Maple County

Development of rustic areas is a challenging issue in which it has opponents and proponents, both of which have their reasons. In a similar situation, the council of Maple county suggested a limitation policy in order to protect current undeveloped farmlands. The Council rationale is preventing housing prices from a noticeable rise, like what happened in Chestnut county ten years ago. On the other hand, opponents of this measure assert a reverse effect in Pine county fifteen years ago. Both groups should consider questions and answer to them wisely to persuade the writer to their point of view. The essay will tell some of these questions and how they help the rationalization of the argument.
First, the current situation of these Counties should be assessed thoroughly. If Maple County is more developed than two other areas, overdevelopment is possible in future. conversely, if other areas have been developed more, additional considerations should be counted before implementing a restrictive policy. An overdevelopment situation will probably cause higher prices in Maple county and an underdevelopment situation can instigate a lower increase in housing prices. So, the current situation of Maple county in terms of development in
If current prices in Maple county is more than current Chestnut county’s prices, then a consequent increase in ten years ago is natural. On the other hand, if today’s prices in Maple county are less than Pine county’s ones, a decrease since five years ago is nothing unusual. Of course, reverse trends are also possible. Hence, if the consequences of restriction policies in both other counties, Chestnut and Pine, are congruous with the natural trend of prices, the proponents have a more logical point of view. Reversely, any different between ramification in other counties and price appraisal can make the reasoning of opponents of the policy more