Chair of Planning, Zoning, and Economic Development

Press Coverage: Kansas City Globe, 2003; Nash Appointed Chair of Plans, Zoning; New Planning, Zoning Chair Ready for Larger Role on New Council; Mayor Barnes Announces Committee Assignments

When you chair the Planning, Zoning, and Economic Development Committee on a major city council, every significant development project in the city crosses your desk. Every zoning change. Every economic incentive package. Every TIF district. Every tax abatement. Every developer with a proposal. Every community group with an objection. Every dollar of public investment tied to private development.

I chaired that committee for the Kansas City Council. It was the most influential committee for shaping the city's physical and economic trajectory, and it gave me an education in urban development that no classroom could match.

What The Chair Does

The chair controls the agenda. Which projects get heard. Which get deferred. Which move forward to the full council. That power is both a tool and a responsibility, because the decisions made in that committee room determine which neighborhoods get investment and which continue to wait.

Every major development that came before the committee during my tenure had to answer a fundamental question: does this project benefit the community, or just the developer? I asked that question of every proposal, and I was not always popular for it.

Developers who came before my committee expecting a rubber stamp did not get one. They got questions. Who benefits from this project? How many jobs will it create? Are those jobs accessible to residents of the surrounding neighborhood? What happens to the tenants who are currently on this site? Will the public incentives being requested actually produce outcomes that justify the public cost?

These are not hostile questions. They are the questions that any responsible steward of public resources should ask. But in a city where the development community was accustomed to friendly, expedient committee hearings, my approach was a disruption. I was not anti-development. I was pro-accountability. Every public dollar invested in a private project should produce a measurable public return. If a developer cannot demonstrate that return, the project should not receive public incentives.

What I Learned

Chairing Planning, Zoning, and Economic Development taught me how development actually works in an American city. Not the textbook version. The real version.

I learned that TIF districts can be powerful tools for neighborhood investment when structured correctly, and engines of displacement when structured poorly. A well-structured TIF captures the increment of property tax revenue generated by new development and reinvests it in the district. A poorly structured TIF diverts property tax revenue from schools and public services to subsidize projects that would have been built anyway.

I learned that tax abatements create value for developers but can erode the tax base that funds schools and public services. The question is not whether to use abatements but whether the project would happen without them and whether the community benefit justifies the tax revenue foregone.

I learned that community engagement is not a checkbox on an application. It is a negotiation between people with competing interests, and the government's job is to ensure that the people with the least power get a seat at the table.

I learned that the development industry is full of capable professionals who build excellent projects, and it is also full of operators who extract public subsidy without delivering public value. Telling the difference requires asking hard questions and insisting on honest answers.

How This Informs Our Work Today

When The Nash Group advises clients on entitlement processes, zoning approvals, or public incentive applications, we bring something that most advisory firms do not: the perspective of the person who sat in the chair.

I know how committees evaluate projects because I led the evaluations. I know what questions will be asked because I asked them. I know what community concerns will arise because I heard them from the community directly. I know what makes a project approvable because I voted on hundreds of them.

That experience is not available in a textbook or a training program. It is available from someone who did the job. For clients navigating complex entitlement processes in any city, the value of that perspective is practical and immediate. We know what the committee is looking for. We know how to structure a project that answers the tough questions before they are asked. We know how to engage the community in a way that builds support rather than opposition.

Government experience is rare among private sector developers and consultants. Most professionals interact with city hall as applicants. They see the system from one side: they submit, they wait, they hope. I have seen it from both sides. That dual perspective means I understand not just what clients need from government but what government needs from clients. And when those two sets of needs are aligned from the start, projects move faster, approvals come easier, and outcomes are better for everyone.