This article is a little all over the place: > at the expense of people living in Lagos or rural Appalachia or San Salvador Which is at the end, but seems to

This article is a little all over the place: > at the expense of people living in Lagos or rural Appalachia or San Salvador Which is at the end, but seems to have little to do with the points earlier about restricted building laws in cities. I get the argument, it's been made in many economics books, but I don't think it comes at the expense of the people in Appalachia. It comes at the expense of people living in the expensive areas. The people in Appalachia have other issues dealing with jobs and investment in the local area. Is the alternative that we allow people to build however and wherever they want until there is not quiet nature within driving distance of anyone?