I read through Tom Prior’s letter twice, trying to follow the logic in his argument. In terms of infrastructure, it seems unreasonable for new developments that are deemed “wealthy” (costly) to also create their own parallel infrastructures.
I assume that many of those moving in to the new high density development have sold their former residence, making it available for new owners. I assume they will continue to pay property tax that helps support city infrastructure.
There are energy efficiencies associated with high density development — so overall energy consumption should be reduced. Waste collection has the efficiency of one stop to pick up the equivalent 40 plus stops to single residences.
It is interesting to note the use of “wealthy” rather than costly when discussing the expenses related to these projects. I would like see the data used to support the claim that moving into an expensive high density development results in a drop in community involvement and an increased cost per unit to the city for services vis-a-vis a single family residence.