People don’t want to live next door to a drug house.

Nor are they wild about neighbors that have more vehicles than a used car lot on Yosemite Avenue.

And it goes without saying living in close proximity to a convenience store, gas station, or a casual dining place doesn’t top most people’s list of must have amenities.

It is why the frustrations of the residents near a 10-acre parcel where the same commercial “amenities” are being proposed at Pillsbury Road and Woodward Avenue in South Manteca are understandable.

But their strategy of going for the kill to stop development from ever happening by throwing everything at it including the kitchen sink and the attached sewer pipe is more than just questionable.

First, the sewer pipe they’ve dug up trying to kill the project by essentially smearing Mayor Gary Singh.

Records correctly show that Singh’s father once owned the land in question. He was part of a partnership that bought it in 2017

They then sold it to someone else in 2021.

That was long before Singh ever ran for elective office.

Records also show the ownership of the land has seen been altered to include more people than those that bought it from Singh and his partners. The limited partnership it has morphed into now wants to build a commercial project.

This, in the world of straw grasping, is opponents’ idea of corruption and is somehow a conflict of interest.

It gets more ridiculous.

The land has been zoned for commercial use for more than two decades.

And it was done when the only two homes in the general vicinity of the proposed commercial project were two old ones on the land in question that have since been torn down.

It was far from being wall-to-wall subdivisions.

The land rezone was pressed by a property owner at the time by the name of Al Mezzetti.

His argument was the city was planning a sea of homes yet there wasn’t any commercial close by. Mezzetti argued his property was the ideal location for future commercial.

Planners agreed a neighborhood commercial area was needed.

This was before walkable communities entered the planning jargon

All of this is background including the frustrations of the nearby residents that are against the project.

What really matters is the law involving zoning.

It’s the same group of laws that prevented anti-growth people in Manteca in 2001 from blocking the development of homes on farmland — including the homes that are now along Pillsbury Road.

California doesn’t allow heater skelter development.

Possible uses are governed by zoning debated and hammered out in an open community process as part of the implementation of state-mandated general plans that serve as blueprints for growth.

They are blue prints all can see. Nothing is kept secret.

The bottom line is the land in question has been zoned in some manner for commercial use just as long as the surrounding land was zoned for low density single family homes.

The city vested those zoning rights in the land where homes of many of those against the commercial endeavor stand today at the same time they zoned the corner parcels for commercial use.

That happened several years after Singh graduated from Sierra High and a good 10 years or so before being appointed to the Manteca Planning Commission.

Keep in mind the gestation period for commercial is years longer than residential due to the need for a population base to support businesses.

The huffing and puffing is a waste of time.

What the neighbors need to do is focus their energy on making sure what happens on the corner in question develops in such a manner so it will have minimum impact on their lifestyles.

They also need to come to grips with the fact current California law implemented by the legislature a well as court decisions mean the land owners have a right to develop their land for the purpose it is zoned.

It’s no different than the developers who bought land from farmers that has been zoned by housing had the right to build homes that some of those against the project now own.

The real fight should be pushing for development standards and restrictions that make whatever is built blend in as well as possible with the nearby neighborhoods.

Architecture is a starting point.

There is a fire station off South Tracy Boulevard in Tracy that looks as if it is a carbon copy of homes next door.

There are neighborhood commercial developments in places like Pleasanton where gas stations sport tile roof canopies that mimic it as much as possible with the residential neighborhood.

Landscaping could require stepped up tree canopy coverage and plantings that further baffle noise.

Residents could push for restricting business hours as the city has done with an approved neighborhood market intertwined with apartments at Davis Street and Walnut Street near the DMV office.

Those are fights that are winnable.

Arguing against any development at all — especially with trying to spin it as if it is an illegal conspiracy — will legally go nowhere.

It’s because the law is clear.

As far as Singh having a conflict or masterminding a development deal a quarter of a century into the future when he was in his early 20s and had yet to even consider public service, let alone run for elected office, is about as unfounded as you can get.

It is also wishful thinking that neighbors somehow believe they can badger the property owners to leave the land vacant that they have invested money into.

Perhaps they might somehow wear the property owners down when it comes to pursuing the neighborhood retail project that would include space for things like dining, hair care, and such.

That would queue up the ironclad option allowed with the zoning, apartments.

Some 100 or so could be built based on the density allowed in the zoning that could mean three story buildings.

And with apartments on land that is properly zoned, the State of California has made it clear they will sue cities that try to stop such development.

And Sacramento has successfully sued cities when legitimately zoned housing projects have been derailed.

No development ever isn’t a winnable option.

So the real question is what do you prefer next door?

A convenience store/gas station with a possible small family restaurant and a hair stylist or 100 apartments potentionally in three-story buildings.

This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com