Gateway president: ‘We don’t show up to quit’

Josh Mandell discusses the ongoing zoning saga and plans for the proposed affordable housing development

3:12 p.m. July 23, 2026

Editor’s Note: Gateway President Josh Mandell sat down with the Observer for his first interview with local media about the company’s proposed housing project in Moore County. We talked about how the project got here, the zoning and legal disputes that have followed it, the setbacks Gateway has faced, and where Mandell believes things go from here. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

Gateway Companies remains committed to building an affordable housing development in Moore County despite a prolonged zoning dispute, an ongoing lawsuit, and what President Josh Mandell described in an interview Wednesday as “unprecedented resistance” from local officials.

Mandell said Gateway still intends to move forward with its proposed Main Street development. The Tennessee Housing Development Agency has extended the company’s deadlines, he said, giving Gateway additional time to resolve its disputes with the county without placing the project’s state financing in immediate jeopardy.

“We went to the state leadership of the agency, and we explained our situation in depth,” Mandell said. “They’ve got an organization that is overseeing and funding workforce development around the state, and they have extended our deadlines. They’ve been very gracious.”

Mandell said the extension gives Gateway time to work through the dispute.

Why Gateway chose Moore County

Mandell said Gateway decided about six years ago to return to Tennessee after previously developing projects in the state.

“Tennessee is a great, growing state,” he said. “Most of Tennessee is a couple of hours from our home base in Alabama. It’s a good state to work with from a development standpoint.”

When Gateway began looking for its next rural housing project, Mandell said Moore County was the highest-scoring county in the state under THDA’s criteria.

“Lynchburg and Moore County were ranked by the Tennessee Housing Development Agency as the number one highest-scoring county in the state for rural development,” he said. “They deemed Moore County to be rural, so we pursued that.”

Gateway found property on Main Street and entered into an agreement with landowner Stanley Fanning. The company then prepared its state application and received an award to help finance the development.

“We found a great site right there on Main Street,” Mandell said. “We had a good working relationship with the seller. We submitted, and we spent a lot of time and a lot of money to put that application together.”

Mandell also pushed back against suggestions that Gateway’s proposal was not legitimate because the company had not purchased the property before applying for state financing.

“That’s a real misperception that’s been put out there,” he said. “Most of the time, developers, whether it’s workforce housing or any other type of multifamily housing, do not take the land down prior to having the construction financing and the plans done.”

Mandell said developers commonly place property under a binding contract while completing the predevelopment process.

“The vast majority of these kinds of developments have binding contracts where the seller cannot pull out of the contract,” he said. “There’s a very normal sequence where you apply, you get the award, and then several months later, you close. We were well on our way to doing it.”

Fanning has remained committed to the agreement throughout the dispute.

“Stanley has stuck with Gateway this entire time,” he said. “He’s been a good person to work with, and we appreciate the kind of gentleman he’s been in this process.”

‘We do not go into towns to pick a fight’

Mandell said Gateway evaluates zoning, utilities, road access, and other local requirements before investing in a project.

“We do not go into towns ever with an intent to pick a fight,” he said.

If a site lacks the necessary zoning or infrastructure and local officials indicate those issues cannot be resolved, Gateway moves on, Mandell said.

“If we start investing in a project in a town, it’s because either we’ve gotten written confirmation that the property is zoned, entitled, has access, and has all the basics needed, or we’ve met with local officials,” he said.

“In the case of Lynchburg, we had everything we needed to do this project. And then the jumping through hoops started.”

Gateway’s dispute with the county centers partly on changes to Moore County’s zoning regulations. The company contends the county changed its ordinance after Gateway began pursuing the development and did not provide legally sufficient public notice.

The county disputes those claims. A judge previously denied Gateway’s request for judgment in its favor, but the underlying lawsuit remains unresolved.

Mandell said Gateway has encountered zoning disagreements in other communities but nothing comparable to what it has experienced in Moore County.

“Occasionally, there are misunderstandings. Occasionally, there are disputes. Occasionally, there are disagreements,” he said. “And we work through those.”

Mandell said Gateway had never seen a zoning ordinance changed during a development process in the manner the company believes occurred in Moore County.

“We’ve never seen this much drama,” he said. “We’ve been all over the South.”

Gateway challenges records response

Gateway Development Company, the entity pursuing the Lynchburg project, has also submitted a broad public records request seeking communications and other documents involving several Moore County officials and the proposed housing development.

The request, dated June 12, concerns Gateway’s plan to build approximately 42 attached dwelling units on just more than five acres in Lynchburg. It seeks records from Nov. 11, 2025, to the present.

