It's getting redundant and unoriginal, and it's not clear that he is able to get past his own self-imposed blinders. The middle ground in Lawson's harangues seems to be whereever he chooses to stand (but not too far from developers) rather than in the real center equally distant from inordinate neighborliness and from absolute growth.
I've engaged him directly on several occasions. No matter how many cases running counter to the Lawson meme that I've given him, he chooses to ignore examples that refute his prejudice about neighborhood leaders.
In today's column he even goes so far as to blame organized neighborhoods for the lawyers and PR pros whom developers hire, as if developers are above striving for a competitive advantage on their own. And that is the flip side of his prejudice: he puts developers above reproach and writes as if they are entitled to reputations they have not yet earned as builders of great neighborhoods, instead of opportunists interested in more than just making a fair profit. One bad monolith bequeaths another.
In the end, Lawson dusts off and retreads the balance in which all of us who are not
What neither they nor Richard Lawson seem to understand is that our neighborhoods are the only lever that many of us have. And what they misjudge is the community's capacity to compromise without bending over to service their desires. They have blinded themselves to those possibilities.