By environment I mean the location - shops, parks, houses, lakes, garbage dumps.
According to you, if you want to preserve the attractiveness of the location, you are an evil exploiter trying to extract value at the expense of the people.
From that I conclude that you don't care about preserving the value of the location, so you should have no issues with building a garbage dump next to the affordable housing unit. I said build the unit next to the dump, but if it feels better, you can do it the other way round. Build the affordable housing, then build the garbage dump next to it. After all, nobody is entitled to a nice environment to live in, and you wouldn't want to enrich the people living there.
And I am pretty sure the "promises" are not imagination. At the very least, it seems the residents have a say in what gets build, or they couldn't prevent the building of new houses. So "move there, and you'll have a say in the further development of the area" seems to be a promise.
According to you, if you want to preserve the attractiveness of the location, you are an evil exploiter trying to extract value at the expense of the people.
From that I conclude that you don't care about preserving the value of the location, so you should have no issues with building a garbage dump next to the affordable housing unit. I said build the unit next to the dump, but if it feels better, you can do it the other way round. Build the affordable housing, then build the garbage dump next to it. After all, nobody is entitled to a nice environment to live in, and you wouldn't want to enrich the people living there.
And I am pretty sure the "promises" are not imagination. At the very least, it seems the residents have a say in what gets build, or they couldn't prevent the building of new houses. So "move there, and you'll have a say in the further development of the area" seems to be a promise.