The NY Times revisits the urban growth debates but this time the setting isn't California but instead south of San Diego. The Mexican poor want jobs and economic development while the environmentalists root for "no growth". There are some silly quotes about "running out of water" but no economists are quoted about current water pricing and ways of discouraging excess water consumption (i.e raising water prices!). A King Solomon might suggest surveying the land to see what is the most valuable agricultural land versus what land has the most value as hotel and golf resorts. Set aside the key agricultural land and allow some development to take place on the marginal land. Make the real estate developers post a bond of $10 million dollars that they will lose if their project has significant adverse environmental implications (these would need to be spelled out ex-ante) and allow these fat cats to go ahead. Are the capitalists; innocent until prove guilty or guilty until proven innocent? The same issue arises with reforming California's CEQA.
You have read my 2011 LA Times letter on this subject?