>Sorry to have to beg to differ, but BART has been a major factor in sprawl in the East Bay, especially in the areas to the east of the hills, Concord and Walnut Creek being good examples.

But it hasn't been as big a factor as the new freeways built almost contemporaneously in the area. George Hilton maintains that a system like BART takes only one year's traffic growth off the freeways.

>BART is just one glaring instance of a scheme being peddled as environmental but which when implemented turns out to be developmental.

Hmmm, I don't recall very much environmental hype from B.S. Stokes.

>"Green" turns out to be nanny-stating harassment - the public can't buy any alkyd paint but the corporate connected can get exemptions for everything.

Ahh,, the starry-eyed true believers. I know what you mean.

>I used to consider myself an environmentalist but when fanatics want to make it illegal to own any pet other than a dog or cat they have gone over the deep end imho.

Burmese pythons have gone native all across the southern US. This is good?

>At the other send of the scale from the developers are the "phony enviros" who want things to stay pleasantly the same, but only for the wealthy few.

Nimby Bananas: Not In My Back Yard, Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.