If we pick this one apart, we can see that there really is a problem lurking in here, which neither side really wants us to discuss.
First off, you can kind of see her point. It is a plain fact that suburban housing developments completely destroy wildlife habitat. Just about any development you care to name has the following characteristics: close-packed (and ugly) houses, fenced yards, plenty of concrete, and no space for wildlife. When one lives near such a development, it's common to see all sorts of unexpected wildlife in the yard -- or dead alongside the road -- as the animals are pushed out by construction. This represents a real loss to a community.
Digging deeper, one can find a couple of agendas at work here.
On the one hand, the anti-development crowd commonly resorts to this back-door method of finding an obscure little beast as a means of bringing the weight of the Federal government to bear on their behalf. This prevents an honest and necessary discussion for finding a balance between home-building and preservation of wildlife habitat -- both of which are needed and desirable.
On the other hand, the developers' interests are often at odds with the rest of the community. Mutually satisfactory outcomes are rare: it's almost impossible for members of the community to influence developers once they've got it in their minds to build. Unlike normal citizens, developers have virtually unlimited resources, and large staffs of lobbyists and lawyers who can devote all of their time, efforts -- and campaign contributions -- toward total victory. Eventually the normal citizens will miss a meeting, and then they're toast.
Just as with the environmentalists, the developers work hard to avoid necessary discussion on homes vs. wildlife. In addition, the developers work hard to mask the fact that their handiwork inevitably leads to real and significant monetary costs to the community, including additional traffic, roads, drainage, water supplies, and fire and police coverage -- not to mention the intangible losses such as added noise, pollution, crowding, and the fact that the developments seem to be designed to encourage a transient, non-neighborly lifestyle.
Which brings us to the real problem: people like us -- the ones in the middle -- end up paying the price imposed by both sides of this battle, and we really haven't got much choice other than to pick which group to which we'll surrender.
Just as a thought exercise, ask yourself who buys the homes the developer builds? Could it possibly be all those "people in the middle?"
I hardly know where to start. - Your view of the development process is right out of the modern Marxist's resource for activism.
No, developers do not have anywheres near 'unlimited resources' and every cent that they are forced to spend fending off misguided activists must be added to the price of the homes that ultimately get built.
Most large developers are publicly traded companies that will fold at the drop of a hat if they are unable to complete their projects on the 6-7% profit margin that competition allows. - When you fight these developments you are raping your own children, not some imaginary, ultra-rich land baron.
Wildlife and housing cannot coexist, and since housing is necessary, and wildlife is an expendable luxury, which do you think should prevail? - There is no absolute need for wildlife; man only occupies about 2% of this world, while wildlife has the other 98%.
What the enviro-NAZI are asking is impossible, unless you're willing to allow your children to be murdered to save some superfluous bugs.