Concerns over Habitat development in Nashville are valid ones and need fair examination; it's time to enact 'Impact Fees' for less-crowded schools

Who doesn't love Habitat for Humanity? It allowed former President Jimmy Carter some of the credibility needed to re-enter the public life and win the Nobel Peace Prize for his heroics out of office.

But the one problem in Gail Kerr's Saturday column in The Tennessean is while she knows what people are thinking -- according to newspaper stand placards -- she does not seem to do a lot of original thinking herself to advance the topic.

The protest by a local neighborhood against a new Habitat development nearby is a justified one. Fears of traffic congestion are significant because it robs people of quality of life. It means a commuter trip that takes 10 to 15 minutes longer. Add those time spans over five work days and that's two hours or more from one
s family as father and mother -- putting kids at risk. Add those times over a month, and that's another entire work day from the family.

I've been in a lot of Habitat neighborhoods, too. Affordable housing was one of the topics I targeted most in my column days with The Tennessean. Most of the time, Habitat homes are the only affordable housing plans for cities while their leaders build sports stadia and pro sports arenas and negotiate bad deals to keep the NHL Predators in Nashville.

Crime is a sterotype that must be challenged with all people struggling toward the American Dream, including Habitat homeowners. But in the zeal to shut down that criticism, don't overlook the reality in some of the concerns of protestors.

Traffic congestion puts more drivers at danger. Traffic congestion makes every attempt by children to cross from one area to another a danger. Traffic congestion built up in one area makes the air nastier to breathe and allergies more common.

Habitat homes must be built closer together than non-Habitat neighborhoods because of the cost of the land and the great cause of giving more good people a chance at owning their home. But putting more people more tightly together raises the ecological risk for everyone in the area.

Finally, when it comes to concerns about overcrowded schools, there is a simple solution. It is called "Impact Fees". They are taxes placed on each square foot of a home being built. That money then MUST go to building new schools that would be required from the impact of new people moving into an area.

Williamson County, where everyone supposedly wants to live, has "Impact Fees" on residential construction. And it has raised $93 million since 1987 to build new schools. Has anyone witnessed any decline in the residential traffic heading down I-65?

Meanwhile, Metro Nashville has refused to enact "Impact Fees" or a "Privilege Tax" on residential construction since receiving legislative approval to do so in 1988.

Kerr should have cited that power to alleviate that part of the concerns of protestors living near the proposed Habitat development. But the Metro chamber of commerce -- or any chamber of commerce -- is not going to support such a levy ... just like always opposing any increase in the minimum wage. And Kerr seems to follow the chamber line most of the time in her column, particularly with the horrible Predators' deal for taxpayers.

Obviously, the Habitat development should be closely examined by Metro officials and elected representatives. And concerns should not be so easily dismissed as Kerr did in her column of too-narrow thinking.