On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, ARWNY wrote:

> I agree that developer implies real estate speculation. I am of the
> impression that the driving force behind the expansion of strip malls
> (possibly not in the case of super malls, but in particular the case of
> smaller malls which are spreading out like the pox) the idea is to build
> it, rent it out, and then sell it to someone else as quickly as
> possible, then go build another one.  Quite often this is combined with
> various tax sheltering incentives. Bankers, accountants and tax lawyers
> are culpable in the plot. I suppose this is actually speculation that
> there is another fool waiting to buy the next mall.  I suppose size is a
> criteria to keep them within a purchaseable range.  Developers are no
> worse than anyone else as people. There are developers that look to do
> adaptive re-use. There possibly were some good railroad barons as well.

When I think of "developer", I don't think of guys doing re-use of older
structures.  A developer is one who works to change and usually intensify
the land use to one with a higher value.

There is always an inherent tension between developers and communities.
The developer's role is to bring change to communities generally against
the will of the local populace, bringing to bear a range of tactics
ranging from flattery to threats to deception.

We *need* developers; a metro area that suddenly lost them would be in
deep trouble.  But it is not a trade for someone who wants to be loved and
respected by the community, or revered for honesty and fair dealing.

This is the flip side of what I said earlier this morning about
neighborhood activists and NIMBY: the two opposing forces make creative
tension.  Eliminate either one, and your city is dead.

                                Larry Kestenbaum