How come other cities can/do call a moratorium on building and 'spreading out' and we can't/don't???  I said a long time ago there should be a specific time frame that we call a halt to new building and utilize what we have already.  There are many corner shopping centers that sit empty or are going to soon be empty, i.e. White Lane Wal-Mart closing to consolidate to the new Super Wal-Mart on Panama Lane. So what will fill the White Lane big box building??  graffiti? druggies breaking in? homeless breaking in?

I think when these big box stores decide to leave or move it should fall to them to find a new tenant BEFORE they leave.

The interesting thing is that the so-called personal property rights advocates who think it alright to do whatever you want with your land and are against any government control, screamed bloody murder just last week when the Governor and CA legislature gave their blessing and EIR escape provision to the people who are building a monster 75,000 person stadium in southern CA. -- a stadium that has no team to play in it!!

The majority of local Council people and Supervisors are ready to give their blessing and approval to just about anything if the applicants have followed all the required guidelines, dotted all the "i's," crossed all the "t's" and have endured the hard-hearted lengthy process to get it approved (poor dears).  And when their speculation falls prey to an overabundance of development, and the market collapses and unemployment runs rampant in the building and construction field, and lending institutions fail because they went along with the mess, and government budgets are squeezed because property and sales taxes precipitously drop, don't we all feel terrible?

But surely the Fed will bail us all out with more "stimulating" gifts to those who got us into this greedy morass.

“It’s silly to build more,” said Gordon Nipp, who represents the Kern-Kaweah chapter of the Sierra Club and is a regular critic of Kern County’s and Bakersfield’s growth decisions.

“All of us who own a house, we all have a stake in this, because when they build too many houses, that lowers the value of existing homes.”
Interestingly, property rights activists are mum on that side of the development sword.

- Property development is inherently a risky business. Many developers have made a lot of money, and many developers have lost a lot of money. It's the nature of speculation. Our rights as citizens to develop our own properties should generally only be limited by their impact on existing infrastructure, the current zoning, and the existing growth plan for the area.

New development doesn't necessarily lower the value of existing homes. Often existing homes near new developments increase in value, especially if the new development is a magnet like a golf course, university, or private lake. The only homes that may lose value due to new development are older homes in older areas that are no longer viewed as "magnetic". These would likely be homes of purchasers in the newer development who are "moving up" to a higher quality of living. Don't we all want a higher quality of living? It's only natural for older housing to suffer an incremental loss as new neighborhoods are developed. It's the responsibility of the existing homeowner to determine a time to move if he thinks his neighborhood is starting to lose value. Many long-time homeowners are perfectly content to stay in their existing homes despite a drop in the housing value.

reformer-

The personal property rights advocates I know have all been ecstatic about the Governor's lifting of the EIR provision to build the new NFL stadium in Los Angeles. Why wouldn't they be? Cut through the red tape and let's build a new stadium that will provide thousands of additional jobs to their economy! You can't attract an NFL team to play in your city if you don't have a proper facility for them to play in. Locally, we need to find a way to build a new baseball stadium that would create more jobs.

"And when their speculation falls prey to an overabundance of development, and the market collapses and unemployment runs rampant in the building and construction field, and lending institutions fail because they went along with the mess, and government budgets are squeezed because property and sales taxes precipitously drop, don't we all feel terrible?"

-As I stated in my previous post, development is inherently risky and many developers have lost all they had, just as many developers have profited. Speculation is a matter of risk. Do you think for one minute that developers would pursue a new project if they could foresee the market getting ready to fall? Of course not. They failed because of a tidal wave that they failed to forecast which was fueled by lenders (some of them fraudulent, but not many) allowing buyers to use senseless loan products to finance homes with little or no equity. When property tax revenues went way up our state legislature was all too ready to fund a load of new programs without using the foresight of a five year forecast. If they would have used the increased funds more conservatively they wouldn't have the mess they're in right now. 

RealJay - regardless of the risk taking, the reality is that we have thousands of buildings, commercial, residential and even industrial which are lying empty currently.  While many of these are finished construction, many are also stalled projects that are only partially complete.  Not only do these vacant building projects create an eye sore to the local population, they are also a complete waste of land and space.  If developers were willing to purchase areas that are currently developed or in a state of development, they could either pick up where other's left off, or completely re-shape the land/buildings as they see fit.  Why should we allow for new development on land currently undeveloped?  How will this help our community any differently than the ideas I propose?  The reality is that the more land we take up, the more money it will cost the tax payers for the upkeep of the infrastructure.  If our population begins another major expansion, I can see where it makes sense, but where's the current need?

