And We Should Take the Time to Do the Work Rather Than Developing Quickly

Richard Lawson seems to be discouraging us from even considering mass transit solutions in connection to May Town Center:

While opponents to May Town Center worry about the risk of development to taxpayers, public transit clearly would require taxpayers to dole out some cash .... Then there are the developers. You might be able to convince some of them to pay for a bridge, but good luck getting them to pony up for public rail.

But Lawson draws a faulty connection between the costs of sewer, water, and other utility infracture (which would benefit smaller numbers of people in the immediate location) and light rail systems (which would benefit a wider range of Nashvillians).

Developers are probably only willing to pay for bridges, because they are short-term solutions compared to mass transit systems which have long-term impact: they both take pressure off the environment and make all of those jobs MTC is supposed to create more accessible to prospective employees.  The short-term interests of developers are not sufficient reasons in and of themselves for Nashvillians to support MTC without accommodations made in light rail and greener technologies.

Lawson also calls mass transit initiatives the "cart" before the auto culture's "horse." A more apt metaphor for the internal-combustion-oriented MTC development would be the "horse and buggy," as in "high energy prices and deteriorating sustainability are rendering our unfettered car culture as obsolete as the horse and buggy." The idea of expanding mass transit before allowing sprawl in America's last urban farmland is not "cart before horse." It's more like an idea whose time has arrived. Those like Lawson who keep promoting car culture in the name of new urbanism are quickly falling behind the curve.


UPDATE: Richard Lawson comments below that I totally read the opposite meaning of what he intended in his column.

Risks of Public-Private Development Partnerships Materialize

A 1,700 acre mixed-use development campus outside of Austin, TX, dubbed "Wildhorse Ranch," sits in limbo as promised economic development remains unrealized. Over 700 acres of the proposed development are in bankrupcy proceedings, and the only parcels under contract (about 300 acres) currently have no definite plans.

The public tax dollars invested in the project--those subsidies that developers say they need to make their dreams happen--are going wasted and the concept languishes without any firm direction. It's also privatization run amuck:

• More than a year the state built a massive toll road on promises of development, no development has occurred
• The city of Austin agreed to reimburse developers up to $30 million for water and wastewater improvements under the assumption that the subsidies would promote growth
• A major wastewater facility has already been built at Wildhorse by the project's original developers, and so far they have been reimbursed about $3 million; there are no Wildhorse utility users to pay fees to the facility

The original master plan called for 5,900 homes, but that number was increased to 7,000 when the original developers sold to a new development group, which ran out of money before anything could be built.

It is clear that if the dreaming schemes of developers can easily get ground down by the vagaries of reality, and taxpayers should be cautious about handing their money on the front end to private companies with no guarantees. There is no telling how much money Austin and Texas are going to lose down this public-private sinkhole. And the developers and the tolling corporations have no accountability to taxpayers.

Is Gary Odom Going to Build a Bridge to May Town Center?

Michael Cass points to some rather interesting connections with a big Tennessee bridge-building company, the State House Majority Leader, and the May Town Center proposal. Democrat Gary Odom laughed at the suggestion, but we'll see whether he, Bell and Associates, and the May family might be laughing all the way to the bank.

At the risk of being further accused by a local party wonk of assuming that those who disagree with me must be bought off by big corporations, I would argue that we should be questioning Odom's acceptance of Bell and Associates largess and the possible sweetheart deals that they get in the future, including state approval to build a bridge to Bells Bend to support MTC. Or we can just pretend at our own peril that there is no connection between campaign funding and sweetheart deals that lead to the systematic destruction of greenspace and local communities.

Downtown Anemia

Condo towers or ghost towns gated communities?

Anything But Fair

According to Rob Robinson, it's time for the state fair to go. I agree and I think the old fair grounds would be a great place for a mixed-use, high-density corporate campus.

MTC Critics Elevate the Level of Debate

If you haven't had the opportunity to read some of the impressive debate over at PiTW on the May Town Center proposal, here are some highlights.

