Apparently, I'm being accused of lacking "common sense". If common sense is the intellect motivating the majority of the discussion here, I am happy to be lacking in it:

com·mon
adj. com·mon·er, com·mon·est
1. Not distinguished by superior or noteworthy characteristics.
2. Of no special quality; standard.
3. Of mediocre or inferior quality; second-rate.

"i" writes: "How tolerant. Do anarchists such as yourself refuse every benefit provided by a "commercial tax base"?"

First, I never claimed to be tolerant. I have little tolerance and patience, for instance, when it comes to gigantic SUVs, big-box stores, people who can't pay attention to where they're driving and, most importantly, dandruff (yes, that last one was a joke).

Secondly, of course I don't refuse every benefit provided by a commercial tax base (nice attempt at building a straw man, though). I simply said I don't like being held hostage to a commercial tax base. Forgive me for having the imagination to envision the possibility that a community can address its needs through mutual aid without shooting itself in the foot with big-box stores which bring blight to it. Bringing in some giant hardware retailers so that local folks can spend their hard-earned money there, most of which is sucked out of the community into corporate coffers and shareholders pockets, just to get the tiniest bit of sludge off the bottom of the revenue barrel--this is not, to my mind, sound economic policy, whether you're an anarchist or not. It's like selling off my left leg so I can afford to buy myself some crutches. If that is what "common sense" dictates--and usually it does--again, I'm happy to have a deficiency.

Then, JP, more sensibly perhaps, questions why I should want Lowes and/or Home Depot to burn down once constructed rather than not be built in the first place. The latter eventuality would be great with me, but I'm unconvinved that lobbying efforts to block its construction will succeed. And I think it's a bit of a leap to assume that the stores will be keen on rebuilding after a fire, particularly if there is vocal public opposition before and during construction. It's not necessarily a bad assumption, but it's not a foregone conclusion, either. In the end, fire would be the thing to hope for should all channels of public opposition fail. Perhaps I am just cynical in assuming that they will fail, eventually...not that I won't participate in that public opposition. In fact I have and will continue to do so.

But really, all lame excuses aside, I was just using the image of a conflagration for dramatic effect...quite shamelessly, I might add. To be totally honest, the same goes for the krypto thing. I don't actually even own a krypto lock (which is great because I would have a useless piece of metal not good for anything but playing horseshoes). While I wouldn't put it past me to actually smash a windshield, it's not really my style. I do get pretty irate when drivers run me off the road (often on Mission St), either through negligence or deliberate nastiness, but I'm more likely to concentrate on avoiding ending up face-down in the gutter than picking a fight. I actually had a passenger of a truck try to punch me out of his window once on Mission St. He failed miserably and made himself look like an ass in the process--but still....

The point is;
a) drivers on Mission St. can be real jerks, or at least inattentive morons, hence:
b) we (nearby residents, pedestrians, cyclists, etc.) don't need any more of them, which
c) would be the result were Home Depot and/or Lowe's to be constructed, fire notwithstanding