To the editor: The print subhead makes the issue clear: empowering an official to approve necessary giant developments with out giving counties and cities a veto (“Clear a path for sweeping city experiments comparable to California Perpetually,” Dec. 1). What might presumably go improper with giving one particular person the precise to approve a 400,000-person metropolis? Why would we wish the sort of authoritarian place? It appears like a pathway to corruption.
It is smart to require analysis of sufficient water provide and different environmental issues, in addition to the present use of the land. If the land is getting used for agriculture, the place will that farming or ranching go? What kinds of jobs could be out there? Would the housing be reasonably priced for lecturers, nurses and others who aren’t tremendous wealthy?
Mary Stewart, Wilmington
