Dear Editor, Your recent reporting on the LDC rewrite is clearly one-sided. Mr. Barbaro’s opinion piece claiming a lot of harm that will come from the new LDC did not include any factual citations. His “news” article this week lists the “good” and the “bad” of the latest draft, according to him, and picks out one corridor to critique that is in his neighborhood. Mr. Slusher’s “news” article contains no facts about the current LDC rewrite but rails against members of our community who support it. (He also doesn’t seem to understand the difference between token seats by people of color and community members having a seat at the table.) Mr. Clark-Madison’s opinion pieces do not support the rewrite; frankly, his intent is unclear. Only Mr. King has shown some balance in the past, and he has been silent on the latest LDC draft. If your goal is to rile up your base, you are succeeding; but you are increasingly losing the respect of the many community members who support the LDC rewrite. Saying that you are “progressive advocates” doesn’t cut it since the progressive label applies to people on both sides of this debate, and I would argue that it is more progressive to embrace change than to consistently resist it.
Publisher Nick Barbaro responds: We picked the Duval corridor for the print edition because it’s been the most discussed, and is the best example of both extensive transition zone mapping and the scaling back in the new draft. As noted, though, there are similar treatments of six other notable areas of town with the story online. [“Mapping the Land Development Code Madness,” News, Feb. 7]