Position Paper

A Call for Thoughtful Planning

 At MidtownMemphis.org, we fully support the goals of Memphis 3.0 –walkable neighborhoods, reinvestment in urban areas, better public transit, and smart infill development.

But we oppose sweeping land use changes that don't first look at what's already on the ground. A “one size fits all” approach puts stable neighborhoods at risk, especially those still recovering from landlord neglect. 

The biggest investment most of us will ever make is in our home. Memphis 3.0 discourages owner-occupancy by promoting multi-family housing in large sections of single-family neighborhoods. We have witnessed the negative impact of landlords on our communities over the years—and absentee landlords in Memphis are increasing exponentially.If home buyers can't be confident in the sustainability of ourneighborhoods, they'll look to areas outside Memphis. 

We support density and development. And we support the work done by Memphis’s Division of Planning and Development (DPD) to identify key anchors and nearby neighborhoods for growth study.

Our proposal is simple. Use Memphis 3.0's Small Area Plans to guide development around these anchors. Study first, build second – to protect stable neighborhoods and focus growth where it can help.

Objections to the Memphis 3.0 Plan

MidtownMemphis.org supports the larger goals of Memphis 3.0, but we object to the shortcuts because they risk undermining community sustainability. Development without planning at the neighborhood level is unnecessarily risky. 

1. Density Without Context Damages Neighborhoods

Memphis 3.0 promotes increased density and mixed-use development citywide. But without neighborhood-specific planning, applying those strategies uniformly can destabilize communities, especially those which have been subject to landlord neglect. If we don't look at what we're changing, we don't know what our changes will do. 

2. Lack of Small Area Planning

Memphis 3.0 recommends, but the Division of Planning and Development has not enacted, the wide use of Small Area Plans. Such plans are critical for adjusting land use at the neighborhood level. Small area planning will separate what's already working from what's not, and will target the areas that need attention.

3. One-Size-Fits-All Planning

Memphis 3.0 is a generic plan purchased from a company in Berkeley, California. It creates a generalized framework that Small Area Plans can make specific. For example, parts of the Tucker-Jefferson neighborhood might facilitate multi-family, but 3.0 applies the same ideas to neighboring Belleair Drive. Glenview's community-created long-range plan of increased home-ownership is working, and 3.0 will imperil it. Memphis 3.0 does not see those distinctions. 

4. Displacement Risks

Memphis 3.0 will accelerate property speculation, fuel flight to outside the reach of 3.0, and with the documented rise in Memphis landlords outside the USA, can seriously degrade neighborhoods. Landlord neglect and the resulting blight remains one of Memphis's core problems. Long term residents are important for building community, and we oppose Memphis 3.0's push against owner-occupancy.

Our Compromise Position 

We support the “build up not out” goal of Memphis 3.0.

We respect the anchors and anchor neighborhoods determined by DPD and Planning District meetings as the path toward that goal.

Instead of pushing unplanned development, we must employ Memphis 3.0's Small Area Plans, as Memphis 3.0 suggests, so that development will lead to smart growth and not to neighborhood harm. 

And study first, build second – to protect stable neighborhoods and focus growth where it can help.

Download our Position Paper as a PDF here