Zoning restrictions for houses are detrimental to the well-being of poor people. Agree or disagree?

Zoning restrictions do not have to be detrimental to the well-being of poor people. It depends on the actual implementation of the restrictions.

For instance, there are cities such as Hamburg that provides a high density of buildings, but offers exclusive residential areas as well. This could be possible by dividing the city into different neighboorhoods with according rental prices. The effects could be advantageous or fatal. For the implement of community goals, zoning has the possibility to be reasonable. Kindergardens that have been built close to residential areas as an example of zoning eases everyday lifes. On the other hand, it promotes social and economic segregation that I consider as an obstacle of development. People should not be trapped in quarters just because they lack funding basis to satisfy the zoning restrictions. The arbitrariness of those restrictions is illustrated by restrictions forcing every property owner to construct the same expensive fence. This requirement should not be necessary in order  to live in a certain quarter.

Eventough cities have quarters, such as Winterhude in Hamburg, with a vareity of buildings, the segregation due to income and wealth predominates the division of population. Coming to a conclusion, I precieve zoning restrictions as a limitation of freedom. Therefore, I would agree with the statement that zoning restrictions are detrimental to the well-being of poor people and communities.