by Sam Hieb
The Cooperative Approach where there would be little or no formal structure, but all jurisdictions would agree to work together and keep each other informed of their individual decisions and activities;
The Collaborative Approach where there would be a more formalized effort to work together and have a structured planning process, perhaps with PART coordinating land use planning until an economic council could be put in place; or
The Legislative Approach where authorization would be sought from the General Assembly to form a nonprofit entity such as an authority to manage and develop the area.
In case you didn’t keep reading, Carmany tells Wharton which option she leans toward:
I haven’t formed a firm opinion yet on the governance option — each has its advantages and disadvantages and they need to be explored thoroughly. There’s no doubt that the greatest amount of control over the implementation of the plan’s vision would occur with the legislative option, but my political radar (and some pretty firm statements early on from some key elected officials)tells me “that ain’t gonna happen.”
Let’s hope not. The collaborative approach doesn’t sound too “hot” either. Anyone care to guess what would be the centerpiece of PART’S land-use plan?
I’ll be honest, I don’t see how the mere existence of a plan will create 100,000 more jobs. In the meantime, developers are sitting on their hands while the plan is being fine-tuned. As we saw earlier this week with Bellmeade Village, the best-laid plans (OK, maybe not the best example) often don’t pan out. I can’t speak for my fellow citizens, but right now I’ll take my chances with 45,000 jobs and let the plan just evolve.