Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn
... I am saying that this farmland is of sufficient quality and sufficient rarity that I really don't care if its GDP value AS FARMLAND is lower than it would be as housing, because there are concerns beyond that.
Central Park would be more valuable as skyscrapers than a park, at least to a point - should Central Park be built up?
Most people would violently reject that idea. Because the economic value of the land is only part of its overall value, part (perhaps most) of which is not monetarily-denominated.
|
Good points. As a lifelong resident of the Portland area, there's no way I'd support dissolving the urban growth boundary. Looking 50, 100 years ahead, I know this region has been doing the right thing by drawing a line in the sand
(well, mud), and protecting its valuable farmland and natural beauty. Yes, there are always ways to better increase affordability and manage congestion. But just gobbling up more land on the periphery with a suburban housing style that caters to some and does nothing to relieve traffic is not the answer.