"There's no point in making a good argument when the body hearing that argument doesn't understand it."

Frequent readers know that my colleague Bluegill's thoughts are periodically lifted from the "comments" section to the marquee. Such is the case today. Refer to “Heart of Darkness: If Not for Me, This Could Be Us” for context.

----

As the Highwayman wrote, other than documenting Council Members' inadequacies, there's no point in making a good argument when the body hearing that argument doesn't understand it and has no inclination to learn.

Anytime anyone in the city tries to push for improvement that requires Council approval, even if it will save or make us money in the long run, they're met with disdain by at least three and sometimes more members of the Council, none of whom have yet to provide a sensible alternative plan for solving what they agree are problems.

Everyone in the city (municipal departments, constituents, developers, etc) legitimately trying to do a good job soon learns that Council involvement makes accomplishment more difficult and often impossible. Your reward for reaching out to the Council is to be publicly flogged by a group of angry, illiterate men who lack the capability to even identify success, let alone encourage it via intelligent investment.

Re: incentive pay system

Gee, you'd think a group of men with 50 years of financial "watchdog" experience between them may have come up with something like that by now, you know, as a means of asking the tough questions and all.

The idea that a group who makes no effort to hold themselves accountable (redistricting, comprehensive plan, rumormongering) is somehow suddenly going to develop an effective strategy to demand accountability in others doesn't offer much hope. In fact, they're currently using tax dollars to fend off a lawsuit rather than even trying. I wouldn't be surprised if more suits were on the way. They're deserved.

You want building inspection accountability? Provide inspectors a checklist of items to be inspected at each property and a digital camera. Require them to take a photo of each item inspected whether they approve it or demand corrective measures. When they return to the office at the end of the day with their inspection reports, it would take very little time to transfer the photos into a database or a folder with the properties' addresses attached.

That would prove that they're actually doing the inspections, serve as a visual record to resolve disputes, provide an objective measure of performance, and limit opportunities for corruption. Cost to the city? Less than $1,000.

Want an inspector just to handle rental properties? Set a fee structure that would pay for it. A single inspector checking three properties a day (two hours at each location and a remaining two hours each day to file reports and photos) could inspect 750 units in 50 weeks a year.

At a $60 average per inspection (hardly a burden on landlords once every couple of years), that inspector would generate $45,000 in fees each year. That would just about cover a $35,000 salary and benefits, the amount the city pays inspectors.

The current inspection system is dependent on citizen complaints and costs us money each time an inspection occurs. Mandatory rental inspections and an appropriate fee structure would guarantee that more buildings get inspected at no or substantially reduced cost to the city.

Could the Building Commisioner or Mayor's offices work on implementing these systems themselves?

Photos? Yes. Rental inspection? No.

As the fiduciary body of the city, does a responsible Council sit on its hands and wait for them to do so voluntarily?

No.

Has famed building expert and Commissioner basher Larry Kochert been advocating for such an accountability system for building inspections?

No.

Such a system would mean he'd have to back up his rants with objective information rather than innuendo. I've heard him drone on about the Building Commisioner numerous times but none of those grandstands were supported with specific examples of wrongdoing and, if they were, neither he nor the Building Commissioner could prove their respective positions.

It's OK for Kochert to blame the Commisioner for the Commissioner's shortcomings if he can quantify them. It's not OK for Kochert to blame his own shortcomings on the Commissioner.

Has self-described hero to the poor and taxpayer advocate Steve Price ever brought similar rental inspection ideas to the table under the guise of helping the poor, saving money, or both?

No. That would require a pencil and the ability to draw a line between dots. The problem with those country songs is that one line has to be followed by another, rhyming their way to resolution.

Nashville is safe for now.