The Chatter Class: May Town Center opponents positioned poorly

Monday, July 7, 2008 at 3:11am
Opponents to the proposed May Town Center project in Bells Bend must realize this battle is not a political race.

Opponents to May Town Center may have a tough time winning.

They persist in fighting the massive proposal in Bells Bend as if it were a bare-knuckled cage match instead of world championship chess match.

It’s not that the opponents haven’t tried to elevate the discussions to a broader one about the city’s future. They have argued that Bells Bend is the largest remaining rural area in Davidson County.

As part of their argument, they have made the point that the city should focus on urban growth while creating a rural conservation district.

Opponents are trying to raise $150,000 to battle the clearly well-funded May family. Resident Ellen Jacobson has made a pitch with help from the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility in that effort.

In that pitch, one purpose for the funds is an “independent economic analysis of the proposed development to disprove the developer’s claims and estimate the true tax-payer costs.”

If such an analysis were done, that would not be defined as “independent.”

A truly independent analysis wouldn’t have the primary objective of disproving the developer’s own analysis. They need an analysis of the economic impact of both converting the property to a conservation district as well as developing all of the available urban property in the city.

Additionally, this isn’t a political race where one side tries to bring down the other by discrediting them with whisper campaigns about potential failures or past problems. From the very start, the Mays along with their consultant, developer Tony Giarratana, have made the top-level pitch that the project would help the city with jobs and tax revenues.

And now, the developer has a new brochure that outlines the benefits of doing the proposed project. The developer already has made one concession, moving the bridge over the Cumberland River.

In that brochure, the developer deals with one point of the opponents, that the property is the last green space in the county. Calling that a myth, the developer points out that there are more than 100,000 acres zoned for agriculture.

The Mays’ property on Bells Bend is about 1 percent of that, with 900 acres preserved for a park. According to the brochure, the park would be the third largest in the county.

But a bigger point is the taxes that their development would generate. Currently, the property generates $28,763 annually. If built out under existing zoning, the taxes would go to roughly $800,000 per year.

With the development, the developer estimated that the tax bill would rise to $50 million to $100 million annually.

Since the city is strapped right now, that’s a pretty strong point and one that could be tough for opponents to overcome without offering a viable solution.

One problem is they think they’ve already offered a solution. But arguing for a conservation district and urging the city to focus on urban growth is only half an answer. They haven’t presented an option that would be as financially appealing to the city as the proposed development.

This is not to say that protecting agricultural land is a bad idea. There has been plenty of former farmland chewed up by development. Look at the outlying counties. Homes, warehouses and retail centers sit on a lot of former farmland.

But there are economic ramifications for limiting growth by protecting farmland. There are environmental and economic ramifications for sprawl.

It’s a matter of understanding all of the issues and attempting to achieve some sort of balance.

With the May Town Center proposal, the Mays have the upper hand in a certain respect. They own the property for their proposed development, unlike with many proposed developments where the developer can walk away from an option on the land.

The family wants to rezone it so mixed-used density can be built on a portion of the acreage. Basically, they want to increase the zoning.

With what the opponents want, the city would have to down zone property owned by the Mays. The Mays aren’t likely to agree to that.

As it stands now, just keeping the zoning already in place, the Mays could build about 665 single-family homes.

If the Mays can’t do what they have proposed, they will sell the land to someone else. The next developer may just build the homes with little consultation with the neighborhood people. There would be little that opponents could do.

Metro paid $12 million for the land that now makes up Bells Bend Park, and the city is not in the financial situation to buy the land from the Mays.

The May Town Center opponents would need a buyer to step up and buy the property from the Mays, then perhaps put it in a land trust so that it could never be developed.

The opponents could try convincing the Mays that putting the property into a land trust themselves would be substantial tax benefit for them. That probably won’t work either.

Otherwise, the opponents could try raising a lot more than $150,000 and buy the property themselves.

Filed under: City Business
Tagged:
By: dogmrb on 12/31/69 at 6:00

Will all the Mays move to May Town Center? That might help the worried neighbors.

