to the editor: The printed subtitle makes the problem clear: empowering an official to approve major major developments without giving veto rights to counties and cities (“Pave the way for radical urban experiments like California Forever.” December 1). What could go wrong with giving one person the right to approve a city of 400,000 people? Why would we want this kind of authoritarian position? It sounds like a path to corruption.
It makes sense to require an assessment of adequate water supply and other environmental considerations, as well as current land use. If the land is used for agriculture, where will that agriculture or livestock go? What types of jobs would be available? Would the housing be affordable for teachers, nurses and other people who are not very wealthy?
Mary Stewart, Wilmington