Surprisingly enough, there is a document that is supposed to be considered by the legislative bodies prior to the approval of new housing development.

It is called the Housing Element of the General Plan. State Legislators seem to place a high priority on enacting new requirements related to local Housing Elements, such as density bonuses and needs for low income housing or apartments.

It has been my observation that  local planning departments and Supervisors/Councilmembers tend to treat these requirements as something to be overcome, rather than actual guidance on how local development should proceed. 

The only "development" the city needs right now is all infrastructural. Focus on building the road infrastructure neeeded to support the current city limits so we aren't completely gridlocked as developers try to fill all the land between 99 and I5 with houses.

FloridaState-

It's indeed sad to see empty buildings of any type in any community. I agree that developers and other investors should rehabilitate & use these properties for the benefit of their community, as well as for their own benefit...and they will when the numbers work in their favor. That's what the redevelopment agency is for. The Padre Hotel renovation is a good example.

"Why should we allow for new development on land currently undeveloped?  How will this help our community any differently than the ideas I propose?"

- This is where I disagree with you. Would you really like to be prevented from developing a "ripe" parcel of land that you own? It's your property, and you have the right to benefit from that property...if you're willing to take a risk! With your train of thought there would be no country club areas in Bakersfield, as each were developed at "the edge of town" or further at the time. There would be no Marketplace, Riverlakes, or even Valley Plaza; as each of these developments were on "the edge of town" when they were initiated. There wouldn't even be CSUB which was constructed at "the edge of town" and has contributed heavily to our local economy. These developments act as "magnets" which attract additional development and additional jobs.

I think my main bone of contention with the whole issue is where the community becomes more important than the individual. I'm all for organized planning for the good of the whole...until it interferes with our individual rights.

 Real

You seem to have forgotten or don't know and understand the economic impacts that are passed on to all of us by individual/corporate development, especially when we have 20years of inadequate fees.  I won't take the time to enumerate at least twenty of them, but would encourage you to look at some of the sources online.

Simple Econ 101 gives us many practical of examples of what happens when you have a stagnant overabundant supply of "widgets."

RealJay - your problem is that you value individual rights above potential impact to the community.  Having such a mindset is dangerous, and can lead to unethical behavior.  Your thinking is quite honestly pretty anarchist, as to me you seem rather selfish that you believe that your ability to make a buck is more important than how it impacts the entire community.  Such thinking has led to some of the biggest lawsuits in history - whereas corporate America has had a similar viewpoint of "Our rights are much more important than those of the collective community."  In such cases, corporations normally lose out. 

My argument has nothing to do with "edge of town" building - it has to do with total impact to the community.  Though I wasn't around when such constructions as the Marketplace and CSUB took place, I'm pretty sure that there was a need and desire within the community for these institutions.  If you desire to build something that goes beyond your own personal and individual needs (in other words, if you intend to use the land for profit), there should be either an obvious need for it, or great potential.  It has nothing to do with desire to take a risk and everything to do with the impact of such a decision - environmental, criminal, beautificational, etc.  The reality is that empty buildings are a host for all three issues: an empty building takes up un-needed space in an already over-developed area; an empty building attracts criminal enterprise via squatters, vandalism, theft of materials, etc.; an empty building becomes an eyesore to the community, and also creates an added burdon via the need for more policing of run down areas due to said crime. 

You speak of risk taking - when you purchase land in bulk for the purpose of investing in urban development, you're already taking a risk. You should be aware of that reality prior to such a financial move.  I would think any smart investor would only purchase land that either they know for a fact will make them money quickly, or that they are willing to sit on until the time is right.  You must know what you are getting into prior to making any big purchase - simple econ 101 as reformer mentioned above.

Look at Irvine, CA. Irvine is one of the fastest growing areas in CA. The growth is controlled by one company vs. a lot of little companies here in Bakersfield. The Irvine Company has overseen one of the largest Master Planned Communities in the US. You want smart growth? You want a consistent look and feel? Then say goodbye to the small family builders that have only been able to scatter the land with mini track developments. 

The General Plan has failed us. City and County officials can not help us. When one large company takes over the planning and Master Plan responsibilities will we finally be saved of the spastic and uncoordinated development that we now call Bakersfield.