By: Yangtze on 12/31/69 at 6:00

Being a resident of Bell's Bend for 40+ years myself, I enjoy the ability to live in a city as vibrant as Nashville, but sleep in a bed that my closest neighbor is over 200 feet away from me. Matter of fact, I can't even see my neighbors' houses in the Summers.While I enjoy this aspect, I wouldn't mind seeing some growth. The biggest BONUS to the May's Center for my family would be the future running of sewer lines in the area. This has been the biggest deterrent to growth in the area.Metro Codes require a house with a septic tank to be built on 3 acres of land. This prevents developers from coming in and over-populating the area. You cannot make any money building one house on 3 acres. Many subdivisions around town are 3-4 houses on 1 acre.While I would enjoy the continued peace and tranquility, I see benefits on both sides of the development

By: satalac on 12/31/69 at 6:00

Very good article Richard. There were many good points that were made and have yet to be addressed by the opposition of May Town Center. Thank you.

By: nashbeck on 12/31/69 at 6:00

Great post Yangtze. I have my sympathies for the residents, but after reading articles on Nashville's tight budget, and since I hate seeing rural areas in the surrounding counties being developed by urban sprawl and those counties receiving the revenues, I would really like for Nashville to get the tax benefits from this development and start reading that DAVIDSON COUNTY is finally getting a lot of corporate headquarters. Thank you May family and Tony Giarratana!!

By: girliegirl on 12/31/69 at 6:00

Problems is: housing construction is at a crawl now. There's no demand for new housing, and we can't sell what' out there, so why in the world would you want to offer housing as a possibility. First you need infrastructure, and that will come from the developer, if you're lucky. You're going to need a mix of commercial and residential out there. Period.

By: Time for Truth on 12/31/69 at 6:00

Projected income as benefits are always just that-projected. Just as with the Music City Center hotel tax income, the numbers here on projected sales tax income are skewed to suit the project's viability.Yangtze should know that the building of the bridge and the running of sewer lines-which should be paid by the developer but likely will be dumped on the taxpayers- will result in a domino effect and he may well be looking out his window at a condo tower ten years from now.

By: girliegirl on 12/31/69 at 6:00

Actually, Time, hubby's clients do pay for the sewer,and some even have to pay for LONG a$$ connections, (as they should) to allow for the accessibility. And....environmentally speaking, it'd be better if they had sewerage (as hubby calls it) than if they continue the use of septic systems.

By: grapa on 12/31/69 at 6:00

Thanks Yangtze, it is nice to hear from others in 'The Bend'. I too see the need to have organized development proposed by the May family, which was not offered by Mr. Z. No one has mentioned the improvements Old Hickory Blvd. is in need of. The road is too narrow, does not fit Metro requirements, the road is curvey and holds tractor-trailers and a heavy boat traffic to the river. The project construction would require a large work force(jobs), which would mean housing and building supply businesses, small business owners, minority business owners(economy and banking) and gas stations and diners along Centennial Blvd. would see an increase in busiess(money flow). We all know that when construction prospers it helps the community prosper.

By: potsticker on 12/31/69 at 6:00

Satalac posted projected revenue from the development that are nonsense. The consultant that provided the data admits the numbers were essentially pulled out of thin air. This city should demand an accurate and unbiased economic analysis before commiting millions of tax payer dollars to create the massive infrastructure this development will require. MTC is patterned after Reston Town Center. Folks should know that there were multiple failures in Reston and the place nearly tanked. As one Bells Bend local declared months ago, "It is all made up to look real pretty but when it comes down to it, it's a big mess."

