A Moment for Clarity on Thursday
This is about the future of the Historic Gas Plant site. With more than 300 letters from citizens, more than 400 people signing on, and overwhelming poll results showing the public’s concern—and with the City Council, representing the people, also agreeing—the current situation with regard to what the mayor is doing makes no sense. There is no urgency that justifies moving forward on this path—the Rays will be playing for at least three more years and may seek an extension. If anything, this is the moment for clarity, not speed. And at this point, City Council is the body that must step in and stop a process that is moving in the wrong direction.
When we look at the future of the Gas Plant property, there is, right now, a complete disconnect.
A Disconnect
- First, there is a disconnect between what the Mayor says he wants to do with the property and the process he is currently following to get there.
The Mayor has said he intends to select a developer—yet the process now includes proposals that have nothing to do with selecting a developer at all. - Second, there is a disconnect between what the Mayor is proposing to do and what the City Council has already voted—overwhelmingly—to do.
The City Council, by a 6–2 vote, has made clear that planning should come first—that the City should step back, define a comprehensive framework, and then decide how it wants to proceed, including whether to consider proposals at all, have the City develop the site itself, or pursue another approach.
Yet while these disconnections are in place, the administration continues to move forward in a proposal-driven process.
New to this topic? Start here:
Understanding the Historic Gas Plant Redevelopment Debate
A guide to the issues, proposals, tradeoffs, and the case for a city-led approach.
What’s Next
On Thursday, at the Housing, Land Use, and Transportation Committee meeting of the City Council—chaired by Richie Floyd, with Vice Chair Mike Harting and Council members Brandi Gabbard and Gina Driscoll, along with participation from Corey Givens—this issue comes into focus.
This meeting is, in effect, a continuation of the 6–2 resolution passed by City Council—an initial step toward a planning-first approach. What is being discussed represents only the very beginning of that effort.
This meeting should not simply be a discussion of “Phase 1” of a ULI process.
(For background, see prior HRM posts on planning-first and the four proposals.)
It should be the moment when City Council makes unmistakably clear what it has already said:
The current path does not make sense—and it should completely stop until the City has gone through a Phase 1 and Phase 2 process that allows it to reach informed conclusions about how this property should be developed, whether by the City itself or by others.
The Disconnect Within the Mayor’s Administration — And Why It Doesn’t Add Up
At the same time this ULI discussion is being brought forward, the administration is continuing down a separate track.
The Mayor has made clear that he intends to move toward selecting a developer for the site. He has previously pointed to what he described as a strong proposal and indicated that he was seeking additional proposals.
The City says it has now shortlisted this to four proposals.
But they are not comparable—and they are not competing proposals in any meaningful sense.
Two propose development of the entire site with a single developer.
One proposes development of only a small portion of the site.
One suggests the City itself should develop the property.
These are not different versions of the same idea.
They are fundamentally different answers to a much bigger question the City has not yet decided:
What is the role of the City in the redevelopment of this land?
If the Mayor’s direction is to select a developer, then why is a proposal to have the City develop the site itself even part of the process?
Is that now something the administration is considering?
Is staff recommending it?
Has the direction changed?
There has been no clear explanation.
And at a minimum, it raises a basic question: does the Mayor—and does his administration—actually have a clear understanding of what they are trying to do here?
The Disconnect Between the Mayor’s Administration and City Council
There is a clear disconnect between what the Mayor and administration are doing—and what City Council has already said should happen.
City Council has already taken a position.
By a 6–2 vote, it called for:
- A pause in advancing any developer selection
- The creation of a comprehensive planning framework first
- The use of independent, professionally qualified planners
- A process guided by residents, businesses, and community organizations
That was not ambiguous.
That was direction.
And that direction reflects a fundamental point:
This decision is not simply about choosing a proposal.
It is about deciding how the City should proceed—and what role it should play.
What Needs to Happen Now
Given all of this, Thursday’s meeting should do more than review a Phase 1 concept.
City Council should make its position unmistakably clear.
It should affirmatively state—through its committee discussion and, if necessary, through further formal action—that it will not approve any proposal, in any form, brought forward by the administration unless and until the City completes the planning-first process it has already called for.
That is not delay.
That is governance.
And it should also be made clear that public resources should not continue to be spent advancing a proposal-driven process that City Council has already indicated it will not support.
The City has already seen what happens when time and money are committed to a path that is not grounded in a clear, agreed-upon framework.
That should not happen again.
The Role of ULI — In Context
A ULI engagement can be valuable—but only if it is understood for what it is, and what it is not.
(Urban Land Institute Advisory Services panels are commonly used by cities to evaluate major redevelopment decisions.)
What is being discussed now is only a Phase 1 step.
Phase 1 is preliminary. It looks backward—reviewing prior studies, summarizing input, and identifying issues. It may also help define who should be involved going forward and help shape the scope of what comes next.
But it does not answer the central question.
That is the role of Phase 2.
Phase 2 is where ULI would engage more deeply—bringing in experienced, independent national planners and practitioners to evaluate options and provide guidance on how the City should proceed.
And most importantly, Phase 2 is where the City would begin to get informed, independent perspective on the fundamental decision it has not yet made:
Should the City lead and structure the development of this site itself—or should it turn control over to a single developer?
That is not a secondary issue.
That is the first decision.
In my conversations with nationally recognized planners, the guidance has been consistent: in projects like this, cities lead the early stages—using planning and phased development to shape outcomes—before turning to private developers. That alone is reason to pause and examine this question directly, rather than assume the answer.
And it is precisely the kind of question that ULI—and other experienced advisors—are intended to help cities think through, based on what has worked and what has not worked in other major redevelopment efforts across the country.
Without that step, the City is moving forward without ever having fully evaluated its options.
The Bottom Line — This Is the Moment
We began with a simple point:
There is a complete disconnect.
Between what the Mayor says he wants to do and the process he is following.
And between what the administration is doing and what City Council has already directed.
Thursday’s meeting is not just another step in a process.
It is the moment for City Council to close that gap.
To make clear that the process it has already called for is not optional.
To make clear that Phase 1 is only the beginning—not the answer.
And to make clear that no proposal—of any kind—will move forward until that process is completed.
Until that happens, the City is not moving forward.
It is moving in two different directions at the same time.
And that is not a path to a successful outcome for this site—or for the City.
