To the editor: The print subhead makes the issue clear: empowering an official to approve vital giant developments with out giving counties and cities a veto (“Clear a path for sweeping city experiments reminiscent of California Endlessly,” Dec. 1). What may probably go fallacious with giving one individual the precise to approve a 400,000-person metropolis? Why would we wish the sort of authoritarian place? It seems like a pathway to corruption.
It is sensible to require analysis of satisfactory 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 varieties of jobs could be out there? Would the housing be inexpensive for academics, nurses and others who should not tremendous wealthy?
Mary Stewart, Wilmington