By: evilj on 12/31/69 at 6:00

I asked several questions the other day that also went unanswered. The May Co talks about job creation and tax revenues, but what of the revenues of Nashville West shopping center? It will invariably decline as May Town Center opens. And these jobs...are these jobs given to people who were unemployed prior to May Town Center being built? Are they new jobs...or just the same jobs moved to a new location? Nashville does not need another BS strip mall with the same cookie cutter BS stores. We have plenty of shopping options already. This about more than just the dollar. It's about preserving our heritage. Bells Bend is a slight glimpse into what Nashville used to be, and that should be preserved.One other questions I asked last week was important...what is more attractive to a real estate market? Rolling hills, babbling brooks, old growth trees, eclectic wildlife, peace...quiet...OR loud traffic, concrete, fast food chains and close proximity to cheap Chinese made crap? Which scenario sounds more appealing to you?

By: topthinker on 12/31/69 at 6:00

The "economic analysis" by these perimeter city proponents was created out of thin air: I've seen their powerpoints. We have had NO analysis AT ALL of infrastructure costs, or the benefits of a conservation district, which are real, in dollars--though not close to the $500,000,000 these folks plan to pocket out of this proposed $5 billion dollar concrete monstrostity. The planning commission staff told the neighbors that Metro was never going to do any financials--they are depending on the developer's. What this development says is that concrete perimeter cities (ok, surrounded by grass) are great, that our downtown doesn't matter, that moving 40,000 workers a day across a single bridge is a fine idea, that destroying a unique neighborhood is a really good concept, and that not having any idea of the costs is even better, and not planning to actually look at taxpayer costs would be superb. Let it be done!And, by the way, NO part of Davidson County is zoned "agricultural". Aren't you guys supposed to know about this stuff?

By: RIchardLawson on 12/31/69 at 6:00

There's at least 600 acres zoned AR2A on Bells Bend... In fact most of it is. AR2a (agricultural, requiring a minimum lot size of 2 acres and intended for uses that generally occur in rural areas, including single-family, two-family, and mobile homes) That looks like agricultural to me. That's directly from the city's property maps as well as the definition.

By: satalac on 12/31/69 at 6:00

Potsticker, those numbers I posted were from the other article. Why wait until now to talk about it? Besides, people asked for where Tony was getting his stats from and I provided. I wouldn't call them nonsense. Provide your own statistics before you pass them off as nonsense.And notice you said that Reston Town Center nearly tanked. You know what intrigues me? The word nearly. Reston has proven to be quite a success. And of the mistakes? Well Tony G. wouldn't possibly think to learn from someone else's mistakes would he?And evilj, why must you make May Town Center sounds like a Turkish Bazaar is going to be put right in these people's back yards? And about keeping a slight glimpse of what Nashville used to be? There is a difference between utter destruction of our past and thought out progress (yes, even in a national economic slump, Nashville is still growing). Why are people acting like if this southern tip of Bells Bend is developed (while the rest is saved from future development) Nashville will have no more trees? No more water. No more wildlife.Do I support conservation? Yes. Which is why I support May Town Center. It will provide 800+ acres of untouched land, encourage more to live and work within the city limits (less pollution), and also provide more tax dollars (yes, the city will actually make quite a bit on taxes) to provide more education and services in the protection of our city's natural environment.And finally to Topthinker, where may I ask would you build a campus style office building downtown? Any thoughts? One reason Cool Springs has attracted so many businesses is due to the fact of what it offers. The truth is that businesses prefer the campus style office space layout. Downtown does not offer this currently. Would I be thrilled if more businesses were downtown? Of course I would. But in reality, that's not how it works at the moment.

By: potsticker on 12/31/69 at 6:00

Perhaps the issue is one of semantics. Although most of the property in the Bells Bend area is zoned AR2A, the fact that it allows 1 house to be built on every 2-acres means that it would look like West Meade if developed. This is hardly agricultural land use. This zoning does not encourage agriculture, it encourages development. There is no land in Bells Bend (or probably within Davidson County for that matter) that is truly designated as agricultural and zoned in a manner that would encourage this type of land use policy. During sessions with the planning department, Bells Bend residents requested that zoning be changed so that agricultural land use would be encouraged and high density housing would be discouraged but they were told this was not possible. When Bells Bend and Scottsboro citizens assert that this area is the "last green, undeveloped area in Nashville

By: satalac on 12/31/69 at 6:00

Why do I keep hearing the argument that Bells Bend is the last greenspace in Nashville. Am I the only one who knows about the 10,570 acres of parks inside of Davidson county?

