertaining to the process.

The law also creates civil and criminal penalties to groups or individuals who turn in more than 100 “deficient filings.” Groups opposing the law have said it would place “strict, unnecessary, and irrational restrictions” on community-based voter registration efforts.

[pullquote-1]

Soon after the law was passed, the ACLU, along with the Campaign Legal Center and Fair Elections Center filed a lawsuit challenging the legislation in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Tennessee, the American Muslim Advisory Council, the Mid-South Peace and Justice Center, Rock the Vote, Spread the Vote, Central Labor Council, and HeadCount.

The ongoing lawsuit, League of Women Voters of Tennessee v. Hargett, argues that the law violates the freedoms of speech, association, due process, and “the fundamental right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”

Now, the ACLU is trying to stop the law from going into effect by filing a motion for a preliminary injunction. If granted, the injunction would prohibit the state from penalizing those participating in voter registration who don’t meet all the requirements of the new law. Read the full motion for injunction below. 

[pdf-1]


“Civic-minded groups like our clients should be able to help community members register to vote without the threat of being charged with a crime or slapped with an exorbitant fine,” said Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the ACLU of Tennessee. “While this case works its way through the system and we prove in court why this law is unfair and unconstitutional, our clients should be able to help as many Tennesseans as they can gain access to the ballot box.”

Tuesday (today) is the last day to register to vote to participate in the upcoming city elections, set for Thursday, October 3rd. Voters can register one of three ways: online, via mail, or in person. Find more information on how to register here. 

Categories
News News Blog

Tennessee Legislature’s Anti-Refugee Lawsuit Defeated (Again)

CREDIT: Courtesty of U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Courtesty of U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Children line up inside a U.S. immigration detention center.


A Tennessee appeals court upheld a lower court’s decision Wednesday to dismiss a lawsuit by state lawmakers aimed at blocking refugee resettlement in Tennessee.

The Tennessee General Assembly sued the United States Department of State on the grounds that refugee settlement in Tennessee violates the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit alleged that though Tennessee had withdrawn from the federal Refugee Resettlement Program, the federal government forced Tennessee to continue funding the program by “threatening the state with the loss of federal Medicaid funding.” The state said it had to “expend a substantial amount of state taxpayer money” to fund the program.

The lawsuit was dismissed in March 2018 by a federal judge who ruled there was a lack of standing by the legislature to sue on its own behalf and that the state failed to show that refugee resettlement in Tennessee violates the Constitution.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision Wednesday, also stating that the General Assembly had not established its standing

“Accordingly, we do not reach the questions of ripeness, statutory preclusion, or whether the General Assembly stated a claim upon which relief could be granted,” the court’s opinion reads.

[pullquote-1] Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, said she “applauds the Sixth Circuit’s decision, which reinforces that this lawsuit should have never been brought in the first place.”


“What’s more, as a state and as a nation, we value fair treatment of refugees and compassion toward those in need,” Weinberg said in a statement. “Our country has a long tradition of honoring these values through our asylum system. There is nothing more American than allowing people the opportunity to seek safety and to work and care for their families.

“Today’s decision ensures that Tennessee will continue to uphold these important values. We will continue to remain vigilant and ready to act against politicians’ attempts to undermine refugee resettlement in our country.”

Lisa Sherman Nikolaus, policy director for the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, said the legislature used this lawsuit to “stoke fear and division.”

“After two embarrassing defeats in the courts, the legislation must finally put this hateful lawsuit to rest and put our taxpayer resources to better use, such as funding public schools and increasing access to healthcare,” Sherman Nikolaus said. “Throughout the debate around the lawsuit, Tennesseans have shown up to defend the life-saving work of refugee resettlement.

“It is clear that our communities are ready and willing to welcome those seeking safety and protection in our country and will reject efforts by lawmakers to divide us.”

