I wonder how they are able to legally prevent new development just because it will decrease their land value.. Can such an argument hold up in courts? If it was because of safety or congestion issues, it makes sense. But how is maintaining existing land prices a valid reason for preventing new developments..
No one argues "You can't build here because I would lose money." That would be dumb. Instead, they argue "You can't build here because reason $x", because they would lose money.
