What they did ask is, "what is the most pressing problem that economists should address?" If the intention, as stated, is to write a textbook that helps reduce the gap between economics as a theoretical discipline and economics as experienced in the real-world, then it absolutely makes sense to begin with what students consider to be the most pressing real-world economic issue, and use that as a springboard to explore the rest of the discipline.
In fact, starting with real world examples and applications, and gradually building towards fundamental, mathematical theories and models is the right way to teach any scientific subject. It mirrors the actual development of science, where fundamental theories are derived based on observation of the real world, and can be later disproved by new evidence. Introducing abstract and theoretical models too early not only risks confusing students, but it risks creating a situation where the models are considered intrinsically "real", and contradictory evidence is ignored. This issue has plagued economics, have taken abstract and simplified theories about markets and human behaviour and made them ideological dogma. The theories end up becoming lenses through which all evidence about the world is viewed, rather than imperfect attempts to explain the evidence.
Experts often tend to be focused on the details, the minutiae, and the leading edge of research.
A cooking expert (5-star chef) is not likely the right person to teach an introduction to cooking class (cooking basic foods using everyday techniques).
That said, novices often don't know how a subject impacts their lives. I was skeptical of income inequality's prominence, but by the "how does it impact me", it may not be a bad start.
Starting with motivations is great.
An introduction where an expert explains why economists think economics is important would be interesting and compelling. Telling us about a topic that students think are what makes economics is important is silly. If the students are right that the topic is most important, then it will come out in the expert introduction. If they're wrong, then wouldn't the version that actually gets at what makes economics compelling and interesting be better?