Dec. 4, 2025 6 AM PT
To the editor: The print subhead makes the issue clear: empowering an official to approve essential giant developments with out giving counties and cities a veto (“Clear a path for sweeping urban experiments such as California Forever,” Dec. 1). What might presumably go unsuitable with giving one particular person the appropriate to approve a 400,000-person metropolis? Why would we would like any such authoritarian place? It seems like a pathway to corruption.
It is smart to require analysis of sufficient 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 forms of jobs could be accessible? Would the housing be inexpensive for lecturers, nurses and others who aren’t tremendous wealthy?
Mary Stewart, Wilmington
