NIMBYs will argue that, in a certain sense, they did: they bought the land their houses stand on decades or centuries ago, when the area was farm land, and then promoted a city charter for a certain type of community, together with every other citizen in the area. They paid taxes for local infrastructure, schools, time and effort to organize and solve community issues, inconvenience when a new water mains or bypass was built etc. etc.
This whole communal development is what made the area desirable, it's not like they are hoarding limited farmland. It's the combination of private property + working community rules that create property value.
Some owners in the area would now opt out of those rules outside the democratic process pre-agreed to their change, by simply building a large condo building on their plot, depreciating the value of nearby single family homes and pocketing the cash. You can imagine existing owners will fight tooth and nail to maintain the agreed rules.
While i don't 100% subscribe to this point of view and there is much to be said about the exclusionary and down right racist behavior it can enable, the issue of urban development is not quite as clear cut as you make it out to be.
I have been pondering this recently, and I feel the most fair solution is to simply reduce the of landowners to have input on what other people do with their land.
I believe the comparison to limited farmland is actually much more appropriate. Land in SF or Seattle is a very valuable and scarce resource. It can help a lot of people when used efficiently.
If you take Seattle for example, the land isn’t valuable because NIMBYs did such a great job running the city. They’ve done an awful job. Every possible mistake has been made. The land is valuable because it’s close to Amazon or Microsoft.
I don’t think that a decline in my property’s value should be a basis for legal restrictions on another person’s right to use their property. That seems like a hijacking of the legal system for my own personal wealth at the very real cost of others.
If a wealthy landowner in Seattle wants a yard and hates the look of skyscrapers, they can sell their land for millions of dollars and buy in a community more suited to their tastes. Nobody likes to move, but making it illegal to use land efficiently for one’s own convenience is frankly pretty disgusting to me.
How does new apartment construction impact nearby home values? Usually positively. There can be other issues, of course (more people!) but it’s not right to present increasing density as ripping off the neighbors.
What's an example of decreased utility? Less parking?
My biggest issue with increased density is shit design. Like, when they spent all the money on lawyers to get approval and stiffed the architects. When it is a nice 5 story building I love it.
NIMBYs will argue that, in a certain sense, they did: they bought the land their houses stand on decades or centuries ago, when the area was farm land, and then promoted a city charter for a certain type of community, together with every other citizen in the area. They paid taxes for local infrastructure, schools, time and effort to organize and solve community issues, inconvenience when a new water mains or bypass was built etc. etc.
This whole communal development is what made the area desirable, it's not like they are hoarding limited farmland. It's the combination of private property + working community rules that create property value.
Some owners in the area would now opt out of those rules outside the democratic process pre-agreed to their change, by simply building a large condo building on their plot, depreciating the value of nearby single family homes and pocketing the cash. You can imagine existing owners will fight tooth and nail to maintain the agreed rules.
While i don't 100% subscribe to this point of view and there is much to be said about the exclusionary and down right racist behavior it can enable, the issue of urban development is not quite as clear cut as you make it out to be.