Positano, Yay or Nay

[Tom Clark]

The Reno City Council yesterday rejected the Positano project on a 4-2 vote. Earlier in the week I read that evil developers own the City Council and County Commission because of the money they contribute to their campaigns, yet this project proposed by a long time Reno developer was killed. The Anti-Growth crowd says we need to do more in the urban core and not "sprawl" yet many were there against the project. Dortch and Aiazzi supported the project and I think they were right to do so.

Two questions my Reno Baby friends:

Would you have supported Positano?
Do we grow up, or do we grow out?

And for another day think of this. Are we a community of conflict? Can we adopt policies that are anti sprawl and at the same time stop quality projects that develop the core like Positano?

[Ryan Jerz]

Tom,

I know where you read that and it wasn't here. And it wasn't by someone who cares to take part in what we've built here, so be careful not to include the members here as part of that scene. I'm sure we have a diverse collection of thoughts on this site, so I don't even come close to speaking for any of the members here. Enough of that though.

My initial thought on Positano was that it was opposed by some NIMBYs in a relatively affluent area. That was without knowing who specifically opposed it, and only looking at the area, the idea, and the result. I also read that the reasoning by Dwight Dortch was almost purely pragmatic--he saw a way to get a road project funded (and a much needed one) where it currently won't be funded. I think that in a time like now (economy in danger of really tanking) and a place like this (funding for new projects is generally opposed) he has the right idea. One thing I've heard talked about in Reno is "Impact Fees." Isn't the reasoning by Dortch as close to an impact fee as you can get? Infrastructure in exchange for the right to build? I like that idea.

I sure like the idea of building up. Does anybody not? So what was the reason to vote it down? I still can't help but think it was a NIMBY attitude that prevailed in an area of wealth and influence here. It's not like it was a prison. It was an upscale development and would include some much-needed improvements. I would have welcomed it, but I don't live over there.

[Tom Clark]

Ryan, I in no way intended to imply that I read about the developers owning the City Council on Reno Baby. It's the assumption that some people will walk away with after reading the story about campaign contributions in the RGJ. I really enjoy the fact that members here provide thoughtful input on the issues we face and participate in the fun discussions like Dive Bars and Cheap Eats.

I'm looking forward to others providing input like you have on the Positano project. Understand too, that I don't have a dog in that fight. I simply like to put my position out in the discussion and see what other people think.

The NIMBY attitude just kills me. Don't put it here 'cause it will impact me, but don't put it there 'cause that's sprawl. We can't have it both ways.

[Deidre]

The Council's decision seemed a surprise, honestly. Not sure how the evil developers let this one get past 'em. And after wasting all that money on campaign contributions and expensive lobbyists!
Not sure how I felt about Positano. But you're both right about the urban core--and, yikes, so were Aiazzi and Dortch. Up is the correct direction to grow. Fold in the sprawl, concentrate on creating amazing urban living spaces.

NIMBY is an infectious disease, but an understandable one. We the people lack control in so many areas of our lives. We work harder, often more hours for less pay and fewer benefits. We're swimming in debt. We're unsure about our kids' education, about the planet they'll inherit. We want to maintain secure, stable homes in familiar neighborhoods.
Development feels like the enemy. How to change that?
Maybe developers in general could, um, contribute more to infrastructure like schools and roads.
And not cut and run after flattening the nearby hillside--because the housing market crashed.
Just a thought.
Whoa, how's that for a first post ... please don't kick me out. I promise to be nice and contribute to the dive bar section.

[Elisa Maser]

I was surprised at the City's decision, I must say. Great questions, Tom. A few thoughts:

I'm 99.9% for growing up not out. I think it's making Reno a much more interesting place. (Love the Montage project!)

Here's my concern: Virginia Street is our "transit-oriented corridor" (the plan is to have lots of people live along Reno's central spine to make public transit [buses - even light rail one day] economically doable). Except, along Virginia Street, Reno is approving kind of wimpy density projects (example, the Townhouses at Virginia Lake - which I also love). Meanwhile, Positano and Boulevard South [high density projects] come in and they're not on the corridor. It would be great if we did a better job connecting the dots.

One other note about infrastructure and impact fees: By Nevada law, local government can NOT charge developers impact fees for building schools or fixing infrastructure problems we already have. (Don't like those rules? Let your state legislator know.) When Dwight Dortch was talking about having the developer put in the road ... by law, the City has to give the developer $ credit (or pay them for) any improvements beyond what the project itself requires. In other words, we the taxpayers are still paying for that road, one way or another.

[Casey]

Hey Mr Tom... I agree with a few others - up not out is the way to go. Now if my own waistline would only follow suit. That said, unfortunately the community has no successes to point to for developments like this, well none that I can think of... so the NIMBY knee jerk reaction wins out. For as old as we are as a community, we're pretty young in density developments within "nice," "established" neighborhoods... again my opinion. And the track record of some developers (not this project per se) isn't the strongest. Developments start, sit idle for years - but not before they've graded down or made a mess of the project site. So home owners and/or businesses deal with eyesores and construction messes while developers "try" to come up with the financing they should have had in the first place. (Oooh, that should be controversial enough for a first posting :) )

[Scott Kelley]

I believe in development that benefits the community and improves quality of life, and that means (mostly) growing up and not out. But, most recent planning has focused outward, and most recent development has occurred without the infrastructure being prepped beforehand - the effects on quality of life are detrimental. This isn't necessarily my view, this is what I have heard after having spoken to thousands of people one-on-one during my political endeavors. Good, open and honest government occurs when there is compromise. But there has been no compromise between stakeholders who are pro-growth and stakeholders who are managed growth. Lately, the vast majority of projects have been approved. Positano stands out because it was voted down.