Draft Ballot - Email Correspondence Page 1 Draft Ballot From: Anna Maddux Date: June 25, 2026 at 2:46:47 PM CDT To: Tom Bauer Cc: Jeff Preptit , Claire Gibson , Jan Read , daviddeeb@icloud.com, amy leonard Subject: Re: Draft Ballot Jeff, Tom, Claire, Jan, and all, I want to respond to a few specific claims in the note from Tom, Claire, and Jan, because I think they deserve a direct reply before we move on. On yard signs as evidence of majority support: driving around the neighborhood proves nothing. Yard signs are not a vote. And to be fair, a quick look around makes clear that more than two-thirds of yards have refused to display them - which, if we’re using yard signs as a measure of sentiment, tells a very different story than the one being presented. They tell us who has a sign, not how the 124 affected property owners would actually cast a ballot on a binding land-use question. We should be careful about treating visibility as a proxy for majority opinion when we haven’t yet conducted that vote. On the claim that this represents majority opinion: the most accurate data point we have is the SurveyMonkey poll. By Councilmember Preptit’s own account, 26 people responded yes - and those were the qualifying votes. In his words: “The more accurate filtered down numbers are that 26 people voted yes - and these were the qualifying votes. So filtering down, these are the most accurate from the SurveyMonkey poll. So of those, 26 people responded yes.” - Councilmember Jeff Preptit, interview with Alex Pemberton, June 1, 2026 (Full interview: https://alexaustinpemberton.com/journalism/veneers-of-history/preptit-interview-v1.0.pdf) 26 qualifying yes votes out of 124 affected homes is not a majority opinion. It is 21% of affected property owners. That is the factual baseline from which any claim of majority support needs to be measured - not yard signs. On ballot format and options: I want to address the request to remove the contextual overlay option from the ballot directly. There are three options available to this neighborhood: the Historic Neighborhood Conservation Zoning Overlay, the Contextual Overlay, and no overlay. Every property owner affected by this decision deserves to know every option and understand how each one affects their property before they vote. Presenting only one option on the ballot is not giving the neighborhood a voice - it is narrowing the question to produce a preferred outcome. That is not a neutral process, and it is not what residents deserve. I also want to address the framing in the proponent letter that asking for an accurate ballot and complete information amounts to “kowtowing to a loud and angry minority.” No one here is loud and angry. These are property owners who have lived in their homes for 10 years, 20 years, and even more, who have been unwillingly thrust into an event surrounding their home, property, and investment. Truth, accuracy, and fairness is due to everyone. Asking for a complete ballot and time to let residents make an informed decision is not obstruction. It is the minimum standard for a process that will result in permanent land-use restrictions on our neighbors’ properties. Draft Ballot - Email Correspondence Page 2 The neighborhood should absolutely get to speak. Let’s make sure they’re speaking on a complete, accurate ballot - with all three options, correct information about what each means, and the time to understand the choice they’re making. One final point on process: the proposed sequence of canvassing, then vote, then meeting has it backward. For many residents, this will be the first meaningful outreach they have received on this issue. They deserve the opportunity to ask questions and hear answers before their ballot is due - not after. A neighborhood meeting should come before the vote, not after it. David, Amy, & Anna Green Hills East Steering Committee Members On Jun 24, 2026, at 5:34 PM, Tom Bauer wrote: Jeff: The proponents representing the majority opinion are losing patience. The most recent ballot and cover letter that you have shared are ambiguous at best. Any tally taken from it will be challenged by the losing side, most likely successfully. A clearly written ballot ONLY on the Historic Neighborhood Conservation Zoning Overlay is the logical format. Throughout this process, the pro-Historic Neighborhood Conservation Zoning Overlay group has continued to work transparently and in collaboration with you, despite the continuing delays and setbacks. We have been honest, positive, and dedicated to preserving our neighborhood, and yet we seem to be punished over and over for that behavior. The majority of our community is clearly behind this effort. Take a drive through the neighborhood and you’ll see by the sheer number of yard signs the support for the Historic Neighborhood Conservation Zoning Overlay. The continued kowtowing to a very loud and angry minority is beyond frustrating. The delayed August 7 ballot postmark date is also disappointing. After the last neighborhood meeting, you committed to completing this process this year. With this latest delay, that promise is now in jeopardy. We know that you understand that the issue at hand is whether the neighborhood supports the designation for which we have already been found worthy - an Historic Neighborhood Conservation Zoning Overlay. Once that is determined, if the neighborhood does not meet the established threshold, or then if not approved by planning and council, the neighborhood can then consider other options. Also please note that the nomenclature has not been accurate. It is an Historic Neighborhood Conservation Zoning Overlay and a Contextual Overlay (not a Contextual Design Overlay, because the contextual designation does not have design guidelines.) As neighbors and community members, we are asking you to stop the delays and take leadership of this process - approve a ballot ONLY on the Historic Neighborhood Conservation Zoning Overlay, send it out for a vote and allow the neighborhood to speak. We ask that you incorporate the items requested in Jan Read’s note on June 17, 2026 in response to your email/draft ballot + cover letter on June 16, 2026. When that is completed, please send for review and approval. Otherwise, we remain in dispute of the documents provided. Tom Bauer, Claire Gibson, Jan Read Green Hills East Neighborhood Steering Committee Members Draft Ballot - Email Correspondence Page 3 From: Preptit, Jeff (Council Member) Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 5:51 PM To: Claire Gibson ; Tom Bauer ; Jan Read ; daviddeeb@icloud.com; amy leonard ; Anna Maddux Subject: Draft Ballot Hey everyone, Please see the attached latest draft of the ballot. I want to make sure that the language is clear and that we get a comprehensive understanding of what the neighborhood wants. I believe that latest language is clear and that the ballot is significantly more simplified than previous versions. As always, I welcome input and will finalize this, and other materials, this week so that we can move forward with canvassing following the 4th of July holiday. If you would like to receive my newseletter, you can sign-up at this link. Jeff Preptit District 25 Council Member 1 Public Square, Suite 204 Nashville, TN 37201 615-942-0857 This email was sent for official government purposes and is intended only for the addressee’s use, and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, reproduction or use of the information contained in this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender by reply email.

Reportar conductas abusivas

Detalles del documento PDF

Información de contacto

Draft_Ballot_Email