fruity goodness and developer badness

Making up for yesterday's wee bit o' decadence with fruit, fruit, and more fruit. Froooooooot! (Actually, the fruit bin arrived last night and holy crap! We have a lot of fruit to eat up! I see smoothies in our future for a late night treat.)

Breakfast:

• Oregon! strawberries
• blueberries
• Rainier cherries
• grapes

Lunch:

• stir fry -- red kale, Italian lacinato kale, French sorrell, Swiss chard, turnips, onion, garlic, lemongrass, bamboo shoots, peanuts, carrots, beef, special sauce
• jasmine rice
• Oregon! strawberries and Rainier cherries with blueberries and grapes as gap fillers

In house-related news...we lost the fight against Douchebag Developer. It didn't come as a surprise -- this time around was even more of a long-shot than last time, which is really saying something, and the fight was less organized this time around. Which isn't anyone's fault -- there just wasn't much of anything to get a toehold on to dispute. Still a disappointment, though. I would've loved to have someone buy that little house and fix it up. What a shame.

So instead, it's going to get razed to the ground and in its place will be 8 townhomes with one of those shitty central driveways that craptastic developers put in and everyone swears will allow even the biggest gas-guzzling behemoth to navigate into and out of, but which will do nothing but ensure that said behemoths will be parking on the street. To say nothing of the view the building will be blocking, nor this developer's horrible record of half-assed construction that takes so long to sell that units sit empty forever, and then when they do sell eventually (or become rentals), end up in defect litigation.

I'm still boggled that he's pushing a development in the current market. And one of his typically crappy developments, at that. What a douchebag. But I guess once they're built and sold, we'll finally be rid of him and his douchebaggery and won't have to sit in the same room with his stupid smirk ever again.

Comments

[Anne Hawley]

That is such a shame. It's too bad that the house couldn't be bought and occupied, but since infill and density are the way of the future, it's REALLY too bad that a tasteful developer won't have the chance to create a more community-friendly dense development.

[Bitty]

It really is a shame. I wouldn't have a problem* if this were a developer with a better reputation who had shown some commitment to working with the neighborhood and wanting the development to become a valuable addition to our little community. We know density is part of what makes this city so great -- for many reasons -- and that means that we have to be open to density in our neighborhoods. So I'd still be sad to see that little house go, but it wouldn't be the worst thing ever if it was replaced with something more inline with our community and of good quality that will retain value (instead of falling apart in a few years and getting converted to apartments).

*Other than that pretty much anything built over there other than a single-family house is going to end up blocking our view to some degree. It's hard to know at this point how much this proposed development will affect our view, but if it blocks out our view of the bridge? I will be broken-hearted.