Metro Council Approves Historic Zoning Overhaul and Fusus Camera Guardrails After Marathon Meeting

The Metro Council passed two of its most disputed measures in a session that ran nearly five hours on Tuesday night, March 18. One reorganizes the staff that supports historic zoning, and the other sets rules for a camera monitoring network known as Fusus. Each drew hours of debate and public comment.

The first ordinance places the staff of the Metro Historic Zoning Commission under the authority of the Metro Planning Department. It passed 24-11-1. Councilmember Emily Benedict, the bill's sponsor, said the proposal was partly a response to state legislation that could curb the power of local historic preservation bodies.

"This bill reorganizes the Historic Zoning staff," Benedict said. She argued that historic voices should work alongside planning staff as the city grows, and that the two groups currently operate in a siloed relationship. "We've seen the state take away control of so much. We can't let them do that here," she said. Advocacy groups including the Preservation Society of Nashville and Historic Nashville Inc. backed the measure.

Many opponents who spoke during public comment said the bill had been rushed through the council and would strip the commission of its autonomy. They also contended that it favors downtown businesses and would not prevent development in neighborhoods.

Councilmember Clay Capp voted against the bill, saying he worried the council was giving in to pressure from state lobbyists. If a bill filed at the legislature can be used as a threat to force local action, he said, the council would be signaling to every lobbyist in town that filing one is all it takes to get what they want from Metro.

The second measure adds guardrails to Fusus, a surveillance system that would let the Metro Nashville Police Department access businesses' private security footage, with the owner's consent, to respond to calls for service. Mayor Freddie O'Connell supported the guardrails. A similar effort failed before the council by a single vote last year, but this time it gained eight additional votes and passed 28-7-1.

Much of the debate repeated earlier meetings. Opponents described the cameras as government overreach and said they could target marginalized communities. Councilmember Sandra Sepulveda, who spoke against the bill, said the discussion felt as if people were speaking "two different languages." Others were talking about property, she said, while she was focused on people, adding that she would put her most vulnerable constituents above property.

Another central worry among opponents is that Fusus could store or track data. O'Connell has repeatedly said it does not. Councilmember Bob Nash, who has supported the bill from the start, repeated that message. "We're not creating any new data of any sort," he said, describing the system as collecting pictures when someone commits a crime. He said it reveals nothing about a person's immigration status or sexual preferences, and called it "just a photo of a criminal leaving a business."

Approval of the guardrails does not finalize the program. An official contract with Fusus must still come before the council.