* No. I didn't build it, I bought it already built, and no wetlands were damaged, it's 100' away, and thev'e got strict measures in this town. And if you think that a single family home outside the buffer zone has the same impact as 300 units in five buildings built ON the wetlands has the same impact, that's ummm, some next-level ignorance.
The strict conservation zoning measures apply to any work - just replacing a porch footing 20 inches inside a zone requires several permits. Planning, work & expense. Everyone here incurs those costs to maintain a standard of living.
>>In other words, "let them eat cake"
Not even close
The point is that destroying value that exists, and value that people have worked significant parts of their lives to create, is a very bad idea.
It is a nonstarter because the ppl that worked to create & maintain those standards vote in far greater numbers than the people complaining. Just a relevant fact. (And threating "f around and find out" is great performance but zero votes - in how many elections have you voted?)
Accusing the people who own nice properties of being motivated by selfishness and greed is not only offensive to the people whose votes you need, it is also exactly 100% wrong.
If they were actually selfish & greedy, they would not be putting in large extra work & expense to maintain standards, they'd be tearing down zoning to build as much as they could on every square foot of their lot to extract maximum value.
They are not. I watched a town where I lived vote out zoning for just such considerations. It was driven by developers, but a lot of it was "why should I have to get permission to build a barn or an in-law apt?".
The same town voted a few years later to restore even stronger zoning.
The FACT of the matter is: while unrestrained development may initially create more units, it actually sucks, badly, for everyone but the fly-by-night developers.
Which means that the article's argument is wrong. People are spending sweat and money to actively NOT get the maximum dollar value out of their homes, because building quality of life is more important.
If you want to go after the real problems, it is not zoning, any more than it's young people having Netflix subscriptions.
A good place to start is with the problem of rental units for "passive income", for running AirBnBs, and housing being purchased by hedge funds and the like. Heavily tax anything that isn't a primary residence, and you'll get a lot of units back on the market fast, and at good prices.