Categories
News News Blog

Groups File Lawsuit Challenging New State Law on Voter Registration


Three groups filed a federal lawsuit Thursday challenging a new Tennessee law that would put substantial requirements in place for groups that participate in voter registration efforts.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Tennessee, Campaign Legal Center, and Fair Elections Center on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Tennessee, the American Muslim Advisory Council, the Mid-South Peace and Justice Center, Rock the Vote, and Spread the Vote.

The defendants in the suit are Mark Goins, coordinator of elections for the state of Tennessee; Herbert Slatery, Tennessee Attorney General; and members of the state election commission.

The law in question, signed by Gov. Bill Lee last week, lists a slew of requirements for those participating in voter registration efforts and penalties for those who don’t comply.

[pullquote-1]

The legislation, HB 1079/ SB 971, sponsored by Rep. Tim Rudd (R-Murfreesboro)  and Sen. Ed Jackson (R-Jackson) includes conditions organizations must adhere to when holding voter registration drives.

Some of the requirements include providing the coordinator of elections with information about the drive prior to holding it, completing a training, and filing a sworn statement stating an intention to obey the laws and procedures pertaining to the process.

The law also creates civil and criminal penalties to groups or individuals who turn in more than 100 “deficient filings.”

The organizations who filed the lawsuit maintain that the law violates the freedoms of speech and association, due process, and the right to vote under the First and 14th Amendments.

“This is a lawsuit challenging strict, unnecessary, and irrational restrictions on community-based voter registration speech and activity,” the complaint reads. “Plaintiffs bring this action to prevent the enforcement of a new Tennessee law that unconstitutionally burdens and chills there core political speech and associational rights.”

The ACLU-TN said Thursday that Tennessee is ranked 44th in voter registration, but that there was a surge in registration during the 2018 midterm elections. The group believes the new law comes as a result of that registration growth and election officials’ lack of resources to handle the influx.

Sophia Lakin, staff attorney for the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project said the legislation is “punishing” civic organizations that advocate for people’s right to vote and that help them do so.

“With its dismal voter registration rates, Tennessee needs these groups on the ground,” Lakin said. “What politicians should be doing is making sure that local election officials have the adequate resources to do their jobs. Silencing civic groups’ voices is not the solution.”

Paul Garner, organizing director of the Mid-South Peace and Justice Center, one of the plaintiffs agreed, calling the law “draconian” and a form of voter suppression. Garner said the law punishes “those that want the democratic process to reflect and represent as many people as possible in communities like Memphis.”

[pullquote-2]

The lawsuit aims to ensure the political participation of all the state’s eligible voters, Hedy Weinberg, executive director of ACLU-TN said.

“Voter registration drives have long been a way for communities that are historically disenfranchises — including students, people of color, immigrants, and senior citizens — to empower individuals and gain access to the ballot box,” Weinberg said.

The League of Women Voters of Tennessee, another plaintiff, has prioritized making sure voters are properly registered and have all the information they need for nearly 100 years, according to Marian Ott, president of the organization.

“Voter registration surges like the one Tennessee saw in 2018 should be celebrated, not penalized,” Ott said. “We saw this law as a threat to democracy and a direct violation of our Constitution.”

The law created the “country’s most aggressive” penalties for voter registration drives, Paul Smith, vice president of the Campaign Legal Center, said.

“If the court does not intervene, the state will unlawfully chill the efforts of organizations working to get people registered,” Smith said. Voter registration drives for years have been a way for historically marginalized groups to empower their communities and gain access to the ballot box. We are taking Tennessee to court to protect that tradition against government threats of fines and jail time.”



Read the full complaint here. 

Categories
News News Blog

Memphis 3.0 Includes Items Opponents Say It Lacks

CREDIT: Facebook- Carnita Atwater

Facebook- Carnita Atwater

Atwater speaks against the Memphis 3.0 plan at a rally Saturday

A lawsuit filed by members of the community caused the Memphis City Council on Tuesday to again delay voting on the Memphis 3.0 plan.

Carnita Atwater, president of the New Chicago Community Development Corporation, told the council that they were being “disrespectful to the African-American community because the 3.0 plan is “blatant racism.”