First, David Carlton asks that we not restrict the meaning of "economic development" to the pro-MTC side's narrow definition of luring corporations:

Might I suggest that a truly broad discussion of economic development should break out of this box by which "economic development" means "How can we get some big corporation to move here from somewhere else"? It reminds me all too much of traditional southern economic development strategy, which basically runs to "We don't really know how to create an industry ourselves, but we can locate some industry that's already created and promise them that they can do the same thing at a lower cost here--usually because it's a sufficiently mature industry that it doesn't need a lot of specialized support, which we can't offer them in any case." Usually, lower costs mean "cheap workers that won't cause any trouble because they're grateful for anything they can get," and "cheap government that will starve public services that don't directly benefit the business." I frankly think this sort of economic-development musical chairs [We grab from Memphis, Charlotte grabs from us, etc., etc.] is going to run up against serious limits. How about trying something like Silicon Valley's been doing for years--assemble a terrific human capital pool that'll go out and invent *new* industries? That's the role that cities have historically played in economic growth, and it typically requires, not self-contained corporate campuses that only need a freeway to the burbs and an airport, but a concentration of creative people--like we have in Music Row. Otherwise, Nashville is only a high-class version of Martin or Lawrenceburg--enticing other communities' businesses to move here, only to see them move elsewhere in response to even lower costs or even bigger bribes [How deep is Bud Adams's commitment to us? Yeah, right].

Another commenter underscores Richard Lawson's lack of evenhandedness in criticizing the Planning Commission for addressing the very economic criteria used to make the developers' case to them:

[I]f a project is going to be touted before the MPC as the silver bullet for economic development and tax revenue, then how is it inappropriate for planning commissioners to bring up the economic foundations of this project?

Furthermore, the commissioners themselves weren't the first ones to tiptoe into this territory. If you'd read the subarea plan, then you'd see that it's actually Bernhardt and the planning staff who set the precedent for being armchair economists. How city planners get to make suppositions about economic development -- that's the real question.

The sign of a small mind is someone who only sees the world in black and white (cue GW Bush). Like most issues, there's a world of gray in between the two sides on this one. Not all developers are evil; not all neighborhood types are NIMBY commies. If you did a little investigating, you'd see that many of the people who are concerned about this development -- from Dave Cooley to Mark Deutschmann -- have worked for (or are) developers themselves.

Isn't it possible that people are concerned with this because, well, it's just a sucky idea?

HT: Ben Poremski

Oy Vey

The City Paper cannot wait to pave over Bells Bend and they want to sell you their heart-tugging phantasm sans the slippery slope that leads to the development of every square inch of rural greenspace that doesn't sit on flood plain. It still looks like a MetroCenter do-over to me.

The New Scene Managing Editor Had Me Worried at First

Pete Kotz had me worried as he began this afternoon with an homage to Southcomm reporter Richard Lawson, but he finished strong with a critique of the concept of May Town Center and its disasterous implications for articulating a post-sprawl culture. If Mr. Lawson didn't expend so much ink shilling for developers, then I might agree that he deserves an homage or two. He may indeed be the kind of business reporter that Mr. Kotz claims. I can't tell for all of the apologetics he writes on behalf of development and for his unsubstantiated insinuations about community leaders who advocate balance in growth.

How Much Longer Is This Guy Going To Get a Megaphone?

Southcomm reporter extends his personal war in print against neighborhoods, the Planning Commission, and anyone else who stands in the way of his obsessed mission to whip popular opinion against true conservation of Bells Bend and for sprawl and uneven, car-culture growth.

Rex Puts on White Coat, Goes Double Blind, and Accuses Commissioners of Not Being "Empirical"

Richard Lawson surfaced again this week in all the chicken-hearted pseudonymity of "Rex and the City" accusing the Planning Commission with making its Bells Bend decision based on economic development rather than land use reasoning. The Chatterbox failed to mention that the entire case made against the Scottsboro/Bells Bend neighborhood plan and for the Planning Department's alternative (which would all but assured wins for May Town Center) used economic development as the lure for Planning to vote their way.

So, it's perfectly fine in Lawson's mind for Tony Giarrantana to use economic development in arguments to the Commission for killing the neighborhood plan and allowing sprawl on the Bend, but it is illegitimate for the Commission to defer the alternative on the same grounds? Sounds to me like the pro-development reporter arbitrarily cherry picks the reasoning to serve his situation. The logic is also tortured by the reporter's failure to stipulate precisely where land use ends and economic development begins; perhaps, that's a shifting goal line, too. The whole idea that a biased journalist makes appeals to the paid-for "empiricism" used to justify growth without recourse to community character or to truly independent study is itself hilarious.

