Sorry, but you missed my point.Zoning Boards are NOT designed to be
neutral.They operate to defend zoning and to promote the highest and best use
of land. They are designed to resist change unless there is an extremely
compelling reason to permit change. Profit for a profiteering (or as Al
defined it, "rent seeking")developer is not a compelling reason.But, I think we
have common ground in a different area.Your son volunteered at the SFDS party
last night. He did good and was a welcome addition to the attractive and
charming group of teens who bus tables, serve food and check coats.I imagine
you are very proud of him, and your contributions to him.Liz Tony West
writes:Liz,Sorry but you missed my point, which was about the process of zoning
law, not the particulars in this case. My point is that public zoning
decision-makers must be expected to offer all sides in a case some sort of
neutral consideration. Their role is not solely to protect one side or to
promote another.If improprieties such as you allege do occur in this case, then
one would look for neutral consideration to determine that.End of point.
_____________________________________________________________
Click to learn how you can earn extra cash in day trading.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3noTA8V5GH1NqXuxqM4f6icAufTaRUBiovTRtrtJDPBVxflU/
