[sul_tasto]

This is about profit for housing developers, period. They can make more money on units on established areas with highly rated schools, instead of building apartments or townhouses further out. It’s no different than the school redistricting initiatives democrat-leaning school boards are pushing under the guise of ‘equity,’ so that more housing can be built near highly rated schools for a higher profit. There’s no noble cause here. It’s plain corruption.

[mrcartmenez]

Higher density is more economically efficient for local authorities, does less harm to the environment per resident and encourages greener behaviour from individuals, for example discouraging car use.

Spars suburbs do no one any good other than those fortunate enough to be wealthy enough to live in places that end up being subsidised by high-density neighbourhoods, often home to poorer residents.

[sul_tasto]

All your points may or may not be true, but they don’t invalidate the corrupt motivation behind this legislation.

[grillvogel]

suburbs typically cost less per sq foot than dense areas. higher density only benefits developers who can now get revenue on the N plots of land they converted from 1.

[N1H1L]

> suburbs typically cost less per sq foot than dense areas.

What?