FloridaState-

"RealJay - your problem is that you value individual rights above potential impact to the community.  Having such a mindset is dangerous, and can lead to unethical behavior.  Your thinking is quite honestly pretty anarchist, as to me you seem rather selfish that you believe that your ability to make a buck is more important than how it impacts the entire community. 

- Excuse me for trying to stand up for your individual rights. If I'm not mistaken, that's exactly what our forefathers fought for in the American Revolution. I didn't say anything to advocate violating established laws or ordinances, and I'm not encouraging the creation of blight. Nor am I advocating any type of unethical behaviour. In case you missed it above, I'm all for the efforts of redevelop agencies to encourage rehabilitation in blighted areas. So, how have I encouraged unethical behaviour? And why don't you acknowledge that an individuals ability to make a buck is also balanced by the fact that the individual can also lose that buck if things don't go as planned?

 "If you desire to build something that goes beyond your own personal and individual needs (in other words, if you intend to use the land for profit), there should be either an obvious need for it, or great potential.  It has nothing to do with desire to take a risk and everything to do with the impact of such a decision - environmental, criminal, beautificational, etc. "...when you purchase land in bulk for the purpose of investing in urban development, you're already taking a risk. You should be aware of that reality prior to such a financial move.  I would think any smart investor would only purchase land that either they know for a fact will make them money quickly, or that they are willing to sit on until the time is right.  You must know what you are getting into prior to making any big purchase - simple econ 101 as reformer mentioned above."

- Unless you misread me, this is basically the same thing I was saying above. I didn't say anything about a "desire" to take a risk, just the simple fact that risk is inherent in any development project...and I didn't say anything to advocate that environmental, criminal, or beautificational issues aren't impotant also - why would a developer initiate a project that wouldn't create a demand for consumers or fill a void for users? They wouldn't.

We may actually agree on more than you think. Where we disagree appears to be your willingness to allow the government to limit our civil rights.

One of the major issues with large development projects that goes beyond simplistic "property rights" is the impact of the project on the community and the costs of supporting the infrastructure that comes with a developer's project. In most cases these developers are LLC's that are formed for that project so when it's finished so is the company that built it. When it goes belly up or causes unforeseen costs to the community it goes bankrupt and the investors duck the whole thing.

In many if not most cases these developers aren't even from this area so they don't have to live with or help pay for the mess they make. That's left to the taxpayers. Like the impact of poorly conceived projects lowering property rights of existing property owners this is one area conveniently ignored by the "property rights" bunch making them look a bit hypocritical in support of not property rights but rights of powerful economic interests to exploit a community for quick profits. Good or bad what they build becomes our city, longer hard to keep roads, sewer and water lines and all.

Remember the fight over the hillside ordinance? When that started it precipitated an ugly libelous and immoral smear campaign against some responsible elected leaders by vested interests that didn't give a rat about what would end up being a disaster waiting to happen. Bakersfield's responsible leaders were looking at lessons learned the hard way by Santa Clarita that now has a similar even more restrictive ordinance following the very problems from flooding, fire control and emergency services access issues the property rights bunch are so willing to dismiss. 

One thing the property rights ideologues don't seem to get is the developers who are the beneficiaries of their support aren't patriotic supporters of personal liberty. These groups are out to grab the best short term profits they can get and get out and go back to Sacramento or where ever before it gets ugly. And if some political ideologues want to lend them moral support so much the better.

avantichamp-

The vast majority of developments are well thought out before they are ever even considered for approval by the city or county. Investors won't even back a proposed project if it doesn't create demand or fill a void in the market. Deverlopers have a myriad of requirements to meet in order to satisfy the planning dept. . Requirements of the planning dept. are established to provide that projects fit with the proposed growth plan to positively affect the community without negatively impacting infrastucture.

It's unfortunate that some developments went belly-up in the past few years, but I doubt if any of those developers planned on failing. Real people lost real money on those projects. They obviously didn't know the market was going to turn when it did, and neither did the planning dept. that approved all the projects. 

You seem to be opposed to private property rights, which makes me wonder if you own property yourself. If you do, you are arguing against your own interests. Restricting property rights leads to more and more restrictions of our rights.

While some developers are from out of town, many developers are local residents who have made some pretty nice developments in our community. While making a profit is the goal of every developer, they don't deserve to be demonized for trying to make a living. You don't know that they aren't "patriotic supporters of personal liberty" do you? That characterization was completely unfounded and in poor taste.

