So let's ignore the troubling implications of your use of 'riff-raff' for the moment and assume that your basic premise is true: restricting development keeps o

So let's ignore the troubling implications of your use of 'riff-raff' for the moment and assume that your basic premise is true: restricting development keeps out certain people. The more more development restrictions there are, the more people will be kept out. At a certain point, the people who are kept out are will include people who you wouldn't otherwise want to keep out, however, you define that. And this doesn't have to be a result of increasing the restrictions on development. For example if there are more 'desirable' people who want to move to the area than there are available houses/new developments, then some of the desirable people will be forced out. Of course, there's also the major untrue assumption that you make that the only way to maintain open space and desirability is to restrict development. Higher density infill housing doesn't intrude on the existing open space, sicne by definition it's slotting in between buildings in already developed areas. And of course, places like Singapore, Hong Kong, Paris, and New York City are proofs by existence that desirability and less restrictive development are not mutually exclusive. But let's get back to 'riff-raff' and keeping that out. That's just racist and classist.