I think the key word in this land allocation issue is balance. We have to live some where, so not everything should be forest, but we shouldn't live everywhere, with just endless housing. The balance between these two is somewhere in the middle. Durham has gotten very strict about this, try to find that balance and restrict over-development. The minimum size for a new piece of property used to be a fraction of an acre, making the number of houses that could fit on a given piece of land higher. This was great for the developers and contractors, but not so great for the environment if the land was originally forest. Now in Durham, new lots cannot be less than two acres. This increases the amount of trees and meadow land, while the number of building on that two acres is still likely to be one. On non-conforming lots that used to be built, the number of house that could be put on that two acres was six or even more. These houses have only lawns with a thin line of trees between properties. The actual house takes up about half the property. I like the two acre rule. I think it will help Durham keep from becoming too urbanized, and to maintain the balance between residential and wildlife habitats.