Atwater and about a half a dozen more attendees at Tuesday’s meeting spoke in opposition of the plan, saying that it was not inclusive.

In a Wednesday press release, Atwater, who is African American said that the lawsuit was filed on behalf of the “impoverished African-American communities that have endured decades of disinvestment.”

“The Memphis 3.0 Comprehensive Plan fails to include any relevant or substantive financial investment in beleaguered African American Communities,” Atwater said. “The benefits of the plan are not inclusive, nor does it address racial equity in a city experiencing selective disinvestment, targeted gentrification, and low-income displacement.”

[pullquote-2]

The lawsuit was filed in federal court Tuesday against the council, the Shelby County Commission, Memphis Mayor Jim Strickland, Shelby County Mayor Lee Harris, and Gov. Bill Lee. The move is meant to stop the city council from voting on the plan.

Atwater’s key argument is that the Memphis 3.0 does not include plans for the New Chicago neighborhood and other African-American communities in the city.

However, the 465-page document does detail improvements for New Chicago, the surrounding North Memphis neighborhood, and other predominantly African-American areas in the city.

Within New Chicago itself, the plan outlines two anchors to be nurtured. The document says nurturing means providing stability to areas not experiencing growth.

Atwater has said that the plan does not give funding to the most “dis-invested in neighborhood in the city.”

But, based on the 3.0 document, anchors to be nurtured will see investments by the city and philanthropies to support improvements.

The first anchor is the intersection of Chelsea and Ayers, where the document suggests creating a garden district with the vacant land there and conducting an urban farming feasibility study.

At the intersection of Breedlove and Firestone, just a half a mile away from the New Chicago CDC headquarters, the plan lists 11 action items.

Some of them include improving the aesthetics of the area, supporting small businesses and community-based organizations and initiatives, identifying funding sources for facade improvements, and conducting an environmental assessment.

Near New Chicago, the crossing of Watkins and Brown is another anchor where the plan looks to support affordable housing, create adaptive reuses for abandoned buildings, and identify alternate uses for vacant land such as urban agriculture and parks.

The other anchors in North Memphis include Jackson and Watkins, Chelsea and Hollywood, Jackson and Hastings, and the Douglass Park Area.

Finally, for the entire North Memphis district, the plan indicates a slew of issues that need to be addressed, such as the need for a full-service grocery store or other ways to access fresh foods, improved sidewalks, additional bike lanes, and other infrastructure improvements.

In South Memphis, another area of the city largely populated with African Americans, the plan lists six anchors to be nurtured and two to be accelerated, or boost existing changes in the community.

Those anchors include Mississippi and Walker, Third and Belz, Elvis Presley and Alcy, and Soulsville.

[pullquote-1]

Actions for this district touch on affordable housing, neighborhood beautification, as well as improved public parks, sidewalks, and accessibility. Like North Memphis, accessible fresh foods is also a priority in the plan.

Read the priorities for each district here beginning on page 243. 

Atwater also expressed concern Tuesday about how the plan will gentrify African-American communities, while displacing communities of color and “forcing them out of the city of Memphis.”

Beverly Clay, who is African American, is another opponent of the plan. She said Tuesday that the 3.0 plan has “obvious omissions of our areas” and that it is “inexcusable.”

Supporting the plan Tuesday, Roshun Austin, president of The Works CDC in South Memphis, said the plan is a “map and a guide, because it provides us with what’s here today and suggestions for a brighter future. “

“It does not dictate the route we will take to get to our destination,” Austin said. “It does not detail all of the opportunities or encumbrances.”

Gary Rosenfeld, president and CEO of the Memphis Area Transit Authority, also spoke in support of the plan Tuesday, saying that the plan has “already demonstrated its ability to have a positive effect on our community.”

Ultimately, the council decided to delay the first of the three votes on the plan for two weeks to allow the council attorney Allan Wade and city of Memphis attorney Bruce McMullen to review the lawsuit.