I personally spent a lot of money on my house so that its in a good school district, in a suburb, not the city. I definitely do not want city kids attending the same schools as my kids.

You seem to have a pretty negative view of low income people. I don't mean that as an ad hominem, I just pointing out a bias that I am sensing. You're making an argument that hinges on inner city people being less capable than suburban people.

This urban flight (or white flight, as it used to be called) is actually a major problem in and of itself. It results in highly inequitable schools if measures aren't taken to equalize school district funding, teacher salaries and class sizes.

This has the effect of institutionalizing poverty.

Why would someone spend a bunch of money to live in a nice neighborhood, and then next door have a bunch of section 8 housing?

I think section 8 housing is problematic in and of itself. Housing vouchers should be usable at any dwelling to cover the portion of the benefit established by the person's benefit. They shouldn't be funneled into select housing or complexes.

Putting residential electric in conduit is ridiculous, and basically just a bone that cities threw to electricians unions.

We don't have that in our code where I live. Most regulations are purposeful and have a specific intent so making a blanket statement about lowering regulations is, to me, pretty much meaningless. I believe that a broad reduction in regulation would create more problems than it solves since most regulations serve a specific purpose.

Developers don't pay those. Its the residents who do, since developers pass them on in the form of higher prices. And when all new housing is expensive, it drives up the cost of existing homes.

Granted developers try to shift this cost, but the funding to cover the expense of increased grid usage, road expansion, police and fire coverage, etc. is going to have to come from somewhere. If new development doesn't cover the cost (even if this means shifting the burden to home buyers later down the line) then the cost falls on existing residents. Assuming that the new housing costs more than the average housing cost, this policy has a regressive effect.

The public is also forced to bear a portion of the new property developers risk since the extension of services to the area is going to precede the sale of any homes.

This is especially problematic in my area, where cities are heavily incentivizing the construction of luxury homes by waving impact and permit fees. I, as a current resident, get stiffed with the bill and a portion of the risk. My rent goes up so that the city can incentivize the construction of million dollar homes.