The officials named in the request are Mayor Sloan Stewart; Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman Dexter Golden; District 4 Metro Council member Peggy Sue Blackburn; and Planning Commission members Scott Fruehauf, Jimmy Hammond, Jeff Ross, and Christine Pyrdom. Hammond also represents District 5 on the Metro Council.

Gateway is seeking emails, text messages, voicemails, social media records, photographs, meeting minutes, public complaints, public comments, and other materials related to the project.

The Observer reviewed documents produced in response to the request by Fruehauf, Golden, Hammond, and Pyrdom. The Observer was not provided with any records from the other officials named in the request.

Mandell said Gateway received some records quickly, while other materials were delivered later or, the company believes, have not yet been produced.

He acknowledged that records can be missed inadvertently, particularly in a small county where officials may use personal phones or email accounts for government business.

“We’re all human beings,” he said. “If they hit 90% of it and missed a few, fine, for the most part.”

After reviewing the materials Gateway received, however, Mandell said gaps and differences among records produced by different officials, namely Golden, were too significant for the company to ignore.

“That’s not just something that we’re speculating on,” Mandell said. “That’s something we know, and we know there’s more out there. Now that we can prove it, we’re going to put even more pressure to get that information.”

Gateway is evaluating what additional steps it may take to obtain records it believes were omitted from the county’s response, Mandell said.

“There’s the bad act, and there’s covering for it,” he said. “A lot of times, the cover can end up being 10 times worse than the bad act.”

Main Street access becomes another dispute

Access to the Main Street property has become another point of dispute.

Highway Superintendent Shannon Cauble recently said the county would oppose new driveways along Main Street until the road is widened.

Because this stretch of Main Street is a state highway, the Tennessee Department of Transportation would decide whether, where, and how a driveway could connect to it. The county would retain authority over whether the development and site plan comply with applicable local laws.

TDOT’s Highway Entrance Permits process requires an applicant to submit engineering information, a site plan, and grading and drainage plans for review. Work cannot begin until TDOT issues the commercial entrance permit.

The county could provide TDOT with traffic information or concerns it wanted the state to consider. TDOT, however, would decide whether to issue the entrance permit and what conditions to impose.

Mandell said the county was attempting to decide the access issue before Gateway had submitted an entrance proposal for the required review.

Referring to Cauble’s position, he said, “She’s absolutely gotten the cart before the horse.”

Mandell earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Alabama and his law degree from Loyola University School of Law. A member of the Alabama and Louisiana bar associations, he said Gateway believes it is entitled to reasonable access to the public highway system. He declined to discuss the company’s next steps.

Even a right to reasonable access would not necessarily guarantee Gateway a driveway at its preferred location or direct access from Main Street. TDOT could require shared access, a different entrance location, turn lanes, sight-distance improvements, or access through another road.

“There’s no question that we have the right to get the access we want,” Mandell said.

Mandell described the county’s approach as “reckless,” saying officials were making decisions without considering how one action could shape later proceedings.

“They’re not seeing the moves, how they’re setting themselves up for the next move three or four steps down the line,” he said. “They have boxed themselves into so many corners. They don’t even know the corners they’ve boxed themselves into.”

‘Drama is not good business’

Mandell said Gateway would rather focus on development, construction, and operating the housing community than remain at the center of a public fight.

“We just want to do our job and do our work and keep our residents happy and keep the neighbors happy,” he said. “Drama is not what we do. And drama is not good business.”

Gateway has completed similar developments throughout the Southeast, Mandell said, and can provide references from communities where it has operated.

“We have dozens of references of doing these kinds of communities in similarly attractive towns and how we were an asset, how we were beneficial, and how we were a good community citizen,” he said. “That’s all we want to do here.”

Mandell said the larger concern is no longer limited to Gateway’s zoning case. He characterized the dispute as a test of whether county residents and property owners can rely on local government to apply its rules consistently.

Gateway now views the dispute as a question of public trust and how local government treats the people and businesses that come before it, he said.

Gateway remains convinced that the conduct it attributes to a small group of officials does not mirror the broader Moore County community, Mandell said.

“We know this does not reflect the people of Lynchburg and Moore County,” he said.

Gateway’s immediate path remains unsettled. Its lawsuit continues, its records request remains in dispute, and additional reviews would be required before construction could begin.

Mandell, however, said the company is not walking away.

“We’re in Lynchburg and Moore County because it’s a very nice community,” he said.

“We don’t show up to quit.”