 Excuse me for trying to stand up for your individual rights. If I'm not mistaken, that's exactly what our forefathers fought for in the American Revolution.

You confuse individual liberty with anarchist ideals.  One thing you might not realize is that more than 200 years ago, there weren't many large corporations like we know of today.  There wasn't mass urbanization like there is today, which squanders resources and natural habitat.  Therefore, the founding fathers established a set of guidelines, knowing full and well from a historical perspective that these guidelines might need tweaking over time to account for the changes that happen in any society.  While our country was established on the base of individual liberty and freedom, it also allowed for specific checks and balances, both on a Federal Government end, and down to an individual basis.  There was accountability then, and there is accountability now.  To argue that the forefathers were standing up for the very "rights" you cry about in this blog shows your limited knowledge on the subject.

So, how have I encouraged unethical behavior?

Re-read my writings - I said that your musings could lead to unethical behavior.  That is much different than encouraging it.  The point of my argument is that when you center more on arguing for individual rights, especially when you outwardly discount the general welfare of the population as a whole, that can lead to an ethical complication.

And why don't you acknowledge that an individuals ability to make a buck is also balanced by the fact that the individual can also lose that buck if things don't go as planned?

I wouldn't call it balanced because you fail to admit that if things don't go as planned, in this case, it can lead to additional consequences for which the individual won't necessarily incur, but instead, might be incurred by the general population.  From the perspective of the individual, there is balance, because so long as he/she looks at their idea from an individualistic perspective, they will only see a specific reward/cost for taking the risk.  However, if they take into account the potential benefit or non-benefit to the local population, that can easily tip the balance one way or another.  

Unless you misread me, this is basically the same thing I was saying above. I didn't say anything about a "desire" to take a risk, just the simple fact that risk is inherent in any development project...and I didn't say anything to advocate that environmental, criminal, or beautificational issues aren't impotant also - why would a developer initiate a project that wouldn't create a demand for consumers or fill a void for users? They wouldn't.

Actually, in this case, it's all speculation.  The developer is taking a risk on speculation, instead of an actual need.

We may actually agree on more than you think. Where we disagree appears to be your willingness to allow the government to limit our civil rights.

This is not a civil rights issue.

Where we disagree is that you feel that an individual's rights supersedes the rights of a collective whole.  Our government is set up to ensure that all Americans have equal rights - when you center in on individualistic freedom to justify the unnecessary building of tract housing without considering the potential influence on the general populace (which you freely admitted that you support individual rights over the collective), you are supporting a violation of the rights of Americans in general. 

Here's the question you should ask yourself: just because something is not illegal, does that make it ethical?

FloridaState-

You're wrong, and your self-righteousness is intolerable. I understand that we are looking at the issue from opposite sides of the fence, but I think we should be able to talk without insulting each others intelligence. This is definitely a civil rights issue...and our forefathers did fight for freedom from an over-oppressive government.

I'm greatly offended that you suggest that I've "discounted general welfare" and appear to be promoting "anarchist ideals" as well as "unethical behaviour". Well, you read way between the lines there, as I've suggested nothing of the sort. On the contrary, it's my belief that responsible new development promotes the general welfare by either filling a void or creating demand, and creating new jobs.

There's nothing anarchist or unethical about responsible development. Now, we may disagree as to the degree of regulations required to qualify as responsible, but it's my opinion that there's already enough regulations on the books to qualify for responsible planning. There are exceptions of course, but with every layer of new regulations applied by government entities, more and more businesses move away. I can almost here you joyfully cheering when I say that, but unfortunately when businesses move away, so do jobs...and the economy suffers. That's no way to build a thriving community.

And why don't you acknowledge that an individuals ability to make a buck is also balanced by the fact that the individual can also lose that buck if things don't go as planned?

I wouldn't call it balanced because you fail to admit that if things don't go as planned, in this case, it can lead to additional consequences for which the individual won't necessarily incur, but instead, might be incurred by the general population.

- You fail to understand that it is balanced because there are many more successful projects than there are losing projects; and this leads to additional consequences for the general population like shopping, recreation, improved quality of life, and...oh, job creation!

Where we disagree is that you feel that an individual's rights supersedes the rights of a collective whole.  Our government is set up to ensure that all Americans have equal rights - when you center in on individualistic freedom to justify the unnecessary building of tract housing without considering the potential influence on the general populace (which you freely admitted that you support individual rights over the collective), you are supporting a violation of the rights of Americans in general. 

