Haha, Harrison makes a good point. LEED-certified neighborhoods sound like they'd be the perfect place to live. I'd take that over a rural development any day, even if it's close to public transit.

upvoted 0 times

...

I'm with you all on C. Although, I have to say, the idea of LEED encouraging development near a park, medical facility, and shopping center has a nice ring to it. Talk about a one-stop-shop for healthy, sustainable living!

upvoted 0 times

Micheline

6 months ago

I think D also has its benefits, it promotes convenience and reduces the need for long commutes.

upvoted 0 times

...

Malinda

6 months ago

Definitely, having everything nearby makes life easier.

upvoted 0 times

...

Delfina

6 months ago

I agree, C seems like the best option.

upvoted 0 times

...

Pamella

7 months ago

Yeah, C is the way to go. LEED promotes compact, walkable, transit-oriented communities. Developing close to existing infrastructure just makes sense from a sustainability perspective.

upvoted 0 times

...

Audra

7 months ago

Ha, development on wetlands? That's a definite no-no. LEED is all about minimizing environmental impact, not making it worse. B also seems like a bit of a stretch - I don't think LEED has specific requirements around day labor employment practices.

upvoted 0 times

...

Denise

7 months ago

I agree, C seems like the most logical answer. LEED is all about encouraging sustainable and community-oriented development, not sprawl in rural areas or development on sensitive environmental sites.

upvoted 0 times

...

Sarah

7 months ago

This is a tricky question. I'm not sure if I fully understand the LEED for Neighborhood Development criteria. But it seems like the answer should be C, since that aligns with the concept of developing within existing communities and near public transportation.

upvoted 0 times

...