Commissioner Questions Objectivity of Southcomm Reporter's Impressions of Commission Meeting

Planning Commissioner Stewart Clifton commented thusly on Enclave:

Here is Richard Lawson's article in the Citypaper followed by my slightly different take.
--Stewart Clifton

Planning commission passes on May decision
Deferral leads to different interpretations from backers, opponents
Email Print By Richard Lawson

08-14-2008 7:58 PM —
The Metro Planning Commission tonight approved a detailed community plan for the Bells Bend area but deferred indefinitely its alternative design portion, which basically would encompass the proposed May Town Center.

Opponents saw the vote as a victory and an opportunity to eventually kill the idea, which calls for 550 acres of mixed-use development. Developer Tony Giarratana, the consultant to the May family, said the delay provides more time to answer questions and put to rest misconceptions about the proposal.

Even though the alternative design area doesn’t specify May Town Center, all comments were directed at the proposed $4 billion project, which is still in the rezoning process.

The discourse from the commissioners proved interesting as several seemed to go beyond the role of land-use planning to take on the responsibility of economic development.

Commissioner Hunter Gee, whose day job is director of community planning for architectural firm Looney Ricks Kiss, questioned why corporate campuses need 20 to 30acres.

Janet Miller, the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce’s economic development chief, told commissioners in a community planning meeting that companies looking to relocate wanted such campuses.

“This is not a judgment statement — it is neither right or wrong — but corporations have made the choice more often than not to locate into a corporate campus suburban setting — like a Century City office park … much more often than they opt for a downtown or WestEnd/Gulch location,” she said in remarks.

Gee, however, said this should be looking forward instead of backward to Cool Springs as competition. With gas prices and the lure of downtown cultural activities as well as housing, corporate executives opt to live close to where they work, he said.

“So perhaps we find in 20 years that corporate campuses aren’t desirable,” Gee said.

Gee and others noted the need to focus development on existing infrastructure instead of an area where new building is needed.

Former Councilman David Briley, a lawyer representing opponents of May Town Center, after the vote noted that developer Bert Mathews just rezoned 180 acres in Donelson for a mixed-use development named McCrory Creek Business Park.

Briley said Mathews should go first. Asked whether Metro should be favoring one developer’s plan over another, Briley said, “Yes.”


stewartclifton@comcast.net States:
Posted on 8/14/2008 9:12

Interesting, Richard. I was there and my impressions are a tad bit different. It is almost like you intentionally but clumsily strung together several odd items to try to favor one point of view over another. I have no interest in discussing the relative merits of the Maytown proposal but your review of what happened today deserves some response.

Many thoughtful comments were made by councilmembers and Commissioners in well over one hour of discussion. You reported almost none of these. As to this characterizing editorial quote from your article, -- "the discourse from the commissioners proved interesting as several seemed to go beyond the role of land-use planning to take on the responsibility of economic development . . ." -- I would point out that the Maytown proposal has partly been pitched to the Planning Commission and others as economic development and tax revenue heaven. And yes, planning involves evaluating land use considerations but also environmental concerns, sustainability, and evaluations of possibly hyperbolic claims of economic development and tax revenue heaven.

As to who won, of course no one won or lost in terms of the Maytown proposal since the Commission deferred, but surely you know that the Maytown advocates at the last minute specifically and strongly asked that the detailed neighborhood plan be deferred. Not one commissioner favored that suggestion.

As to invoking the Chamber, that seems an odd item to inject today since the Chamber has no position on the proposal and since the statement was not made at the Commission hearing today.

As to your final point, you apparently are trying to tie a lawyer for persons opposing the development to what you apparently think will come across as an unfair favoring of one developer over another. Perhaps your readers would benefit from knowing the following. Yes, the Commission approved the McCrory Creek business park a few months ago. It was essentially zoned for the planned use, while Maytown is not. McCrory had the support of the council and most neighbors and businesses, while Maytown does not. And finally, we have a longstanding principle that already zoned but under-utilized land should be developed before rezoning other land. Not a bad planning principle actually.

CM Blogs Open Letter to Constitutents on Bells Bend Development

CM Emily Evans acknowledges that some of her constituents were present at the Planning Commission meeting tonight as she was, and she wants them to understand what her obligations as their elected representative are:

Since the May Town project, which proposes to host about 40,000 people during the work day, would be about 3 miles from my district, I think I have two obligations in this debate. First, I need to ask as many questions as I can with the goal of seeing that the concerns of my constituents are addressed. Second, I need to keep an open mind as those answers unfold and reserve judgement on the project until all the facts, such as they are, come in.

That second one may be particularly challenging, given her observation that many seemed solid with the "Bells Bendians."

