Developers

In response to “Developers Find Peace at a Price,” Part I, Feb. 26:

Developers call it “extortion” when they are called upon to reimburse the costs of nearby residents who are inconvenienced by their construction activities and the ensuing changes to the neighborhood.

I do not question the legality of construction activities by developers if they obtain proper permits and comply with all laws and regulations relating to noise, hours of operation, and other aspects of their business. In such cases, they have a right to their operations. But at the same time, the law affords neighborhood residents a right to “quiet enjoyment” of their domiciles, which are infringed by increases in noise, traffic, congestion, and difficulty in parking, even when activities are entirely within the law.

It often becomes a case of competing and conflicting “rights.” In such cases, neither party should be denied their rights. We should not try to stop the legal activities of the developer; however, the developers must understand that since they are making a profit to some extent at the expense of their neighbors’ rights, they must also expect that a portion of those profits be returned to their neighbors as just compensation for their loss.

Developers must understand the difference between developing open areas, where they must incur expenses to compensate for damage to the environment, and residential areas, where they must compensate for damage which they inflict on existing residents.

If they cannot make a profit under such conditions, then the operations are not financially sound. It is not a case of “extortion,” but rather of “just compensation.”

The real extortion would be to deprive neighbors of their rights while giving nothing in return.

MARK ADAMS

Sherman Oaks