By: RIchardLawson on 12/31/69 at 6:00

The land out there still has been farmed though. At any rate, the point is the conservation argument isn't good enough to win. To sit back and say gosh folks should just get it, is naive. That has to be more.

By: TNReader on 12/31/69 at 6:00

potsticker, so you don't care about the May's property rights? You would have the city take away their permitted uses. Do you propose to compensate them for the lost value to the property if you "protect" it, or is it just their tough luck? I suggest that if you want to "protect" the land, you and your buddies buy it from the May's and donate it to the city for a park. The old put your money where your mouth is!

By: evilj on 12/31/69 at 6:00

Some people "get" conservation. Other do not. Some people love money...some people love trees. I have found it nearly impossible to talk someone out of their love for money.10,570 acres is nice, but nearly half of that is the Warner Parks...the rest split up in small parcels...and many of those acres are golf courses.Every year the EPA comes out with it's dirtiest air lists, and Nashville is always near the top...yet every year we build more and more minimalls and create more and more traffic snarls...then complain about the bad air and traffic next year. But we love money...and will sacrifice traffic and air to get more money and spend more money. So sad. Can't you just be content with what you have? Why do you constantly want more more more?

By: potsticker on 12/31/69 at 6:00

Satalac: There may be 10,570 acres of parkland in Davidson County but that is not the same as a conservation district where public and private land co-exist. The Bells Bend Land could be used for outdoor recreation and agriculture - land uses that would generate income for the city while also improving the quality of life for our citizens.Richard Lawson: Why is the "conservation argument" not good enough? For every argument in favor of covering the land with concrete and asphalt, I can give you 2 more in favor of keeping it green.TNReader: One thing the May family could do is to forgoe putting more money in their pocket and donate the land to the city of Nashville, get a huge tax break and have their family name forever associated with something that improves the health and quality of life for Nashvillians for generations to come. Another option is for the May family develop the land in a manner that is consistent with the Detailed Community Design Plan the Scottsboro Community created with the planning department from September 2007-June, 2008.

By: TNReader on 12/31/69 at 6:00

The Mays should be allowed to develop the property to the maximum permitted use that current zoning allows. The question for debate is whether it is in the best interest of the city to rezone the property to increase density in some portion of the property while leaving a significant portion of the property untouched. It apparently is the opinion of several posters here that there should be no compromise and the May's property rights should be taken away and the entire property left untouched.An alternative for you guys is to form a Friends of Bells Bend nonprofit, raise money, and buy the property and donate it to the city like the Friends of Warner Parks is doing with the Hill property.

By: satalac on 12/31/69 at 6:00

evilj, you did not read my whole post. Do you not realize that more and more of these business parks are being built further away from Nashville due to lack of campus style business space? THAT is where most of the pollution is coming from. This isn't just about some mini-mall. This is about a self sustaining mixed use area that can actually combat pollution due to less traffic going to places like Cool Springs. You can't just come out, put aside some land and call yourself a conservationist. You have to actively adapt to the situation at hand. Do you know how much money I am likely to see out of May Town Center? Probably none. I'm not an investor, banker, store owner, business executive or any of those people who would profit off of something like this. I see this as chance to help Nashville grow in an intelligent way, both fiscally and environmentally. So are my wants based on money? No. They are based off of a better quality of life for ALL of Nashville. potsticker, if the opponents wanted parks in Bells Bend, don't you think they would have done that by now? Plus, we're not even talking about their land. We are talking about the May family's land. The actual owners of the property. This is nimbyism at it's worst. And Richard Lawson is right when he said the conservation argument is not good enough. If it was there would not be any talk of May Town Center being built. You have to look at the reality of the situation. So far their argument has proven weak and they need to find something else in order to stop the proposal.

