The council of Maple County, concerned about the county's becoming overdeveloped, is debating a proposed measure that would prevent the development of existing farmland in the county. But the council is also concerned that such a restriction, by limiting

The prediction made by the council avers that preventing the development of the existing farmland in the county would trigger a significant increase in the housing prices in Maple County. The argument proposed to corroborate the above stated is the doubling of housing prices in Pine County after implementing similar restrictions, fifteen years ago. At the same time, a counterargument is provided by citing the example of Chestnut County, where the prices have increased modestly, since ten years of adaptation of similar interdictions.

The most cardinal question to be answered would entail to, how grave and realistic is the council’s fear of overdevelopment in the County? The available farmland in the county needs to be estimated and then contrasted against the county size to precisely evaluate the scope of expansion into the farmland. Another aspect to be simultaneously considered is the current population of the county and the future estimations. If the trends exhibit a rise in the population in the coming years, then restricting development will certainly cause inflation in housing prices. Hence, a plenary analysis is indispensible before raising the red flag of overdevelopment.

The subsequent question to be answered would be about the analogies between the situation existing in Maple County and the conditions of Chestnut and Pine County, ten and fifteen years ago, respectively. The circumstances, in which the restrictions were imposed then, need to be analyzed and compared to the current state of affairs at Maple County. The proportion of farmland in the two counties, their populations, then and now, and their expansive and restrictive policies followed over the subsequent years should be scrutinized. Similarities with any one can buttress the claim of analogous trends to occur at Maple County, while aberrations will enervate the assertions made by the council and will emphasize on the need of more investigation.

Another facet that requires explication is the manner in which the housing prices varied over the years in Chestnut and Pine County. Chestnut might have opted for alterations in its policies to ensure sufficient accommodation and hence the price rise hasn’t been that prominent. While for Pine, the inflation might be a sudden surge and not a gradual enhancement over the fifteen years. The pecuniary status of the citizens of the three counties is another pertinent characteristic to be explored. Inflation can result only when there is an imbalance between the demand and supply. But for this rise to sustain there should be buyers who can afford the increasing rates or else the system collapses. There can be a possibility of rich households existing in Pine, ready to pay mammoth and unreasonable prices, consequentially leading to the doubling of housing prices. While Chestnut not being that fulsome as a County could not afford much price rise as then there would have been a dearth of potential buyers.

Therefore, the council needs to follow an inter-disciplinary approach, where it needs to scrutinize the various dimensions; from geography of Maple County, to available farmland and resources, to the current and future population trends to the fiscal implications today and tomorrow; and then contrast them with those at Chestnut and Pine County. Only then it should think of emulating any one of the two or else devise its own policies.