Everyone should have an opinion on this, one way or another. Which of these are improvements, and which are "improvements"?
- A developer builds a housing tract at the boundary between a preexisting suburban town and wilderness
Do the residents at the boundary feel deprived when their extended back yard is taken away? With some foresight, maybe these concerns could be covered with some town codes so that people know what to expect? An extra layer of housing also means more traffic, higher school populations, and generally more pressure on existing infrastructure.
I think the real issue here is suburban sprawl. It rarely goes the other way - i.e. suburban retraction. It only takes one interval of time in which those who defend against suburban sprawl let their defenses down for suburban sprawl to move further out. Thus you essentially have a never ending growth outwards, which destroys the existing infrastructure of wilderness and the ecosystem services it provides.
Do existing landowners benefit? Yes and no. If the preexisting community was rather small, then they likely will benefit, because as the population around them grows, new infrastructure is built, which can both cause home values to rise, while the availability of services rises. On the other hand, if it's already a well developed community, an oversupply of housing might occur, traffic congestion occurs where there is little room for increases of traffic flow, and the inevitable suburban sprawl continues.
Ultimately, it's the developer that wins. This is their business. They are a business whose interest is to make money. They don't live in the community. The environment is not a concern, except for where lawsuits might occur.
