Tom:
Actually, there's a pretty good example (well, at least in golfing circles in Wisconsin, and maybe elsewhere) of the kind of environmental "switch" (for lack of a better term) that Pat Mucci describes. It happened at Whistling Straits, and I wholeheartedly endorsed Herb Kohler's efforts on the switch.
Kohler bought an old, deserted, dilapidated AND polluted military site near Haven, WI. He wanted to turn it into a championship course on the shores of Lake Michigan. He ran into a problem with the state natural resources department, who worried his development -- hundreds of acres -- would impact a smallish wetlands area on the property. Negotiations ensued, between Herb and the state, and eventually Kohler and Dye settled on a "no net loss" (I think the Straits was conceived and built during Bush I, who came up with this term) agreement, with Herb "creating" some new wetlands in return for building one of his clifftop par 3s on the old wetlands. Ironically, the wetlands were incorporated into one of the par 5s on the front nine (if memory serves me correctly) -- the one that double-doglegs around a lake/pond/wetlands. The hole has been criticized by many as being out of character with the rest of the Straits, and it is; Dye, however, says it's the hole that essentially allowed the Straits to be built, as it solved the wetlands issue. I've seen pictures of the Straits site prior to Herb's purchase of it, and walked the entire course during the recent PGA there. It's much improved, and a better use of the land, and it strikes me that the wetlands "trade" made sense in that respect. Whether that particular wetlands is better or worse for the environment, along Paul T's views, I couldn't say; the overall site is a clear, clear improvement over what was once there, and I say that as a taxpaying citizen of Wisconsin (the Straits, presumably, contributes to both local property taxes and state sales taxes through its business).
In general, I support development. It allows many in our country to realize the American dream of owning a home. Unnecessary restrictions on development (related to housing) drive up the cost of all housing, particularly for the middle class and poor, whose best escape from poverty -- I believe -- is owning property. Development creates jobs, sustains economies both locally and nationally, and helps keep us competitive in a global economy.
But, I also believe development comes with some degree of obligation toward the public good. Our society, I believe, is strengthened by strong public entities, whether it be schools, libraries, bike trails or environmental set-asides. One can always debate to what extent our tax dollars -- and public officials who spend them -- should go to support that, and the role that private enterprise is involved in that. That debate is likely to be different in a state with the politics of Utah compared to those of, say, Massachussetts (not that I'm taking sides!).
In short, I don't think "developers" are "evil," nor should "towns" take them "for every dime they're worth." Whistling Straits, to my view, shows that informed negotiations can result in golf-course development that arguably doesn't hurt the environment and by all measures improves the overall nature of the property where it was sited.
My experience -- as someone who serves part-time for a local government entity -- is that if citizens do object to practices of their local government, they tend to demonstrate their displeasure at the voting booth. Give citizens a little more credit here -- I think they are pretty well-informed.