Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsHousing IssuesStarted 7mos agoActive 1wk ago

Should new housing developments be required to include green spaces and parks?

Green spaces in housing developments are areas designated for parks and natural landscapes to enhance residents' quality of life and environmental health. Proponents argue that it enhances community well-being and environmental quality. Opponents argue that it increases the cost of housing and developers should decide the layout of their projects.

28 Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7mos7MO

Yes

 @9MW8Y2BConservativefrom Ontario  agreed…7mos7MO

researches and science always have confirmed zillion times that nature and green spaces are good for human brains and bodies.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7mos7MO

No

 @9MW8Y2BConservativefrom Ontario  disagreed…7mos7MO

yes. definitely. communities need refreshment and leisure walks, children need play. this cannot be denied.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

Should city planners prioritize the desires of developers, or the long-term environmental and social benefits of green spaces?

 @9VNPZW2 from Ontario  answered…3mos3MO

The second option. Green spaces improve the happiness of a city's denizens.

As well as absorbing excess waters, and also absorbing heat to avoid making a place too warm.

 @9TRY8FJPeople’sfrom Ontario  answered…3mos3MO

The long-term environmental and social benefits of green spaces -- making it easier to build low-quality housing ultimately decreases quality of life for everyone in the country.

 @B257KZLfrom Manitoba  answered…1wk1W

I think you should be able to have green space in your area but the parks shouldn't be required for it.

 @9TW2CCSfrom Ontario  answered…3mos3MO

No, but tax breaks should be awarded for those that do

 @9TFQXBLanswered…3mos3MO

New housing development should focus on using existing resources and infrastructure to create accessible housing.

 @9RS542Rfrom Alberta  answered…5mos5MO

Yes, but we need to start going away from car centric

 @9RLR8YHfrom Ontario  answered…5mos5MO

Not if it comes at the expense of solving the housing crisis

 @9RC25L9from Quebec  answered…5mos5MO

Depends on if there is a lack of such things already or this would cause there to be a lack thereof.

 @9RC2QHKNew Democraticfrom Nova Scotia  answered…5mos5MO

Yes, and be planned with accessibility to transit and public services (schools, groceries, utilities) in mind.

 @9RBY87Rfrom Ontario  answered…5mos5MO

Eventually, but the primary concern should be the construction of habitats

 @9RBVDVTfrom Nova Scotia  answered…5mos5MO

No, funds for parks and greenspaces should be captured in development fees paid to provinces and municipalities.

 @9R5KN5Lfrom Ontario  answered…5mos5MO

Yes and No, there might not be enough space to include green spaces and parks

 @9PZ8ZPNfrom Nova Scotia  answered…6mos6MO

Yes, and local government facilities should plant native hardy plants instead of current popular trends.

 @9P8NRFMNew Democratic from Alberta  answered…6mos6MO

If possible, housing developments and communities should prevent environmental ecosystems from being too disturbed or destroyed. If this is not an option, previous ecosystems should be reintroduced elsewhere in an appropriate place where it can be insured that the ecosystem won't be too disturbed or possibly destroyed.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

Do you think access to nature should be considered a basic right in urban areas, or is it more of a luxury?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

How do you feel when spending time in a park or green space, and why do you think that feeling is important for your well-being?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

How might having more green spaces within cities impact public health and the environment long-term?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

Do you see green spaces as a necessary break from urban stress, or could people manage without them in modern cities?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

Is the value of having parks and gardens around worth the potential increase in housing costs for everyone?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

What memories or experiences do you have with green spaces that have shaped your view on how cities should be designed?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

How do you think growing up without access to green spaces might affect someone's perspective on nature as an adult?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

In your opinion, is it more important to build affordable housing quickly, or to make sure cities include enough green spaces?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

What role do you think green spaces play in building community spirit in neighborhoods?

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1mo1MO

Vetting Fiasco: Trump's Defense Pick Caught in Sexual Assault Allegation Storm

CNN commentator and New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman said President-elect Donald Trump’s team missed Pete Hegseth’s payoff to a sexual assault accuser when they vetted him to be secretary of defense.Hegseth is among a raft of cabinet picks facing tough confirmations, and who aren’t being subjected to the customary FBI checks, instead being vetted by private firms. Over the weekend, Hegseth’s attorney dropped the bomb that there was a confidential settlement with a woman who accused the former Fox News host of sexual assault. On Monday night’s edition of CNN’s The Source with Kaitlan Collins, Haberman revealed that her sources in Trump world did not know about the payoff, which was missed in the vetting “because it was a private settlement”HABERMAN: There’s more concern from some people around Trump than there is from Trump himself, about this whole issue. Trump has really dug in, and has told advisers that he is going to stick with Hegseth. Now, we’ll see if anything else emerges.They did do a vet, we are told. This did not show up, this issue, because it was a private settlement, according to the people, who were briefed on what took place. Trump really likes Pete Hegseth. But this did introduce the thing Trump doesn’t like, which is an element of surprise and a negative headline. And so, we will see where this goes.

▲  59 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2mos2MO

Inside the Podcast Revolution: Trump’s Unfiltered Strategy and Harris’s ‘Meltdown’ Risk

Tech billionaire Elon Musk attributed President-elect Trump’s election victory, at least in part, to the lengthy podcast interviews he did during the campaign.In an interview late Tuesday with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Musk said Trump’s podcast appearances showed the American public that he was a normal person.“I think it made a big difference that President Trump and soon-to-be Vice President Vance went on lengthy podcasts,” Musk said in the interview.“I think this really makes a difference because people look at, like, Joe Rogan’s podcast, which is great, and Lex Fridman’s and the All-In podcast, and, you know, to a reasonable-minded, smart person — who’s not, like, hardcore one way or the other — they just listen to someone talk for a few hours and that’s how they decide whether, you know, you’re a good person, whether they like you,” he added, according to a clip highlighted by Mediaite.Trump conducted many interviews with new media during his campaign, as well as with legacy news organizations such as Fox News.Last month, he joined Joe Rogan’s podcast for a 3-hour long interview. The celebrity host later endorsed his candidacy.His opponent, Vice President Harris, did not appear on Rogan’s podcast because, according to “The Joe Rogan Experience” host, the Harris campaign only had an hour and required him to travel to her. Rogan said he felt “strongly” that the “best way to do” an interview with the vice president would have been in his studio in Austin, Texas.Musk recalled posting on his social platform X account that “nothing would do more damage” to Harris’s campaign than going on Rogan’s podcast, “because she would run out of non-sequiturs after about 45 minutes.”“You can’t hide for three hours,” Carlson replied.Musk added, “Yeah, like, hour two and three would be a complete melted puddle of nonsense. So it would just be absolute game over. That’s why she didn’t go on.”“But on the other hand, Trump, he’s there, and there’s no, there’s no talking points,” the Tesla CEO continued. “He’s just being a normal person who’s having a conversation, and doing three hours of Rogan, no problem.”

▲  349 replies

Active 12hrs ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…6 days6D

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  1913 replies3 agree