Lonnell Matthews Retracts Support for the May Town Center
Christine Kreyling, our fearless correspondent who penned our recent cover story on the the plan to build a virtual second downtown in the heart of pristine Bells Bend, breaks the news that the area's council member, Lonell Matthews, is no longer in favor of the massive development:
In a surprising position reversal, Councilman Lonnell Matthews Jr. now says he’s opposed to the land-use change for May Town Center. Matthews represents the district in northwest Davidson County that includes Bells Bend, where the site for MTC lies. Matthews had previously indicated at least tacit support for the project, which is hugely unpopular with the majority of his Scottsboro constituents.
Matthews voiced his opposition in a letter to Planning Commission members, citing community opposition and the many “uncertainties” about the development. He acknowledges the diligence of Metro’s planning staff, who are recommending the land-use change, but says “the people of Bells Bend, Scottsboro, and District 1 deserve to have their voice reflected in the decisions that will affect their community.”
The timing of Matthews’ letter is dramatic, to say the least. This Thursday the Planning Commission is set to vote on the change in land-use policy that would enable May Town to happen. While councilmanic courtesy—i.e., what a council member wants for his/her district, the council member gets—isn’t the ironclad tradition of councils past, a district representative’s stance is clearly an important consideration for commission members. Commissioners risk the appearance of cramming a project down unwilling citizens’ throats if they vote against councilmanic wishes. Several council members representing districts adjacent to Matthews’ are also rumored to be planning to voice their concerns about the land-use change to the commissioners.
Matthews had previously stated that he didn’t plan to speak at the commission meeting, a highly unusual move. Most council members relish the opportunity to exert their influence on district issues, especially ones of this magnitude. Many interpreted Matthews’ unwillingness to take a public stance as implicit support for the development.
In an interview with the Scene at the end of June, Matthews called the project “intriguing” because of its “potential to have a significant impact on our tax base. I realize that [MTC] is a 180-degree turn from what the residents would like to see in Bells Bend. But I believe it could work.” The Scene also reported that Matthews had received considerable campaign contributions from May Town principals during last year’s election.
Matthews’ sudden opposition is obviously unwelcome news to Giarratana and the May family, which owns the land on which May Town would be built. Matthews’ reversal could erode the groundswell the developers have been trying to build for MTC. For the last week or so Giarratana has been sending out daily—sometimes twice daily—press releases and position papers touting MTC and soliciting letters of support to the commission.
Even if the commission doesn’t approve the land-use change, MTC developers are still free to pursue the zoning change necessary for May Town through the Planning Commission and Metro Council. If the commissioners vote “No” on the zone change, the developers must get 27 votes, rather than a simple majority of 21, to pass through Council.
Comments
Thank goodness a representative of the people is listening to the meaningful ground swell from the people...his very own constituents. From across the river, we are in support of your adverse reaction to this project: we do not want to experience the population overflow of this kind of development!
Posted 07/23/2008 at 05:04:47 PMJob well done!
Congratulations to Mr. Matthews for his courage in support of his district and its people.
Nashville has an important choice ahead. A small group of wealthy individuals are proposing to destroy the rural character of one the last “wild” places left in Davidson County. And the replacement for this area is something Nashville already has plenty of – office parks. The Pro-Development side will provide the usual dog and pony show, and cite important sounding statistics and mention huge tax dollar implications.
Posted 07/24/2008 at 09:57:29 AMBut when the time comes to vote, I hope you will ask few questions. If you do, I guarantee the May’s family hired guns will not be able to give you a strait answer.
1. Who will pay for the 250 million dollars that will be required to construct vehicle access to the site? Will the public funds of a county that is already financially struggling be used to build roadways so that the Mays family can profit?
2. When the money is found, how many homes will be demolished to construct a road way so that one wealthy family can turn a buck. Will the hundreds of homeowners impacted from two new four-lane highways be compensated for their loss? How many lawsuits will result from this unjust taking? What damage will be done to the reputation of the City of Nashville by this action.
3. What damage will be done to the economy of downtown Nashville? What effect will 6500 condominiums have on an already problematic Downtown real estate market?
4. Who will build the schools for 6500 new housing units? Will all children of Davidson County benefit from these new schools?
5. What corporations, specifically, have agreed to move their headquarters’ to the proposed site. How many indicated their written intent to make the move. What evidence do the developers have of this intent.
With empty commercial real estate space growing daily, I think that it is prudent that we examine these questions thoroughly before we begin down the destructive and irreversible track that the Mays family seems intent to travel.