Replies

Greenways and preserves drive up housing costs by reducing supply. It makes one either pay up the nose for a shack or apartment in a city/close-in suburb or force one to live 50 miles out of town past the greenway.

I'm dealing with that outside of Ann Arbor within outer Washtenaw County. While it's personally good for me, it's bad policy. If this goes to its full intentions, I'd have to either live in an Ypsi ghetto, pay big bucks for Ann Arbor, get lucky with a spot in a small town, or go past the county line and pay for it in transportation costs as well as increased housing costs from supply.

While it's personally good for me, it's bad policy. If this goes to its full intentions, I'd have to either live in an Ypsi ghetto, pay big bucks for Ann Arbor, get lucky with a spot in a small town, or go past the county line and pay for it in transportation costs as well as increased housing costs from supply.

Exactly. I personally like having state land around that I can wander on but its land that produces little to no revenue. If you want a small town you better hurry because they're strangling us with new state land right up to our backyards. (never mind all the connecting corridors)

Claiming its land being preserved is foolish in this case. Its already rural and isn't threatened by urban sprawl. I was out and about the other day and can't for the life of me figure out why the state has to have this land. Aside from all the oil and gas drilling going on in the area.

They appear to be building a green wall right down the Jackson/Washtenaw county line.

“Greenways and preserves drive up housing costs by reducing supply.”

Lack of Greenways and preserves drive housing prices down, by making the crowded, closed neighborhoods less desirable.

What is truly at issue here, are California municipalities that are allowing NO further development, beyond current borders.
That is MUCH different than establishing a “greenway or preserve”.