The Infrastructure Argument Against Infill
One common (if vague) argument against upzoning and infill development is that infrastructure in place X (wherever the proposed development is) will somehow be overwhelmed by more important. When I see this argument I want to ask:
1. What infastructure are you talking about?
2. How is it currently inadequate in place X?
3. If you don't want more people to live and work in place X where do you want them to live and work instead?
4. Do you really think the infrastructure there is any better than in place X? Why? Can you prove it?
Write your comments in the box below and share on your Facebook!