By: evilj on 12/31/69 at 6:00

Percy Warner is a name that we all know...why is that? Is it because of what he did when he was alive? Nope...it is what he did when he died. The May's have an opportunity to do what Warner did postmortem...yet they will be around to enjoy the fruits of their donation.Satalac...you are still focusing on money. Tax revenue generated by business campuses. All the money in the world pales in comparison to a healthy stretch of green grass. Legacies are made from doing the unusual...going against the grain. The May's can do just that right now if they wish to. Solidify their family name in the lore of Nashville for centuries to come.My cat is licking my wrist as I type...so sorry for any typeo's. Now she's licking my nose.

By: satalac on 12/31/69 at 6:00

I can understand your position evilj, but on the same note, what good is it if those green spaces are choked in smog? What May Town Center brings to Nashville is an attraction to companies to bring their business closer to the city core, thereby reducing traffic and it's pollutants. May Town Center will also guarantee land to be used in a way that you are talking about. 800+ acres is quite a large untouched greenspace that will be guaranteed. I find the proposal to be quite a good compromise of growth and conservation. Btw, Warner parks were named because both Percy and Edwin Warner were park commissioners. Did it help that the land was donated by a family member? Well of course, but it wasn't just because they died.

By: nashbeck on 12/31/69 at 6:00

Satalac- great posts. I hope May Town Center is developed.

By: grapa on 12/31/69 at 6:00

Nothing fits better into the category of "multi-use" for land use than the MTC proposal. developers have shown good 'vision' when looking toward the next decade and beyond. The MTC will actually halt further 'city' development in the Scottsboro direction with conservation stipulations tagged for neighboring land and further to Beamon Park. It will aid the residents of Scottsboro in their vision of a 'Leipers Fork' community around the intersction of Old Hickory Blvd. and Highway 12.The deer will remain, the the turkey will roam our country-side and the heron and crane will continue on their yearly flight from Wisconsin.I wake each morning seeing the sun rise over the Cumberland and I watch as it sets in the West, again over the Cumberlnd as the river flows around our farmland each day. These will not change with the development of the MTC, but life in our city will be better served with it's existence.

By: evilj on 12/31/69 at 6:00

How will MTC benefit you? Other than having cheap Chinese made crap close by for you to waste money on? And cheap fast food for you to get heart disease and diabetes from? How does that benefit you? And don't say tax revenue...because Nashvillians aren't going to all of the sudden have more money to spend on these types of goods and services...they will simply spend them at MTC when they would have been spending them at Nashville West or some other stupid mall. MTC will not increase tax revenue...it will simply move it. 3 card Monty anyone?

By: satalac on 12/31/69 at 6:00

sigh....can we just play rock paper scissors evilj? haha.

By: evilj on 12/31/69 at 6:00

I'd rather play RPS than 3 card monty...at least I'd have a 33% chance at winning.

By: Time for Truth on 12/31/69 at 6:00

I find it amusing that the same people who yell "property rights!" when a developer has an option on some land scream "move over, obstructionist" when someone doesn't want to sell.

By: Time for Truth on 12/31/69 at 6:00

satalac, there is nowhere that the word 'conservation' is defined as 'opening up land for high ensity development'.Do you work for Big Tony? I appreciate what he's doing downtown (except for the overpriced parking lots) but I don't see this being a smart move now. Especially if the taxpayers have to pay for the bridge. And maybe a new Elementary School, where infill would justify a rehab of unused MNPS facilities. Remeber folks, new homes COST existing taxpayers and the May Town website certainly won't tell you that.Grapa, all those construction jobs will be temporary and unless you are bilingual you will not be able to converse with most of the people who get those jobs.

