If there's no market for them, they won't get built. But people want to live in places like NY and San Fran for the economic opportunities they provide, not just for "the character of the neighborhood".
> If there's no market for them, they won't get built.
That's something else, isn't it? The people who already live there might not want 50-story buildings, even if there are other people who would move into them if they were built.
That's the crux of the matter, isn't it? How much right should I have to control what other people do because it might bother me? I think that currently, we err way too much on the side of letting people block things, here in the US.
> How much right should I have to control what other people do because it might bother me?
That's a valid question for every law or other governmental decision. But we can think of an idealized case, where an entire town, or state, or country, agree that they don't want 50-story buildings, even if there exists outsiders who would like to move into such buildings. In this case, we need only recognize the right of the local people to decide what happens in their area, even if it is against the will of people from elsewhere.
Why do the rights of the local people trump the rights of people from "elsewhere"? The major question is what harm is being done to the local people by the existence of 50 story buildings, vs the harm to people that find an ideal job in SF but can't afford to take it?
> Why do the rights of the local people trump the rights of people from "elsewhere"?
On at least some level, I find it reasonable that the people who live in a certain place decide over that place. In any case, that is rather conventional, isn't it? It's particularly clear on the level of countries, which is why I mentioned it in my comment. Only citizens or residents of a country, not the rest of the world, get to vote in elections.
> The major question is what harm is being done to the local people by the existence of 50 story buildings
That's really a matter of their personal opinion. Some of us find such buildings repulsive.
> That's really a matter of their personal opinion. Some of us find such buildings repulsive.
I find lip piercings repulsive. I wouldn't want them made illegal. The country would be in a better place if people hadn't decided that there's a 0th amendment saying they had the right to never be offended by anything.
> What if an entire town decides they don't want to allow minorities to live there?
Yes, what if they do? Should they not get to decide because they might haver the wrong opinion? Who should decide instead? What if they have the wrong opinion?
> Why is xenophobia and NIMBYism acceptable in one case and not the other?
What two cases are you referring to?
Also, it's not obvious that NIMBY, as in "yes, do thing X, but not in my backyard", is relevant here, because it's not necessarily so that anyone is saying "yes, do thing X". For "NIMBY" to be a meaningful concept at all, it really needs to be about a situation when someone is pushing X onto someone else, while refusing to accept X in their own lives. If "NIMBY" used simply to describe a position of "no X, please", or even "no X, please, at least not in my backyard where I might have a say in it", then it's not useful, because those are perfectly reasonable positions to have about things.
When the economic opportunities overrun the "character of the neighborhood", neighborhoods get destroyed and people get priced out of their own homes. It's called gentrification.
Wrong. Adding supply lowers prices, not increases them.
The fact that wealthy rentiers in the Bay Area have somehow convinced activists that they should oppose new development is farcical. Liberal activists are literally protesting to enrich capitalists.
Your home can be seized by eminent domain as was done by the town of New London a few years back. They did so in order for a private developer to build more expensive housing on that property and generate higher property taxes for the city. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
How would more affordable housing (by replacing single family homes with high-rise complexes) increase gentrification? If anything, people are getting 'priced out' because of the absurdly high housing prices right now.
Uh, if you have been following along, you may have noticed that most people cannot afford the bay area as it is. Adding some supply might help things, rather than make them worse.
That's something else, isn't it? The people who already live there might not want 50-story buildings, even if there are other people who would move into them if they were built.