You know, I probably shouldn't have made that comment to you, only because it opens a can of worms for which I don't have time right now. Zoning is a subtle issue with which a number of complex games are played. I wrote a couple of chapters on the political and economic mechanics of zoning and environmental regulations in my book. It includes an inflation-adjusted opportunity-cost-based analysis (net of the cost of funds) of land transactions in the County of Santa Cruz, CA, under a couple of different tax scenarios extending over 30 years. During that time, a select group of developers sponsored zoning laws that literally controlled an inventory of developable rural/suburban parcels to make aquisition for conversion cheap while excluding outside competitors. They also put a squeeze on urban parcels to drive up the value around undevelopable parcels. When the market was ripe (and they had finished screwing the bag-holders) they simply had the planning department rezone previously "substandard" parcels for "in-fill." These are the classic gambits common to sustainable development (we were the first).
It's really dirty. For me to make my case I would have to familiarize you with a whole new vocabulary in order to do a comparative analysis and show how the mechanics repeat elsewhere. Then I would have to familiarize you with what some communities have done to preclude such problems. I do suggest that you consult Randal O'Toole's book: The Vanishing Automobile and Other Urban Myths where he goes into more detail on the unintended consequences of sustainable development (smart growth).
I want to thank you for your thoughtful response. I've captured your post/links and will look at some of this info. when I have more time.