No one has a right to housing at any location they want at the price they want. That’s entitlement. There are plenty of cheap places to live in this country. But people instead want to go to a desirable high demand place and force it to change to accommodate them. Why shouldn’t people who live there already resist change and fight to keep their neighborhood and quality of life?
This post also makes the same mistake pro density activists usually make, which is to project their false ideas of how their “opponents” think onto them. Residents who fight against density and change aren’t doing it for scarcity or property value. That’s what activists say to make them look bad, along with a healthy dose of childish pejoratives like “NIMBY”. The reality is people mostly just want to keep the quality of life they’ve worked hard to find and build.
how ironic to call others entitled, when the NIMBYs are trying to tell builders what they can build on someone else's land, just because they enjoy the "character" of the 99% of the town they don't own.
Why is character in quotes? What you build where doesn't just affect the view - it can materially harm community, camaraderie, and safety. It's impossible to have an argument if you can't even respect people's desire to maintain those fundamental aspects of society for which they've worked so hard.
If you want to make it about rights, how about this: People have the right to do what they want with their own belongings. And in particular, land owners have a right to build what they want on land that they own.
In my country the Constitution guarantees that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation". But when the government tells a land owner that they can't replace a single-unit dwelling with a more valuable apartment building, they are doing exactly that.
> Residents who fight against density and change aren’t doing it for scarcity or property value.
Yeah, they are. They may not ONLY be fighting for some reasons, but this absolutely one of them.
City in Washington, not the most expensive, but repeatedly very high (double digit percentage) value increases, struggling with density proposes "The Missing Middle" and looks to study how to improve medium density housing (not even huge apartment complexes).
Inevitable question: "What will this do to our property values?"
"The most conservative study shows that we expect property value increases will go from 12.9% YOY to 9.2% YOY."
Holy hell. You'd have thought the city council was executing toddlers and pouring sugar in grandma's gas tanks. As soon as that little trinket came out, everything crumbled. Despite the fact that property values were still looking at increasing nearly 10% a year.
You say all this, but I've also met more than my share of property owners who believe that property should be an appreciating asset, and that that is some form of inalienable or constitutional right, the right to considering their home an asset or "investment" that outperforms the economy significantly.
And I say that as a home owner in that same city as someone who "worked hard to find and build" my quality of life.
> They may not ONLY be fighting for some reasons, but this absolutely one of them.
I’ve attended neighborhood and local council meetings, and I have literally never heard anyone talk about property value except those who are pro density, when accusing and attacking other residents. I’ve heard concerns about density affecting neighborhood character, crime, parking, traffic, etc but not property value. Sorry but I continue to think this is just a false generalization.
> You'd have thought the city council was executing toddlers and pouring sugar in grandma's gas tanks.
You’re claiming that people were angry about property value even though property value wasn’t a concern under proposed changes. That just doesn’t sound believable. Are you sure you’re hearing and understanding their perspective accurately? We all (me too) sometimes hear only what we want to hear.
> I've also met more than my share of property owners who believe that property should be an appreciating asset, and that that is some form of inalienable or constitutional right
Did anyone actually say they think it’s an “inalienable right” or a “constitutional right” or is that your editorialization? I have, however, heard people say that everyone has a “right” to housing - and you can find many opinion pieces saying the same with a simple search. Again, this all feels like projection.
This post also makes the same mistake pro density activists usually make, which is to project their false ideas of how their “opponents” think onto them. Residents who fight against density and change aren’t doing it for scarcity or property value. That’s what activists say to make them look bad, along with a healthy dose of childish pejoratives like “NIMBY”. The reality is people mostly just want to keep the quality of life they’ve worked hard to find and build.