<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Thursday, March 28, 2024
March 28, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

Letter: Crowding is not beneficial

By Tony Bowling, Vancouver
Published: October 7, 2017, 6:00am

It is obvious that a lot of people like living in New York. I think it is too crowded. So when does a city decide that any further development would result in overcrowding? Unlimited addition of housing could very well kill the reason people want to live there in the first place — trees, parks, low traffic, clear air, quietness, etc.

Looking at Vancouver: One reads about a housing shortage. Does this automatically mean that more housing must be built within the existing boundaries? If someone decides to live here, do they have a right to housing despite what it may ultimately do to the existing aesthetics of the city?

I know developers will rape a city of its open space to make a dollar, and do it with the PR line that they are helping, but their purpose is always profit — not a city’s longevity. Two examples of other cities: Detroit, in January 2013, had 47 houses listed for $500 or less, with five properties listed for $1 (per Wikipedia). On the other hand, Beverly Hills, Calif., makes no attempt to accommodate anyone just because they may want to live there. Its current median price is $3,074,700.

We encourage readers to express their views about public issues. Letters to the editor are subject to editing for brevity and clarity. Limit letters to 200 words (100 words if endorsing or opposing a political candidate or ballot measure) and allow 30 days between submissions. Send Us a Letter
Loading...