> It isn't crappy, it was necessary. You've explained why it was necessary to give access and rights to build. It doesn't explain why that included secondary

> It isn't crappy, it was necessary. You've explained why it was necessary to give access and rights to build. It doesn't explain why that included secondary rights (i.e. the ability to monetize other uses of the land) exclusively, or perpetually, Which is what I think the poster you replied to was trying to say. It may be true that the deals couldn't be made another way, but it certainly isn't obviously true.