Yes, especially when a place has nothing intrinsically going for it, and is a sort of "nowhere" that people settle for, in order to be close (but ironically, no

Yes, especially when a place has nothing intrinsically going for it, and is a sort of "nowhere" that people settle for, in order to be close (but ironically, not especially close) to an actual place, that they want to be in but can't afford. Unfortunately, the invention of the automobile didn't make geography irrelevant; some spots are just better than others. And far-flung exurbs that are solely bedroom communities for other places seem especially unsustainable/doomed. Another good oil-price spike, and they're once again cut off to a surprising degree, from any real, useful human economic activity. Survival of a place depends on finding & exploiting whatever it is that the location has uniquely. If society collapsed, Hemet could convert itself back to agriculture using some of your bulldozers. Though fuel might be hard to come by in that case. Plus, the people currently moving in in droves might be inclined away from that kind of hard work and more toward forming a roving band of predatory nomads based on ruthlessness, that raids other places. Mad Max!