Individual property rights are fine and part of this, but this specific development is at the heart of our current debate for overall city development.

Here's the thing, no one wants to live next to a commercial property, period.

If you take into account everyone's "right" to quiet enjoyment on their SF lot. You'll have no commercial property anywhere. Let alone industrial. Why would anyone want a home next to a commercial property?

So inferring your concept it's ONLY those lots that are currently commercial can be commercial, and residential can't ever become commercial. You could say the same thing for every single commercial property south of Sunshine. Everything there was Agricultural or Residential prior to 1940s. Should that not exist as it threatened the farmers "quiet enjoyment"?

I get the points, but it's an undefendable argument because it's entirely based on Nimby'ism. Development is great! .... Just not next to me and my investment.