I do feel that individuals rights supersede the rights of the collective whole, but I never suggested development free of current regulations, and I never suggested not considering the potential influence on the general populace. You have really twisted my words with fallacious logic. My point, which you fail to grasp, is that the potential influence on the general populace is an inherent part of the development/planning process.

Your conclusion that I support a violation of the rights of Americans in general is absurd! I'm supporting Americans rights to the free use of their property subject to existing regulations. You, however, are promoting the right of the government to add increased restrictions on our personal freedoms. Taken to the extreme, your line of thinking leads to economic failure as businesses move away and take jobs with them, and ultimately to socialism as your ideal government would restrict your ability to purchase property, and enjoy your property. You would probably prefer that we all would live in government housing with Big Brother monitoring our every move. 

I truly pity you and your ilk, and I hope you enjoy the "bundle of rights" that come with your private property. 

You're wrong, and your self-righteousness is intolerable. I understand that we are looking at the issue from opposite sides of the fence, but I think we should be able to talk without insulting each others intelligence.

First and foremost, I call it like I see it.  If you feel I'm insulting your intelligence, it's because you are unwilling to see the reality of your viewpoints.

This is definitely a civil rights issue...and our forefathers did fight for freedom from an over-oppressive government.

1) Define "civil rights," and explain exactly how this situation qualifies as something which can be considered a "civil right"

2) As I pointed out previously, the founding fathers did indeed fight for freedom, but even they put limitations on that freedom.  Your point of view suggests a more anarchist mentality - one in which you believe it is your right to do whatever you want, especially as it pertains to the things you own.  My point of view is one of realism - just because you own property doesn't mean you should have the rights to do anything with that property.  There should be (and normally are) limitations based upon how your decisions and/or actions will affect the general population.  I'm also looking at this from an economically conservative viewpoint - the cost to the taxpayers outweighs the current potential rewards for allowing such development.

I'm greatly offended that you suggest that I've "discounted general welfare" and appear to be promoting "anarchist ideals" as well as "unethical behaviour". Well, you read way between the lines there, as I've suggested nothing of the sort. On the contrary, it's my belief that responsible new development promotes the general welfare by either filling a void or creating demand, and creating new jobs.

You specifically inferred that you value individual rights over communual rights.  If you'd like to rephrase your statement, now is the chance.

There's nothing anarchist or unethical about responsible development. Now, we may disagree as to the degree of regulations required to qualify as responsible, but it's my opinion that there's already enough regulations on the books to qualify for responsible planning. There are exceptions of course, but with every layer of new regulations applied by government entities, more and more businesses move away. I can almost here you joyfully cheering when I say that, but unfortunately when businesses move away, so do jobs...and the economy suffers. That's no way to build a thriving community.

1) In my eyes, responsible development implies a need for development. 

2) I don't believe in more regulation: I believe in smarter regulation.  I'll completely agree that half of the regulatory laws in this state regarding everything from development to agriculture are completely ridiculous; not because the intentions are off (because I believe most of the intentions are good), but because they are poorly implemented.  A re-working of the system would provide for better balance.

3) Being I'm in industrial sales, my income is influenced heavily by the construction industry.  Do I want our economy to further suffer? No.  Do I want jobs to go away? No. Do I want businesses to move away? No.  Do I want responsible development? Yes.  

4) What do I define as responsible development? Here locally, I define it as centering in on the many failed projects that are currently collecting dust.  You specifically admitted that developers will jump on these projects when it suits them.  In other words, they currently aren't willing to sink money into something that isn't a garauntee: they aren't willing to risk it.  My beef is that it makes absolutely no logical sense to look at projects on the wayside as more risky than projects that haven't even begun - especially those that are well within city limits.  Responsible development, in my eyes is when the local government and developers work together to acheive their goals.  If developers were willing to invest in their community (surprise.. as mentioned above, who are these developers? Out of towners), it would be feasable for them to make a profit and for the community to prosper at the same time.

- You fail to understand that it is balanced because there are many more successful projects than there are losing projects; and this leads to additional consequences for the general population like shopping, recreation, improved quality of life, and...oh, job creation!

