[agitator]

As usual, the author is missing an important point. The "developer" he's referring to is almost never a private citizen, it's almost always a corporation or other artificial entity whieh by nature, exists and does business at the pleasure of the people and by extension, their government. While a private citizen has a natural right to do with his property as he wishes, a commercial entity does not. This confusion is both the reason private property is no longer held in the regard it once was and is its own result.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

ping

[SierraWasp]

Man oh man! I'm sorry to have to disagree with your premise, but I have to!!!

Haven't you ever heard of a "Private Corp" or a "Family Corp?" Nobody, or nothing is ever limited in doing legitimate business in this nation as long as they follow the law! You're also dead wrong in reality if you really believe a private citizen has a natural right to DO with his property as he wishes!

This article is absolutely correct in EVERY detail! No exceptions! Your comment smacks of the worst kind of Socialistic thinking and as a former elected official most highly involved in "Land Use" regulation there is, I certainly hope you disabuse yourself of these notions as they don't fit the situation and are utterly incorrect.

I'm not challenging you personally, just your mistaken notions. Please don't take offense as I don't even know you, or why you have reached these erroneous conclusions.

The article is profoundly and precisely appropos in every respect, especially in CA!!!

[Old Professer]

While a private citizen has a natural right to do with his property as he wishes, a commercial entity does not.

How so?

[cornelis]

fyi

[Grampa Dave]

You need to lay off of that stuff that makes you post BS like this:

"As usual, the author is missing an important point. The "developer" he's referring to is almost never a private citizen, it's almost always a corporation or other artificial entity whieh by nature, exists and does business at the pleasure of the people and by extension, their government."

Many of the so called evil developers on the West Coast are individuals or partnerships of individuals.

When they try to do anything with the property that they bought, the Natter Nannies like you are all over them with all of the Watermelon Jihadist Phoney reasons of why they can't do anything with their own land.

Last, but not least if a corporation owns the land or has a long term lease on and wants to build something that is not a danger to the public, meets codes and would provide employment to those in the areas, they should be allowed to do so as long as they don't demand our tax $'s to help them pay for something like sports complexes.

[Protagoras]

As usual, the author is missing an important point.

LOL,,you're right, Sowell is wrong.

You'll want to guard against taking yourself too seriously.

[Travis McGee]

Nonsense. Is this a free country or not? Do we have property rights or not? Whether the land is owned by one man or twenty, private property is private property. Or it was before socialist busybodies took over.