The council of Maple County concerned about the county s becoming overdeveloped is debating a proposed measure that would prevent the development of existing farmland in the county But the council is also concerned that such a restriction by limiting the

The author quoted in the above prompt iterates recent housing and legislative discussions in Maple County and reports that the Maple County council, by evidence of Pine and Chestnut recent housing restriction, is predicting an increase in housing prices should a similarly proposed housing legislation be passed. The argument on which this deliberation is passed does not provide enough qualifications to assess the proposed restriction on new housing; thus until answers to the questions described below are provided and properly considered, the council is likely to make an uninformed decision, potentially jeopardizing the local economy.

Since the council’s predictions are mainly conditioned on Pine County’s recent housing prices increase, we need to start by evaluating the features of the three counties’ legislations. The author surmises a restriction on the development of new residential housing in Pine County but does not expatiate what type of restriction it was. Maple County is first of all interested in restricting urban development of limited farmland: She is not yet interested in restricting residential development across the board. Decrepit houses around the city can still be remodeled for new residential buildings, and so can commercial real estate. It is likely that the type of restriction Pine County enacted was overreach and unnecessarily caused a saturation of the real estate market, causing demand to outstrip supply. There is little wonder that this type of restriction did not pass muster.

In addition, it is important to clarify whether any of Pine, Chestnut, or Maple Counties contains a large metropolis. Developments in and around a large urban area typically demand higher prices which are sometimes offsetted by higher property and rental prices. But this does not mean preventing the development of existing farmland is the problem. It just means certain residents may have to pay a premium for higher quality real estate. Quality of living metrics are much more involved in a city than in the country—standards like educational desirability of nearby school districts, proximity of shopping centers, and availability of parking garages all influence housing rates in the city. And there is no indication that residents consider paying more for higher quality housing a problematic and insurmountable dilemma: some residents welcome this opportunity! The intricacies of urban development sometimes necessitates higher housing prices, and it is vital we know which of our districts contain these municipalities.

Developing on the same probe, it is necessary to compare the economic power of all three counties to make a prudent assessment of the proposal. What are the median income for all three counties? If income is significantly lower in Maple County than in the the other counties, then maybe we can assume rental control is high on the list of residents’ priorities—how to successfully enact that would be another question, not to mention that the argument does not even break down the housing inventory by apartments, condominiums, town homes, detached single-family homes. If income is not a problem or the majority of the County residents are not renters, then maybe the residents cherish the opportunity to develop the surrounding regions themselves: perhaps a large percentage of the residents are developers who work in the housing market, in which case legislating against the market can have a significant impact on their livelihood, driving down Maple County overall revenue.

Moreover, we do not know if permitting further housing developments, as the council seem to be currently leaning, can inadvertently cause housing prices to go up anyway, as explained by urban developmental priorities in two paragraphs prior. The bottom line is that the proposed legislation may or may not have deleterious effects. It is altogether a toss up until we get clarification on the income, the population spread—what are the age, gender, occupational spread of the residents—and current residential inventories of all three counties. For example, if any of the counties have a large and increasing population of married couples, or move regularly from one detached single-family housing to another, then we can expect an increase in housing prices regardless, as the residents need more space for their growing families. The provided argument needs a better delineation of the makeup of Pine, Chestnut, and Maple Counties before we can make a proper assessment of their respective housing policies.

In conclusion, this argument is full of holes and is not at all convincing. Tabling the legislation may yet be the right thing to do, but the excerpted piece does not help the case in any way.