【Argument】The council of Maple County
-
July 26, 2020 at 3:55 am
<span class=”fontstyle0″>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 supply of
new housing, could lead to significant increases in the price of housing in the county.
Proponents of the measure note that Chestnut County established a similar measure ten years
ago, and its housing prices have increased only modestly since. However, opponents of the
measure note that Pine County adopted restrictions on the development of new residential
housing fifteen years ago, and its housing prices have since more than doubled. The council
currently predicts that the proposed measure, if passed, will result in a significant increase in
housing prices in Maple County. </span><span class=”fontstyle0″>Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to
decide whether the prediction and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to
explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the prediction.</span>July 26, 2020 at 3:55 am【The following part is my passage. Thank you so much for your help.】
The Maple concern proposes a planning on restricting development of existing farmland with a concern of decrease in supply of house and a series response in uncontrolled increase of new housing price. Multiple questions nevertheless remained to be answered to evaluate the prediction.
First, the proponents attempts to incite cases in Chestnut County to campaign their standpoints that restrictions will not lead to a significant rise in housing price. However, questions should be answered on how much degrees of similarities could be made sure between Chestnut and Maple. Perhaps different from Maple as a busy county, popularity remains stable with limited amount of incomers, who may seek to purchase new residence, in Chestnut. That is to say, even if the supply indeed decreases, that the housing prices will increase modestly owing to the limited needs in new houses. Also, the case of Chestnut County would be too old to be regarded as valid.
Similarly, when it comes to examples raised by opponents who believe that the same fate of unchecked increase in housing price would be witnessed in Maple after the case of Pine Country. Additional questions nevertheless remain dubious whether all factors remain the same between these two counties. Besides, it is questionable if it is appropriate to apply the case ten years ago in a future estimation. There is likelihood that fifteen years ago there was a golden age in real estate market. Hence, the housing price in Pine took that advantage and witnessed a huge increase in housing prices. Perhaps, the price increase of housing in Maple exceeded that in Pine 15 years ago.
Even if both sides on discussing the price trends of new housing make sense in certain circumstances, the argument would answer whether it is cogent in viewing housing price as a consequence of farmland restriction. An example can be lied in a prerequisite that living area is separated from the framing one. If it is true, then, the influence on residence area caused by changes in farmland would be so in significant that the house supply in living area will remain. Even, it is possible that housing supply increases owing to the shrinking of area applied for farming purpose.
To sum, a few questions remained before evaluating the prediction whether the housing price would surge as a result of shortage of new housing supply – such as the relationship between supply of housing and the planning on farmland.
