My experience from living in Utah the latter half of the 20th century was urban sprawl or "fill-in" was the natural consequences of pro-development policies. As the population grew builders would convert farm land to new development tracts. Home buyers had the choice of buying a more expensive existing home closer to the existing populat…
My experience from living in Utah the latter half of the 20th century was urban sprawl or "fill-in" was the natural consequences of pro-development policies. As the population grew builders would convert farm land to new development tracts. Home buyers had the choice of buying a more expensive existing home closer to the existing population center or of buying a less expensive home further out. But as people bought up new homes the population center changed.
Pro-development policies tend to be very successful at increasing the population and at driving economics.growth. They have the negative of creating urban sprawl. After leaving Utah the urban sprawl has gotten much worse, so much so I would not move back to where I used to live.
Where I live now in the DMV metro area is next to woods in a very low density neighborhood. I love it! But if the zoning were changed and the housing density tripled I would hate it. It would likely cause me to move again.
Urban sprawl is ugly. But it also enables many more people to afford housing and to enjoy the financial gain of home appreciation. Ultimately, I side with pro-development policies and wish government was more interested in lowering the cost of developing housing - in particular the costs of water & septic / sewer.
I am a benevolent Nimby. I don't want my good thing spoiled but I would rather see more people able to afford a green lawn and picket fence, and if I feel the growth is too suffocating, I will then move.
My experience from living in Utah the latter half of the 20th century was urban sprawl or "fill-in" was the natural consequences of pro-development policies. As the population grew builders would convert farm land to new development tracts. Home buyers had the choice of buying a more expensive existing home closer to the existing population center or of buying a less expensive home further out. But as people bought up new homes the population center changed.
Pro-development policies tend to be very successful at increasing the population and at driving economics.growth. They have the negative of creating urban sprawl. After leaving Utah the urban sprawl has gotten much worse, so much so I would not move back to where I used to live.
Where I live now in the DMV metro area is next to woods in a very low density neighborhood. I love it! But if the zoning were changed and the housing density tripled I would hate it. It would likely cause me to move again.
Urban sprawl is ugly. But it also enables many more people to afford housing and to enjoy the financial gain of home appreciation. Ultimately, I side with pro-development policies and wish government was more interested in lowering the cost of developing housing - in particular the costs of water & septic / sewer.
I am a benevolent Nimby. I don't want my good thing spoiled but I would rather see more people able to afford a green lawn and picket fence, and if I feel the growth is too suffocating, I will then move.