Fight the Hijackers

Enclave commenter and President of the Donelson-Hermitage Neighborhood Association, Susan Floyd, treats tonight's Bells Bend victory as Reveille:

As a neighbor who watched the SubArea 14 Plan Update for our community hijacked before its adoption in 2004 in order for a huge non-conforming development to be approved, I can identify with the struggle that the Bells Bend neighbors have been battling. I applaud the efforts of the residents of Bells Bend who have worked so hard to protect the vision for their community.

Citizens from neighborhoods across Nashville should stand up for the residents of Bells Bend, and for any neighborhood whose SubArea Plan is threatened by development that destroys the vision of the people who actually live in the community.

As residents of Nashville, we cannot wait until the bulldozer is at our own back door before we ourselves take action. When one SubArea Plan is compromised, all of our Plans are in danger. What happens to one of us, impacts all of us.

Remember, resident citizens have to fight battles like this to protect the vision for our communities on a regular basis. Residents have to win the battle every time. Developers only have to win once.

If you have not already done so, make your voice heard to the powers that be. As neighbors, we stand stronger when we stand together!

Planning Director Rejects Blog's Claim That He is Giving Up Planning's Alternative

Rick Bernhardt rejected Matt Pulle's conjecture that his scheduled NY trip with several Bells Bend residents to a rural conservation retreat signals a softening of his support of Planning's alternative high-density vision for rural Bells Bend:

I am sorry to disappoint Mr. Pulle. The staff recommendation has been published, is sound and will not fundamentally change. I believe that the staff recommended policies are the best and most appropriate means to balance the long-term environmental and economic interests of the entire community. However, the final decision on the future of this area will be made by the Planning Commission and the Metro Council. Regardless of the decision, the opportunity to learn from the Adirondack Institute and apply the lessons learned there to this situation or other areas in Davidson County is appropriate. The goal of preserving the Scottsboro-Bells Bend corridor is important and at the core of the policies of the plan amendment.

Is there really balance in a proposal that claims to conserve 900 acres, a huge swath of which is floodplain and would not be even if it weren't conserved? That's protection from convenience rather than bold, yet balanced environmentalism.

Lawson Gets in Touch with His Inner Joan Baez

Almost predictably, Southcomm's May-Town-Center-apologist-on-staff is giving voice to 30 shadowed Benders whom he insinuates were arbitrarily excluded from the public hearing on Planning's alternative (which would have paved the way for the May Town Center development). So, I guess we're supposed to conclude that all of those MTC opponents who arrived early, claimed a spot on the agenda, and spoke in favor of the neighborhood plan don't count because the a few others lacked initiative to "come from the shadows" and get there first.

Planning Commission Passes Bells Bend Neighborhood Plan w/o MTC-Friendly Alternative

Commissioners support Bells Bend neighborhood by passing their plan and indefinitely deferring the Planning Department's alternative, which would have allowed bridges and urban developments to sprawl across the Bend.

This is exactly they way the Commission should have voted: in support of the neighborhood with a grow-slow approach to development. Erring on the side of caution, environmental sensitivity, and local determination was the wise course.

Planning Commissioner Calls for Independent Study of Bells Bend Proposal

Just tuned into the Metro Planning Commission debate on the Planning Department's alternate proposal for development of Scottsboro/Bells Bend that would open the door to May Town Center. Reading from prepared remarks, Commissioner Hunter Gee said that he would vote against the Planning recommendation, and he asked that if the Commission deferred, it should commission independent impact studies to be performed. The Planning Department should have already commissioned these studies. Planner told Commissioner Victor Tyler that impact studies are conducted once the May Town Center developers submit their proposals rather than conducting them during the "larger policy discussions" of Planning's alternate proposal. To me that's the cart-before-the-horse approach.


UPDATE: Commissioner Tyler says he likes the plan, but he thinks it needs more discussion.


UPDATE: Commissioner Stewart Clifton says that the May Town Center developers are asking for a deferral on today's Commission vote.


UPDATE: CM Jim Gotto says that he does not want any Davidson Co. taxpayers to bear any risk for the development. He says that it is a good idea to take more time. Says he doesn't agree with the charge that the developer took over the process. Wants an indefinite deferral and rejects CM Lonell Matthew's call for a year deferral.


UPDATE: Commissioner Phil Ponder calls for adoption of the neighborhood plan (supported by the neighborhood) and for an indefinite deferral on Planning's alternative. Says that there is no I-65 to help May Town Center out like there is with Cool Springs.