By: satalac on 12/31/69 at 6:00

evilj, you think we can talk both parties into a tournament? You did mention doing something unusual and going against the grain. ;) Could you imagine that? "I can't believe we can't build it. WHY DID I THROW ROCK?!!"Time for Truth, we can say property rights because, and this is the kicker, the May family owns the land. About your feelings of conservation, do you not believe in long term results? If we sit idly and let more and more of these business parks build outward, you're not going to want to go outside and enjoy the outdoors. Unless you plan on placing a giant clear dome over Bells Bend, it still receives the same pollution that the rest of Nashville gets. No, I don't work for Tony. I do support most of his projects though(he better get working on Signature! haha) I've never said that May Town Center was perfect however. There are things that I would add to it, such as you mentioned, schools, but I would also include the infrastructure for a light rail line. When May Town Center is built, I would love to see a line running from downtown to May Town Center. Possibly even one from the Bellvue area. I know those are pipe dreams, but I just wanted to illustrate that I believe the project is not perfect. The tax issue, you are right about. It will probably end up costing the taxpayers. That is until you figure in the money that it will supply in it's own taxes. You have to take that into account. Yes, we will probably pay for the bridge(with tax dollars we're already paying). Yes, property taxes will probably rise a bit. But what about all the tax dollars that the project will provide to the city? You seem to always discount that. Why?

By: potsticker on 12/31/69 at 6:00

I appreciate all of the thoughtful banter about this topic and I'm glad people are truly THINKING through these difficult issues. The positive thing that has occured as a result of Tony G's proposed monstrosity is that the city of Nashville is now forced to decide which is more important: More urban sprawl, more damaged watershed with toxic runoff, more pollution, more houses, retail shops, etc. or, the benefits of green space (which are too numerous and time consuming to list right now). One last word (a long work day awaits so this is the last post for now) - the May family purchased this property knowing full well that the development they propose would be strongly opposed by the Bells Bend Community. They also knew the property is zoned AR2A which would allow ~600 homes to be built. They took a BIG risk when they purchased it, the city owes them nothing and the community owes them nothing. The real issue Nashville must address is the inherent and lifelong value of land preservation versus the all mighty $$ and shortsighted benefits thereof.

By: grapa on 12/31/69 at 6:00

Time for Truth and others who see the glass as half empty when looking at the success of the MTC. This is a long range project with a 2026 finish date. I do not call two decades and more to be a short period. The snowball effect will reach many different areas of the economy of Nashville and the region. We are fortunate that some take off the blinders and can see visions of what the future could be. With the corporate campus comes high end jobs and professionals who will want to live near their work place. You will not see a Dollar General or Everything for $1 placed in MTC. Property taxes have to come before a public vote and I do not see that many will freely support such a move in these times. Other revenue 'Has to Come' from the private sector before you and I get relief. Opponents continue to harp on one point and not offer viable alternatives. What they propose will see no economic benefit for the people of Nashville. Of 6,000 acres in Bells Bend we talk about approximately 1/60 of the total area.

By: potsticker on 12/31/69 at 6:00

The MTC development would take up only a percentage of the area but with the MTC development would come the ultimate rape and and miles around. It would sow the seed of demise for the entire Northwest Davidson county sector as urban sprawl filled in everything from Downtown to MTC. What a shame. What a loss. How sad.

By: satalac on 12/31/69 at 6:00

potsticker, you can't use the slippery slope argument that May Town Center is going to cause a rape of Northern Nashville. Explain just how that would happen. And do it using May Town Center as the culprit.

By: potsticker on 12/31/69 at 6:00

Satalac, can you give me one example of anywhere in this country where there has been a development of the magnitude of MTC, plopped down in a cow pasture, that has not led to "infill" and sprawl? Look at Cool Springs. That was all farmland until the original development was created and then concrete and asphalt spread like a cancer. With MTC as the "culprit

By: RIchardLawson on 12/31/69 at 6:00

Wow ... I couldn't get back to this immediately. The column goes through why the conservation argument alone isn't good enough. There has to be a financially beneficial alternative. I drove out there today just to look again. It's interesting that the folks against the development live about as close to the proposed development as residents in 12thSouth area live to Belle Meade. So imagine folks in 12thSouth challenging a new development in Belle Meade. Another aspect to consider is what if Nashville/Davidson County did have consolidated government and Scottsboro was an incorporated city? There's the mentality that Davidson County is one big city where the focus should be on the urban core, basically the original city limits. Strip out the gov't system of the past 40 years here and Scottsboro would be like any other "edge city."A proposed development would just help the county as a whole but the city of Scottsboro. So think about Mt. Juliet relative to Lebanon. Essentially, Scottsboro alone would develop into a more sustainable local economy that fits into the concept of creating density nodes that protects green space in between the nodes.

