richard lawson

Why does Richard Lawson continuously ingratiate himself to Mayor Karl Dean with Red Sox references whenever he writes about prospective minor league baseball scenarios for Nashville? I find his lame attempts to be adorable to the Mayor's Office wicked boring.

Once again the City Paper is sucking up to the Mayor's Office and counting the Pred's deal of last year as a feather in Karl Dean's cap:

Richard Lawson seems to be discouraging us from even considering mass transit solutions in connection to May Town Center:

Pete Kotz had me worried as he began this afternoon with an homage to Southcomm reporter Richard Lawson, but he finished strong with a critique of the concept of May Town Center and its disasterous implications for articulating a post-sprawl culture. If Mr.

Is it really wise to take this guy’s playground?

Richard Lawson surfaced again this week in all the chicken-hearted pseudonymity of "Rex and the City" accusing the Planning Commission with making its Bells Bend decision based on economic development rather than land use reasoning.

Planning Commissioner Stewart Clifton commented thusly on Enclave:

Here is Richard Lawson's article in the Citypaper followed by my slightly different take.
--Stewart Clifton

Planning commission passes on May decision
Deferral leads to different interpretations from backers, opponents
Email Print By Richard Lawson

I'm going to have to watch the tape of last week's Metro Council debate on the Bellevue TIF--which devolved into incremental suck-ups--again, because the Southcomm snoop dog fingered CM Erica Gilmore as one of guilty parties sha

Richard Lawson is using Bridgestone's choice of Akron, OH instead of Murfreesboro for its technology center as more fodder to keep Tony Giarratana's May Town Center project on the City Paper readership radar.

In his continuing mission to help Tony Giarratana pry a long-term neighborhood plan for Scottsboro/Bells Bend out of the neighbors' hands, Southcomm journalist Richard Lawson (now in the name of good schools) argues that Metro's population growth is "flat" rather than "clearly positive."