So, because your law of averages suggests more success that failure, we should ignore the current failures and let them fester?  I'm going to equate your argument to a little story:

A customer in a restaraunt orders a chicken sandwhich, for which the chef begins cooking on a grill.  Literally 2 minutes into the cooking, the server tells the chef that the customer changed their mind and now wants steak.  The cook immediately throws a steak on the grill, but forgets the chicken.  The chicken begins to smoke, and eventually catches on fire.  The steak is cooked to perfection and sent out to the customer who is delighted.  Here's the problem: that piece of chicken is now wasted, which winds up costing the restaurant money, which in turn eventually costs the customer more money as well, when the owner realizes he must jack up the price of his menu to account for costly kitchen mistakes.

That's not balanced, my friend.  It might be balanced for the developer right now, and it might on the surface appear balanced for the community, but in reality it is unbalanced because it ignores what's already right out in the open.

I do feel that individuals rights supersede the rights of the collective whole, but I never suggested development free of current regulations, and I never suggested not considering the potential influence on the general populace. You have really twisted my words with fallacious logic.

I didn't twist your words at all.  I think maybe you should re-examine the words you use, because they can easily be taken out of context.

You freely admit that you feel that individual rights supercede the rights of the collective whole.  When someone tells me that, the first thing I think of is a fat cat on the 90th floor of a high rise lining his pockets because of the stupidity of the populace.  He doesn't care about the community - he cares only of himself.  If you are not promoting such ideology, I highly suggest you explain things differently.

My point, which you fail to grasp, is that the potential influence on the general populace is an inherent part of the development/planning process.

I grasped it, and I call it baloney.  The #1 priority of any business is to make money.  The larger the company, the more potential there is for greed and mismanagement.  With that in mind, companies will generally (and almost always) do what is most profitable.  Some (and potentially many) will take into consideration the effects of their business on the community, but that doesn't mean that such consideration will actually influence any decisions. 

To put it bluntly - your arguments are well thought out, and they make sense: correct development builds better communities.  However, where I'm calling your bluff is directly related to the reality that business does what's in it's best interest, as do developers.  Just as mentioned above, the bigger a developer is (and the further away they reside from the actual communities they build), the more likely they will exploit the good and ignore the bad.  Push the talking points "Great for the community, add jobs, infrastructure, etc," but ignore the potential pitfalls, which right now in this economy are concrete and real.

Your conclusion that I support a violation of the rights of Americans in general is absurd! I'm supporting Americans rights to the free use of their property subject to existing regulations. You, however, are promoting the right of the government to add increased restrictions on our personal freedoms. Taken to the extreme, your line of thinking leads to economic failure as businesses move away and take jobs with them, and ultimately to socialism as your ideal government would restrict your ability to purchase property, and enjoy your property. You would probably prefer that we all would live in government housing with Big Brother monitoring our every move. 

Surprise surprise, the "socialist" argument.  I'm far from a socialist, sir.  In fact, as mentioned above, I'm pretty economically conservative (socially liberal).  You are correct, that taken to the extreme, my line of thinking could lead to increased regulation.  However, nothing I've said can be considered as such.  

You claim that I want the government to put further restrictions on personal freedom - tell me, how many of these companies are run by one person? 

You speak of personal freedom - I speak of it as well.  I should be free to reside in a community that has lower taxes, lower crime rates, beautified areas (no ghettos, no run-down housing tracts or shopping malls).  I support smart business that is profitable and helps the community - you just support business.

I truly pity you and your ilk, and I hope you enjoy the "bundle of rights" that come with your private property.

I do enjoy the rights I have with my private property.  In fact, I appreciate what I have, because there are plenty in our own country, much less the world who have much less.

Floridastate-

I'm quite willing to understand the reality of my own viewpoints, but I feel that you have grossly mis-characterized much of what I've said. I'm actually tired of having to re-explain my positions.

You specifically inferred that you value individual rights over communual rights.  If you'd like to rephrase your statement, now is the chance.

- Ok. I believe that the government exists to serve the individual rather than the individual existing to serve the government. Does that make it any clearer?

You freely admit that you feel that individual rights supercede the rights of the collective whole.  When someone tells me that, the first thing I think of is a fat cat on the 90th floor of a high rise lining his pockets because of the stupidity of the populace.  He doesn't care about the community - he cares only of himself.  If you are not promoting such ideology, I highly suggest you explain things differently.

- That's funny, because I see private property rights as the right of each individual to acheive "the American Dream" of home ownership, and an opportunity for individuals to earn a decent wage. Some may be successful enough to make it to that 90th floor as you describe, but who are we to judge their morals or their intentions? What makes you think they don't care about the community? Maybe the fat cat made successful developments that fulfilled many needs, created many jobs, beautified his community, and made many people happy. Why do you assume otherwise? I don't begrudge anyone for reaping the benefits of a job well done.

