Replies

I don’t blame a developer for wanting to develop HIS PROPERTY they way he wishes.

NIMBYs.

I have a problem with those who call themselves Conservatives who will rail on and on and on about “high rise development” and “they are going to herd us all into high rises” and other hysterical rantings, but who would support using zoning and government top-down planning as a tool to get single family developments.

I say let developers develop THEIR PROPERTY which they bought (and anyone else could have bought) they way they wish and if it is a financial success fine, if not then fine as well, they will lose out.

The problem is that a lot of so-called conservatives have a problem with any type of development other than single family car-dependent suburbs. Yet they supposedly believe in the free market and free choice. Well, many people want to live in more dense developments with multiple transit options. What is Conservative about cutting these people out of the same process that is used to build single family suburbs? What is Conservative about not allowing free choice in where to live and in what kind of development to live?

It is the blatant hypocrisy that bugs me.

Also there are a whole range of choices rather than either single family or high rise apartments. That is discounted in these discussion, especially among FR hysterics.

What I have a problem with is people who complain about the process when a developer wants to build something they don’t like, but don’t complain when a developer wants to build something they do like. NIMBYs. I have a problem with those who call themselves Conservatives who will rail on and on and on about “high rise development” and “they are going to herd us all into high rises” and other hysterical rantings, but who would support using zoning and government top-down planning as a tool to get single family developments. I say let developers develop THEIR PROPERTY which they bought (and anyone else could have bought) they way they wish and if it is a financial success fine, if not then fine as well, they will lose out.

No city can just let a developer develop their property the way they want. Local government has too many other considerations. I can understand from the developer's perspective with all the grief they go through - and a very siginificant amount of money invested before they ever get the green light from city government.

That is the way it is and that is the way it will stay. It is a condition developers will have to live with.

Regarding NIMBY, that is a pejorative that ignores real concerns of those objecting to a project. I've seen the NIMBY card pulled several times. Each time it was used in an attempt to divert attention from the true issues at hand.

You seem to keep saying that residential developments get an automatic pass from residents. Hope I am not mistaken on understanding your point.

I've see plenty of problems with residential developments that have led to fights at the planning commission level. Usually those are over density requirements - a developer wanting as much density as he can get and others pushing for deeper set backs and the inclusion of open space inside the development.

I think we are probably boring the rest of those in this thread but I am enjoying this conversation. You obviously come to this discussion with experience and expertise. And I sense a bit of frustation over the process. On that point, if it is any consolation, there is much frustration also on the part of those battling developers.