The concerns and reservations against redevelopment have often been found in the 8th or 9th paragraph of stories covering the grandeur of "things to come." Larry Carson writes a nice piece (although proponents of development may cringe at Larry's "crammed with amendments" line), which seems to lay it all out. Most interesting is that anti-redev folks promote Jen Terrasa as their hero, yet coverage of the voting session suggested that Councilwoman Terrasa was a little "out of it" when it came to keeping track of the amendments.
I don't know where I fall on this whole thing. On one hand, I agree with most that this is just the first of a thousand steps and that there will be points of resistance/reformation down the line. On the other hand, the infrastructure issues are of great concern to me. I think the council would take big steps with the public if they could explain, from their own confident understanding, how this is going to play out and what costs "we the people" are going to have to bear for these new developments. I don't blame GGP for trying to make money. That's what companies do. However, if things play out like opponents suggest, we have reason to blame the Council for hiding the ball.
So for Councilpeople, proponents of "First & Goal," and anyone who knows, what is the deal with the infrastructure component? Are we bearing the cost (with the explanation of it being "worth it in the long run")? Is GGP (and I just missed it)? Should I invest in Port-o-Johns?