To put it bluntly - your arguments are well thought out, and they make sense: correct development builds better communities.  However, where I'm calling your bluff is directly related to the reality that business does what's in it's best interest, as do developers.  Just as mentioned above, the bigger a developer is (and the further away they reside from the actual communities they build), the more likely they will exploit the good and ignore the bad.

- You don't need to call my bluff, as I never denied that developers do what's in their best interest. I agree with that statement.

I support smart business that is profitable and helps the community - you just support business.

- Don't assume for a second that I don't care about my community. This comment would be like me saying to you "I support smart business that is profitable and helps the community - you just support the community." This is simply a smear! Just because I support business does not mean I don't support proper planning.

So, because your law of averages suggests more success that failure, we should ignore the current failures and let them fester?  I'm going to equate your argument to a little story:

A customer in a restaraunt orders a chicken sandwhich, for which the chef begins cooking on a grill.  Literally 2 minutes into the cooking, the server tells the chef that the customer changed their mind and now wants steak.  The cook immediately throws a steak on the grill, but forgets the chicken.  The chicken begins to smoke, and eventually catches on fire.  The steak is cooked to perfection and sent out to the customer who is delighted.  Here's the problem: that piece of chicken is now wasted, which winds up costing the restaurant money, which in turn eventually costs the customer more money as well, when the owner realizes he must jack up the price of his menu to account for costly kitchen mistakes.

That's not balanced, my friend.  It might be balanced for the developer right now, and it might on the surface appear balanced for the community, but in reality it is unbalanced because it ignores what's already right out in the open.

- It's crazy statements like this that make my jaw drop open and ask myself "When/how did I ever suggest letting failed developments fester?" How do you come up with these wild assumptions? On the contrary, I've repeatedly championed the efforts of developers and redevelop agencies to rehabilitate blighted areas.

As I pointed out previously, the founding fathers did indeed fight for freedom, but even they put limitations on that freedom.  Your point of view suggests a more anarchist mentality - one in which you believe it is your right to do whatever you want, especially as it pertains to the things you own.  My point of view is one of realism - just because you own property doesn't mean you should have the rights to do anything with that property.  There should be (and normally are) limitations based upon how your decisions and/or actions will affect the general population.  I'm also looking at this from an economically conservative viewpoint - the cost to the taxpayers outweighs the current potential rewards for allowing such development.

- My point of view is only more anarchist as to the rxtent that your point of view is more socialist. In other words, taken to extremes, no regulations lead to anarchy while excessive regulations lead to socialism.You seem to always paint my position in the extreme, though I have repeatedly stated that moderate regulation is necessary. I pretty much agree with your position here. However, I do feel you are overlooking the benefit of increased property taxes to the city with each new successful development, which I believe outweighs the cost of failed developments to taxpayers.

1) In my eyes, responsible development implies a need for development. 

2) I don't believe in more regulation: I believe in smarter regulation.  I'll completely agree that half of the regulatory laws in this state regarding everything from development to agriculture are completely ridiculous; not because the intentions are off (because I believe most of the intentions are good), but because they are poorly implemented.  A re-working of the system would provide for better balance.

3) Being I'm in industrial sales, my income is influenced heavily by the construction industry.  Do I want our economy to further suffer? No.  Do I want jobs to go away? No. Do I want businesses to move away? No.  Do I want responsible development? Yes. 

4) What do I define as responsible development? Here locally, I define it as centering in on the many failed projects that are currently collecting dust.  You specifically admitted that developers will jump on these projects when it suits them.  In other words, they currently aren't willing to sink money into something that isn't a garauntee: they aren't willing to risk it.  My beef is that it makes absolutely no logical sense to look at projects on the wayside as more risky than projects that haven't even begun - especially those that are well within city limits.  Responsible development, in my eyes is when the local government and developers work together to acheive their goals.  If developers were willing to invest in their community (surprise.. as mentioned above, who are these developers? Out of towners), it would be feasable for them to make a profit and for the community to prosper at the same time.

- I stand up and applaud you for this perspective! We're in complete agreement here. A wonderful example is the Gaslamp District in San Diego. It's exciting to see the rejuvenation of that area. I've tried to express repeatedly that responsible development implies a need for development. in its essence, development exists to satisfy a need!