4 ms·
>ban development of new SFH to preserve environment When you say this, do you mean across the US, or localized? I'm honestly shocked that some people are in t
by mlrtime 3y ago
>ban development of new SFH to preserve environment
When you say this, do you mean across the US, or localized? I'm honestly shocked that some people are in the opinion that SFH should be banned nationally.
- whimsicalism 3y agoIt’s a view that is divorced from any sort of political reality.
- enraged_camel 3y agoIt may be divorced from political reality, but it aligns perfectly with environmental reality. Sprawl is absolutely terrible for the environment, for a large number of reasons.
- Geisterde 3y agoGo to google maps and zoom out, urban sprawl is not the problem. You are talking about ending a way of life that untold millions aspire too, I wonder what kind of affect that would have.
- prawn 3y agoNote that they were saying ban development of. Not do away with. And not necessarily for the rest of time. There are obviously loads of properties that fit the bill and would go undeveloped for many years. That said, I do think banning them (even just by developers) is unnecessary if you provide zoning incentives instead. If you give developers the option to split up land because it will give them a higher return, they're typically quite quick to do that, at least in Australia. That wouldn't prevent owners or speculators from building their dream standalone house.