A new monkey wrench was thrown into the Lighthouse Landing project that I wrote about yesterday. The builder - Roseland has backed out at the 11 th hour because the Sleepy Hollow board of trustees reduced the size of the residential housing by a little less than 6% and added bonding obligations and improvements that they feel were excessive and exceeded the authority of the Trustees.
Granted that it is important that builders and landowners make a fair profit. But at the same time, I have gotten an increased sense that builders feel that they can literally "bully" local officials into submission with "its my way or the highway" stands and threats of litigation. My point is - where does a landowners right to a profit end and a municipalities right to determine its future growth begin or vice versa. Its a matter of balance. I have seen other instances where developers have submitted plans that would change the entire face of a municipality, create mountains of traffic and pollution and have tried to force said plans on officials and citizens with the threat of litigation. Its part of the free market cowboy mentality that seems to prevail with supply siders. "It's my land and I can do WHATEVER I WANT WITH IT - or I'll sue!" Well, no you can't - there are and should be limits if what you are doing changes the entire character of a municipality. At the outset, let me say that I don't know all of the particulars in this case - but in general builders have to come down to earth and become less law suit happy and learn to work WITH communities to maintain their character.
Comments (2)Subscribe to CommentsComment