Sam Goff – Memphis Flyer

UPDATE: Chancellor Kyle issued a temporary injunction against spending of public money, pending an opportunity for him to study the parties’ respective briefs. He will reconvene the case on Tuesday at 10 a.m. DETAILS TO COME

An emergency hearing has been set for 4 p.m. Friday in the courtroom of Chancellor Jim Kyle to hear a request by a group of plaintiffs for a temporary restraining order and injunction against the expenditure of $30,000 to 40,000 in taxpayer funds by the Memphis City Council to advocate publicly for the passage of three referenda on the November 6th ballot.

By a vote of 5 to 3, the council passed a previously unannounced add-on resolution by Councilman/County Commissioner Edmund Ford Jr. on Tuesday to provide the sum for “a public information campaign concerning the referenda” to explain their “potential benefits to the citizens of Memphis.” After passage, the council hastily voted for a “same-night minutes” process to safely embed the vote in the permanent record.

The referenda, which have been and remain controversial, ask voters to nullify previous actions approved by the city’s electorate — including a two-term limit for mayor and council members, which would be increased to three terms, and the repeal of a prior referendum calling for instant runoff voting (IRV). Another referendum proposes to nullify the district-runoff provisions of a 1993 court decree.

The request for injunction alleges that the expenditure of public funds for such a one-sided propaganda campaign would constitute “distinct and palpable injury” upon the “general citizenry.”

The plaintiffs also allege that the council’s action lacked proper mayoral authorization or opportunity to veto and that state law does not authorize the use of public funds to advertise on behalf of either side of a ballot referendum. The request for declaratory judgment further states that emergency judicial action is needed to forestall the proposed advertising campaign because voting on the aforesaid referenda is already under way.

Plaintiffs are Erika Sugarmon, John Marek, Sam Goff, and Save IRV, Inc.

P&H

The Memphis and Shelby County Land Use Control Board (LUCB) voted 9 to 1 Thursday on a new Midtown development that Matthew Edwards, one of the owners of the P&H Cafe worries could potentially hurt his business.

Developers 1544 Madison Partners want to construct a four-building, gated apartment complex close to the P&H, between Madison, Court, and Avalon. Because the developers want to gate off the complex, including an alley that P&H-goers often travel down, Edwards believes this will limit access to the bar.

“We’ve been working on the business, trying to keep it up and build it up,” he said ahead of Thursday’s meeting. “And for it to just be shot down, or shut down is kind of frustrating.”

Edwards adds that the issue is not with the development itself, but with the gate around it that would restrict accessibility.

“That’s the balance that we often have to deal with in the world of planning.” Don Jones, with the Office of Planning and Development said.

But developers said they’ve altered their original plans to only close parts of the alley and to also include turnarounds to help traffic flow better.

[pullquote-1]

Edwards’ other key concern is how the development would affect parking availability for P&H customers. The cafe’s rear parking lot on Court would be “rendered useless,” while some of the on-street parking spots on Madison will be eliminated to make way for the apartment entrances, Edwards said.

He said his patrons will likely have to compete with visitors of the complex for the remaining street parking.

“If we’re losing street parking, and we lose our actual property parking, then are we going to have to move?” Edwards said. “Or are we going to lose business or go out of business? You don’t know what’s going to happen.”

Parking will especially be scarce on nights when shows are scheduled for the P&H, as well as both the event venue nextdoor at 1524 Madison and Minglewood Hall, which is directly across the street. This is already an issue, Edwards says, recalling last weekend when cars lined Madison in both directions during shows.

Garbage pick-up, fire and police department access, and noise complaints are other concerns of Edwards.

One building of the proposed development is planned to go directly against the P&H’s building, and Edwards said this could present a noise problem.

Development plan

“We have comedy shows and we have bands, and sometimes the bands get loud,” he said. “These people know they’re moving in with a artist, music venue right next to them though.”

The P&H is not the only business likely to be affected by the development, Edwards says. Closing off the alley will also limit access to the many-decades-old carwash between Avalon and Willett, next to the large vacant lot.

“This could shut them down,” he said.

Thirteen people spoke in opposition to the development at the board’s meeting ahead of the vote.

One of them, Sam Goff, president of the Evergreen Neighborhood Association said he is not opposed to the project, and that any concerns he has would be allayed if a parking study was done prior to construction.

Others, owners of surrounding businesses, including the carwash and a recording studio on the south side of the street, expressed similar concerns about parking and traffic flow on Madison.

Owner of Cotton Row Recording said this development could make the street “musicless,” as musicians will likely struggle to find parking with enough room to unload large equipment.

An online petition opposing the plans was recently launched by Edwards’ business partners and so far has received more than 1,600 signatures of support.

Across the road, owner of Minglewood, Trey DeHart, has a different outlook than Edwards on their potential neighbor. He calls the development “a great idea.” With plenty of parking for his patrons, DeHart said he doesn’t expect the complex to have a negative effect on Minglewood.

[pullquote-2]

“Any kind of growth is a good thing, especially places to live and that bring people to the area,” DeHart said. “So I welcome the new neighbors.”

The development plans still have to be approved by the Memphis City Council before the developers can move forward.