Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Deep Thought
Assuming that May Town Center proponents are right and development of Bells Bend brings jobs and property tax revenues, during future economic downturns will those same proponents argue for relaxing proposed conservation restrictions in the name of protecting MTC jobs and increasing revenues even more? Would it not be better to protect the Bend's pristine environment now so that the jobs vs. environment card never has to be played to leverage more smog-yielding sprawl in the future?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Actually, May Town Center developers have designed it to be the nation's only fully LEED-certified community. It uses form-based code, which means it is designed to human scale, and it is green in every way, setting local and national precedents in farmland creation, land conservation and environmentalism. May Town Center represents the largest private land conservation in the city's history, FOREVER setting aside more than 900 acres for conservation and providing a fund for area landowners to set aside even more. Also unlike any other development in the region, May Town Center is specifically designed so Nashville doesn't have to choose between growing crops or growing its tax base because they will, again, by design, co-exist with unprecedented harmony.
ReplyDeletePreconstruction concepts are always this kumbayah, and the dream of harmony tends to end when the dump trucks start rolling and green gives way to brown (in both land and air).
ReplyDeleteThe Bend already enjoys "farmland creation, land conservation, and environmentalism," does it not?
It bears noting that the proponents keep addressing the debatable lower threats to land, but won't touch the issue of auto emissions and traffic congestion caused by bringing higher density car culture to the Bend. More cars in Scottsboro/Bells Bend will mean more a bigger carbon footprint that will offset any proposed gains made by LEED, minimalist farmland promotion, and conservation of land already distinguished as flood plain. How come proponents keep failing to provide an alternative transportation concept to conventional car transit? Why so silent about MTC's promotion of perhaps the greatest cause of environmental degradation?
Claiming that MTC represents the largest private land conservation in a community that devalues conservation is not saying much, is it?
The claim that MTC will "FOREVER" set aside acreage for conservation is misleading and borders on being vicious. All you have to do is look around at the way Nashville is zoned and re-zoned to know that "FOREVER" means nothing without some state action to protect the entire Bend. Doug Henry's current bill to put every plot in the Bend under conservation restrictions is a good start. Not permitting a bridge will also put us closer to "FOREVER" setting aside the Bend for conservation. The Bend's own environmental conditions already promote conservation.
The lone argument against MTC being thrown around is 'land conservation' and saving the city through agribusiness. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who would deny the value of conservation. This arguement is something that is only yelled from the 'roof tops'(as is now) when it is convenient for someones' personal agenda and when forced upon someone else.
ReplyDeleteMost voicing their opinion the loudest are those willing to take others to task for anything that is news worthy, headlines grabbing.
There are many positives to the co-existence of land conservation and MTC in Bells Bend.
s-town, are you one of those who cry 'foul play' with the addition of Tennessee State University into the picture?
Why is it that Senate Bill 2217 and House Bill 2361 are good stewardship of BB while TSU Agribusiness and a Research Facility is filthy political maneuvering.
There seems to be an "equality" issue here!
That's not the only argument leveled against MTC. The question of practicality has been raised: if it is going to take 15-20 yrs to build in a declining car transportation economy, how can we be certain that we will even be competing with CoolSprings by the time it is finished? The question of the economic viability of Downtown has been raised: why drain jobs and resources from the Downtown we already have? The question of good management of extant resources has been raised: why mar agricultural land when there are urbanized & brownfield parcels across Davidson Co. that could be used? The question of taxes and tax breaks has been raised: why should we commit more Metro and state revenues to the maintenance and upkeep of new utility, road & bridge infrastructure (and what amounts to a May family FONCE scheme) in tight budget times?
ReplyDeleteThe TSU donation is both a bribe to get more support for MTC (otherwise that card would have been played during Planning Commission meeting) and artificial cloning of rural life that already exists. Moreover, TSU's conserved land is on flood plain, which would not have been developed mixed-use anyway. The legislation protects the rural life already there from both sprawl and choking, smog-producing auto traffic.
Again, MTC proponents, please answer the traffic congestion/pollution question rather than ignoring it. The only concession your side can make to car-choked roads is not to build bridges and roads to support MTC. But then you lose MTC, don't you?
What person chooses to go into profession not to make money. ANYONE blasting another over making money is 'jealousy,' to money or success.
ReplyDeleteHow easy it is to condem developers for errors in judgment three and four decades, past. The first discussion on the building of a bridge into Bells Bend was 20-30 years, ago.
I do agree that other means of transportation into and out of the area besides by single-car drivers is over-looked. It should be part of the over-all mass transport planning of Middle Tennessee.
It is recorded in the "History of Northwest Davidson County", written by John Graves, that residents along Old Hydes Ferrry Road and Old Hickory Blvd. felt looked at as second-class neighbors when it came to public services to the area. A recent TSU alumni news letter stated, "This collaboration will serve as the "long-awaited" catalyst that will allow the North Nashville community to "participate" in the economic benefits of our region."
The TSU proposal has two parts. One part using the land you mentioned, but fail to mention is currently usable as a sod farm. It is capable of profitable output, as it would be if left as other farm land. The second part is a Center for Agricultural Research, and contain an endowment of a chair of excellence.
I ask again, "why are the actions of one side smell like a 'skunk' when the actions on the opponent side so 'squeaky-clean?"
The bills Senator Henry and Representative Moore are direct shots at MTC, but with Bells Bend residents paying the price. Those(S-townMike) not living here are willing to "throw us to the lions", because they do not lose anything.
ReplyDeleteIt has a nice sound, RANRA, but most do not understand the senarios that hurt BB property owners. State legislation should not supercede local zoning.
There are reasons this designation (RANRA) has been around for years, but no other areas Tennessee are designated as such. Originally, there were three areas of Tennessee written into the bill, but two have been pulled out due to complaints and fear of having unconstitutional parts to it.