Lurker, I think I have to agree with you there.
Whilst it is vaguely possible that if there was green grass rather than a DFO in that location, the pilot could have used the extra height to continue a left turn and flare and land safely on the grass rather than the freeway, I don't think we can use the development of the DFO as a contributing factor to this accident.
As you say, if the building was an airport terminal or aircraft hangars, I don't think we would be having this discussion.
With regards to airport "safety", while it would be lovely to have 10,0000 hectares of fields around every airport, that is never going to be economically feasible. Twin engine aircraft are certified to be able to climb away within a splay in the event of an engine failure, and that is generally considered an acceptable level of safety.
The reason this particular aircraft didn't is yet to be determined.
With regards to the previous suggestion by another poster that developers should be responsible for the costs of go-arounds or diversions due to mechanical turbulence caused by non-aviation buildings on airport land, I would have to say "toughen up". There are far bigger risks to aviation than this. I would like to see any incident statistics based on this phenomenum.