By: satalac on 12/31/69 at 6:00

potsticker, I'm about to shock you. The answer is no, not off hand. I do not have enough information to make that claim. I am not willing to make a slippery slope argument such as the one presented earlier. I wouldn't compare Cool Springs to May Town Center. Cool Springs didn't set any limits on growth. MTC has said it would set aside over half of the land they own for conservation. Your only argument is based off of scare tactics with the words like "rape" and "cancer" which you use describing the proposal. You are fighting a losing battle with conservation as the main issue. And I'm not talking with me. I'm talking with the actual development like Richard was talking about. Until you realize that, you can yell about greenspace until your veins pop out, but the progress will still go on. What kind of argument can you make to actually stop this development?

By: potsticker on 12/31/69 at 6:00

Satalac, it is a simple biological fact that the earth needs to breathe and sweat and it does so through land that is not covered in concrete and asphalt. I grew up in South Florida where the Everglades were drained to make way for "progress" and development. They're now letting the swamp and wetland gradually resume it's intended state in an effort to heal the badly damaged land. In the meantime, fresh water is at a premium there and the situation is expected to only worsen. Flooding across the Midwest was greatly worsened by the fact that water could no longer be absorbed by the ground - too much of it was covered in concrete and asphalt. There are very good reasons to let patches of the earth remain in a natural state. What is considered "progress" today many be considered foolhearty tomorrow. And you are correct about one thing. If your perspective on life is one where the most important factor is "progress

By: potsticker on 12/31/69 at 6:00

Richard Lawson, for those who live in sparsely populated Scottsboro, anyone within a 5-10 mile radius is considered a neighbor. It's not at all like living in the city and to compare the distance of 5 miles in Scottsboro to the distance between St. Thomas Hospital and Green Hills Mall is unfair. What happens in Bells Bend, is felt acutely by those who live 5-8 miles North. Development in Bells Bend will spread across Highway 12 to the rest of the area. Guaranteed.

By: satalac on 12/31/69 at 6:00

You still fail to read my posts potsticker. I have beat this dead horse long enough. I find the point that not allowing growth at Bells Bend, claiming conservation, yet not doing anything about the more destructive growth in surrounding areas hypocritical. I'd like to ask something. And this is to everyone who is using conservation as their basis on why they are against May Town Center. Is your house on something that used to be open land? Are the stores you buy your goods at, did they used to be on open land? What about your place of work? Did that used to be on open land? Why is it that people are ok with these things, but not ok when someone else wants to build so people just like them can do the same? Nimbyism hiding behind conservation maybe?

By: potsticker on 12/31/69 at 6:00

Satalac, you raise good points. I am not flat-out opposed to development. I am all for development of appropriate land for appropriate growth when desired by the community that lives in the area. Based on the feedback I have received from many Nashvillians who do not reside in Bells Bend, I think this is a case of NINBY (Not in Nashville's Backyard). Anyhow, be sure to check out tomorrow's Nashville Scene for more info about this situation. Christine Kreyling has tried to dig deep for the dirty details imbedded in this travesty.

By: satalac on 12/31/69 at 6:00

I am looking forward. I do like to hear other's points of view so I can better understand the situation. You also raise good points about including the entire community. I find it hard for either of us to get an accurate understanding on the feel for how Nashvillians as a whole look at the May Town Center issue. Of course we will both gravitate towards more who agree with our beliefs. I am hoping that this issue does receive more media attention. The public does need to know more about the goings on of the city, especially with a project this large. Thank you for letting us know about the article coming out tomorrow. I'm sure we will both have more things to add/take away from it. ;)