There was an interesting debate around this in MT, with a solid bipartisan approach that was aimed at residential and industrial infill, rather than just going with new subdivisions. That got litigated by people who didn't want their single-family home neighborhoods inundated with MIL apartments or new development relative to multi-family housing. It comes across as gentrification even if I understand the desire to maintain a high quality of life. We're dealing with similar in the county here in MI: A 70 acre chunk of prime whitetail and turkey habitat has been ripped into 5 & 10's, which are going for about $39-40K an acre with 5 acres as the smallest lot. However, the development in town (Traverse City) is creating a new playground for the elite, while shuffling workers out of town and into surrounding communities, causing massive housing shortages both in town and out of town. Orchards and farms are selling out to developers who bring in either wineries, cider houses, subdivisions or worse yet, golf courses.
Mixed use is the right way to go. However, I firmly believe that zoning needs to be strict in order to maintain the quality of life that citizens want in the locations they live. Like when our county planning board turned down a massive enduro race project that someone wanted to do across the street from us. I appreciated the strictness then, even if my neighbor was looking at the revenue as a necessary part of keeping the place in-tact.