UPDATE: Commissioner Judy Cummings disagrees with the claim that Bells Bend is the only development-worthy area. She feels there are other areas that could be redeveloped that would provide places that businesses would want to relocate to. Believes that May Town Center would attract people away from Downtown. She is concerned about the environmental impact. She criticized Metro Planning's unrealistic support of urban development without plans to widen Old Hickory. Supports the neighborhood's plan with an indefinite deferral of Planning's alternative.


UPDATE: Commissioner Tonya Jones calls the alternative "half-baked."


UPDATE: Commissioner Derrick Dalton is not convinced that the alternative plan won't take away from Downtown. No MTC proponents have convinced him otherwise.


UPDATE: Commissioner Andree LeQuire wants to know what its going to cost if the MTC idea does not fly. She moves that the neighborhood plan be adopted and the alternative be deferred indefinitely.

Tennessean Investigates Pavers on the Road to Hell

Michael Cass explores all of the good intentions behind sprawling on to Bells Bend including the May family's unreliable guarantees that development will both begin and end with May Town Center.

If conserving most of Bells Bend is a good thing, why is conserving all of it not the best thing? Or to put it another way, if Metro allows bridges and developments to happen on part of Bells Bend now, what's to keep future developers from asking Metro for future exceptions to the conservation zoning the Mays intend for the green spaces now?

May Town Place looks like the first nibble in a sustained line of death-by-nibbles. Money is not the savior. Airtight, ironclad conservation restrictions are.

Are They All the Same to Rex?

I'm going to have to watch the tape of last week's Metro Council debate on the Bellevue TIF--which devolved into incremental suck-ups--again, because the Southcomm snoop dog fingered CM Erica Gilmore as one of guilty parties shamelessly lobbying for TIF funds for development. I'm certain that I would have remembered CM Gilmore, since she is, after all, my representative.

Rex calls out three I do distinctly remember: Sam Coleman, Robert Duvall, and Buddy Baker. The only other CM that I recall lobbying for subsidies for her developers was Pam Murray, whom Rex omits. Rex may be confused by the fact that both CM Gilmore and CM Murray are African American women from north Nashville districts, even though both have very different backgrounds and records on the Council.

It would be one thing for the casual observer to confuse Gilmore and Murray, but for a paper that claims exhaustive coverage to make the mistake is embarrassing. Rex increases the confusion with a rhetorical question that references part of Murray's district but omits any part of Gilmore's:

If Bellevue Mall is blighted and deserves such a favorable tax break deal for a private developer, then what about Nolensville Road or Dickerson Road or the Hickory Hollow Mall area?

Rex is conveniently anonymous, but one can easily surmise that its contributors on council development matters are at least reporter Nate Rau and probably editor Clint Brewer and development chatterhead Richard Lawson.


UPDATE: The online edition has been corrected.

Beautiful Weekend to Visit Bells Bend Park

In a recent comment over at Urban Planet, a May Town supporter suggested that more people needed to be visiting Bells Bend Park and that allowing the urban-density May Town development would increase visitors. He was only correct that more people should visit the park. So, I got my family up this morning, we stopped and had breakfast at Muddea's Chicken and Waffles, and drove out to the park. I came back with a few photos.











I can tell you this right off: the commenter was wrong about the park being idle and the parking lot being empty. In fact, there were a few cars in the lot while we were there and including us, we counted 8 visitors (and 4 dogs) either at the Nature Center or on the trails. We were very pleased to find the Nature Center open today, and the very helpful staffers told us that the numbers of park visitors were increasing as time went by and as temperatures moderated.

The commenter was also wrong in saying that lower numbers of visitors justified sprawling on Bells Bend and building a bridge so that more people can get there. That means that the park only exists for the convenience of larger numbers of more undisciplined people. If folks want to see the wonder of a remote green space and they are willing to act on their own self-initiative, why do we need to risk spoiling its beauty and its character by putting a second downtown and ensuing traffic gridlock right next to it?

While the Nature Center is closed on Sundays, it is open every Saturday from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. (and on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons). They have fun Saturday events scheduled for kids of all ages the rest of the month of August, including a Summer Wildflower Hike on Aug. 30 (9-10 a.m.--for more details e-mail bellsbend@nashville.gov). You should do yourself a favor and visit Bells Bend Park one of these weekends. We should all support this environmental gem.