We are publishing this open letter on DoBetterNashville.com because our repeated correspondence with Nashville's city leaders has failed to produce clear answers or a resolution for our community. After more than two years and three completed petitions, we are putting the unanswered questions directly before the public.
We appreciate the Nashville Scene covering our parking situation. But the article does not press hard enough on the contradictory instructions, broken assurances, and lack of follow-through residents have experienced.
In the news
The central question remains unanswered: What happened to our original 2024 application, and why have other neighborhoods, including neighbors on our own street, received approvals while our case remains unresolved?
We're honestly impressed the Scene got a response from Terry Vo. Did they promise her an Instagram post? We've delivered three completed petitions and still can't get a clear answer. Apparently, getting quoted is easier than getting involved.
Our community at 807 18th Avenue South has spent more than two years following the city's instructions. We have collected signatures, delivered paperwork, attended meetings, and repeatedly sought help.
NDOT recommended approval. The Traffic and Parking Commission deferred the application for 30 days. We subsequently received communication saying signs were coming.
They never arrived.
What happened after that deferral? Was the application brought back for consideration, denied, withdrawn, or closed? Who made that decision, and where is the record?
Before asking residents to restart, the city owed us a documented explanation of what happened to the application already before it.
Instead, we collected and delivered two additional completed petitions. Three submissions in total. Our latest secured 86.8% support among eligible residents, exceeding the 75% requirement we were given.
There is no unfinished petition on our end.
We completed those additional submissions because officials kept directing us through the process. Our compliance does not explain or excuse the city's handling of the first application.
We are asking the city to account for that original case and restore it for consideration. If the city maintains that this cannot happen, it should identify the decision or rule supporting that position.
Terry told us the program was "on hold," but we received no formal notice explaining who imposed it, how long it would last, or how it affected our existing application. She continued requesting our third petition, which we completed and delivered.
Now the Scene reports that she supports the moratorium.
Terry, why were you continuing to request another submission without first resolving the status of the original one?
What was that additional submission supposed to accomplish under the hold? Why were residents left to piece together the process from emails and newspaper coverage?
Please identify the official action establishing the moratorium, its effective date, and the basis for applying it to our original request.
A pause in 2026 cannot explain what happened after a 30-day deferral in 2024.
Other neighborhoods, including neighbors on our street, have received residential parking approvals. We deserve a documented explanation of why those applications reached a different outcome.
Were those approvals granted before the pause? Did different rules apply? Were exceptions available? What criteria distinguish those locations from ours?
The dates and rules matter. The city should provide them so residents can assess whether the process has been applied consistently.
Terry's comments about free parking and additional vehicles do not answer these questions. We have repeatedly said we are willing to pay for residential permits.
A discussion about future pricing does not explain why signs were promised, why the original application was not resolved, or why residents were directed to submit two more petitions.
She says she supports our petition. What has that support accomplished?
From our community's experience, her stated support has produced no meaningful help in resolving this situation.
You clarified that the commission deferred our application rather than approving it. We accept that distinction. Now explain what happened after the deferral. Correcting our terminology does not resolve the city's unfinished business.
Have you obtained a written determination of the original application's status? Have you sought its return to the commission? If an additional procedural step is required, who must take it?
You have an opportunity to demonstrate your support through documented action. Identify what you have done, when you did it, and what response you received.
The commission record quoted in our correspondence identifies you as providing background on our application at the April 8, 2024 meeting. What additional information was required after the deferral? Who was assigned to provide it? Was it supplied, and where is the resulting record?
That same record identifies you as clarifying the applicable criteria. Please explain the criteria governing our application at that time, whether the city's determination changed, and the documented basis for any change.
Who was responsible for tracking the deferred item and returning it for consideration? If the people named above did not hold that responsibility, identify who did.
Residents should not have to investigate the city's internal assignments to find out what happened to their own application.
The city-issued permit followed by a $75 ticket deserves scrutiny as well. The city attributed the permit to an administrative error. That acknowledges a failure. It does not explain how the system issued an invalid permit, how affected residents were informed, or what prevents the same mistake from happening again.
We believe residents were misled. The communications and records deserve examination to establish how and why.
The Scene captured our frustration and published officials' explanations. But the published reporting did not resolve these contradictions or establish whether the explanations account for the record.
Giving officials an opportunity to respond is necessary. Pressing them to explain the evidence is just as necessary.
A future study may improve parking policy. It cannot account for the city's handling of our original application or replace an answer about what happened to it.
We have worked hard to engage with anyone willing to listen. We appreciate the officials who reached out and offered assistance. Yet here we are, more than two years later, still asking basic questions.
We are done sending the same appeals and hoping another email will produce follow-through. The petitions are delivered. The questions are documented. It is shameful and deeply disappointing that residents must work this hard to get straightforward answers about a parking process.
We will be meeting as a community to establish our next steps. We invite the officials addressed in this letter to participate, hear directly from residents, and help deliver a solution.
That invitation includes you, Terry.
We have lost confidence in your handling of this case. You have an opportunity to show up with answers and help bring the original application back for a decision.
If you dispute our account, identify the specific statement and provide the record that corrects it. If the process failed, explain what you will do to resolve it.
Leaving these questions unanswered will leave your public claim of support without the evidence of follow-through our community has repeatedly requested.
District 17 deserves accurate instructions, written decisions, consistent rules, and representatives who can show what their involvement has accomplished.
You have explained your philosophy on parking. Now explain your record on our case.
A 30-day deferral deserves a documented outcome. More than two years later, Nashville still owes our community one.
807 18th Avenue South
Do Better Nashville