"Given that this is a large problem, I don't see why non-local governmental action should be given an effective veto power by residents who don't want to see anyone new in their neighborhood."
So my question still stands and just moves up to the next level. Now you have to convince the majority of the state or country to support that sort of law. At the federal level, the 10th ammendment might even prevent this type of law.
The second half of that sentence is pretty inflammatory. There are many people who don't want new houses constructed and changing the density of their neighborhood but would welcome someone new if they're moving into an existing house.
"Yes, plenty of people advocate for things that are in their self-interest yet bad for society. Your point?"
My point is that people want single homes with these amenities and in that sort of setting. Why shouldn't they have that? You're implying that this is bad for society, yet I see no support for this. I see nothing that prevents the free market from addressing or self correcting housing issues. Vaguely claiming that your position is beneficial and others are not is unproven. Even if it would be beneficial, you still have to convince the voters to support it.
"Sure. By beneficial, I mean net welfare enhancing for society. It's obviously not beneficial if your criteria is "increasing the price of my home by constricting supply.""
We would have to prove the net benefit part. Nobody said it was about home values. Some people support many restrictions for reasons other than property value, like quality of life, infrastructure issues, etc.
So my question still stands and just moves up to the next level. Now you have to convince the majority of the state or country to support that sort of law. At the federal level, the 10th ammendment might even prevent this type of law.
The second half of that sentence is pretty inflammatory. There are many people who don't want new houses constructed and changing the density of their neighborhood but would welcome someone new if they're moving into an existing house.
"Yes, plenty of people advocate for things that are in their self-interest yet bad for society. Your point?"
My point is that people want single homes with these amenities and in that sort of setting. Why shouldn't they have that? You're implying that this is bad for society, yet I see no support for this. I see nothing that prevents the free market from addressing or self correcting housing issues. Vaguely claiming that your position is beneficial and others are not is unproven. Even if it would be beneficial, you still have to convince the voters to support it.
"Sure. By beneficial, I mean net welfare enhancing for society. It's obviously not beneficial if your criteria is "increasing the price of my home by constricting supply.""
We would have to prove the net benefit part. Nobody said it was about home values. Some people support many restrictions for reasons other than property value, like quality of life, infrastructure issues, etc.