I'm a little late to the game on this one, but I'd still like to ask one question about Nate Rau's piece
on infill in Wednesday's City Paper
. (Cuz goodness, if there was one thing you were dying
to read on a beautiful Friday afternoon, it's a critique of some other guy talking about development. But I digress...)
Rau's a smart guy who spends as much, if not more, time working, talking and writing on land use issues than anyone in the city. His opinion is one that should be heard, so it's nice to see him stretch his limbs on something more op-ed'ish every once in a while. That being said, I disagree with his main contention: That "neighborhood-first" (his words, not mine) Council members who voted against May Town and preach the need for smart growth need to stop being obstructionist NIMBYs when it comes to development in their own districts. Here's a summary, in his words:
But supporting infill development comes with a price, and it's a hefty one for "neighborhood" Council members to pay.
Instead of paying lip service to infill as an idea only, Council members must proactively work with Nashville's development community; the time has come to move beyond preaching the value of land reuse and infrastructure utilization. The Council member ought to be soliciting development in their districts.
My first though is that, in Rau's hands, "'neighborhood' Council members" is thrown around like a slur. Second? Since when did it become a Council members job to sell developers on the idea of building in their districts?
See also: Enclave