You won't get any argument from me that 380 Agreements are fertile ground for misanthropic endeavors. If they are administered as they have been to date, then I don't see that they should continue to be administered at all. And Leonard is right, the Gulfgate one is ridiculous! It makes Ainbinder's look wholly legitimate and even-handed by comparison...but that's just it, is that this one does't really piss me off. The developer and the City both wanted the infrastructure, but neither needed it; an arrangement was made whereby the infrastructure could be afforded now instead of later without conflicts of interest, and with managed risks for both parties. It wasn't perfect, but everybody wins as per the spirit of the law. I'm still opposed to this one because I'm opposed to all of them, but that stance has nothing to do with how well this one was crafted or that Wal-Mart is a tenant. Where you I seem to disagree is that I oppose comments that are ill-informed or coercive, and that is how I would categorize the bulk of the NIMBY response to this issue, including yours.