> There's a reason those laws were passed, and it's because of all the massive groundwater and air and soil contamination problems created by unregulated free-f

> There's a reason those laws were passed, and it's because of all the massive groundwater and air and soil contamination problems created by unregulated free-for-all industrial development that have had to be cleaned up at great public expense. OK, sure, but what does that have to do with building a bridge or a train station? A similar objection occurs on a smaller scale when we talk about opening up zoning laws to allow more apartments. "There's a reason those laws were passed. You're saying you want a chemical treatment plant built by your school?" No, what I said is that it should be legal to build apartments. Who said anything about a chemical plant? Supporting quick approvals for less hazardous projects doesn't suggest support for more hazardous projects, but implying that it does is an effective opposition tactic.