[zackelan]

> what do you do about people moving to a community for its desirable character but killing that character in the process?

Here's what I think is the central (and flawed) assumption in this line of reasoning - people move to an area because of its "character". And that "character" is an intangible, immeasurable quality, but it is somehow diminished if more people move to the area.

I grew up in Seattle. Both of my grandparents, when I was a kid, lived in Seattle's Fremont neighborhood. I live in Fremont today. From one perspective, the Fremont of my childhood is completely changed. On the other hand, it's still Fremont, with the Center of the Universe sign and the statue of Lenin and many other things I remember from childhood. Does it have the same "character"? Does it have a newer, different, but just as good, "character"?

Those are impossible questions and it boils down to a Ship of Theseus style argument. Either way, I can't bring myself to assert that the housing supply of Fremont should be artificially constrained by zoning policies, in order to preserve my ideal of what Fremont "should be" or "used to be".

[sliverstorm]

I admittedly come to this from a different angle. Many people move to my town for nature & recreation. Every new house & every new infill is less nature, less trails, less recreation. So paradoxically, by moving here, are we killing what we moved here for? Not a Ship of Theseus.

In our case redevelopment for density actually helps preserve that character. But I still feel like I can understand the Bay Area home owners.

[Decade]

We should collectively redefine what we are trying to preserve. You recognize that increasing density allows more people to live there without encroaching on the wilderness. As a bonus, increasing density also makes walkable neighborhoods more viable, so more people can live without cars.

But many voters believe what we should preserve is the single-family home, built environment that some developer created long ago. Then the number of people per unit of land is restricted: homes near economic activity become playthings of the rich, and any new home that is affordable is taking away wildlife habitat and farmland.

In short, their stance is understandable, but it is sociopathic.

https://www.sfhac.org

[sliverstorm]

But many voters believe what we should preserve is the single-family home, built environment

Do you believe this is an honest characterization of their core goal? Is the opposition's number one goal simply to oppose multifamily property? Like, "God ordained that no two families should live in a single structure"? Or is it about property valuation changes, or building height, or street parking, or land use, or decreasing number of (semi-permanent) owners and increasing number of (temporary) renters, or...?

[Decade]

> But many voters believe what we should preserve is the single-family home, built environment

> Do you believe this is an honest characterization of their core goal?

Yes. I can quote Rothstein about racist motivations[0] or Marohn about short-sighted financial recklessness,[1] but I believe more people have nostalgia than malice. Even if they deploy structural racism and racist rhetoric.

Most people become set in their ways very quickly, and have difficulty imagining what is good other than what they thought was good when they were young. By now, you cannot find a native-born American who grew up in a time before cars became supreme. Most Americans don’t even remember a time before the Suburban Experiment.[2]

So, yes, people will bring up building heights, and respecting the neighborhood, and traffic, and parking über alles, but I think the main motivation is that they can’t imagine someone else can have a good life that is a benefit to the community other than the life that they think is a good life.

[0] https://smile.amazon.com/Color-Law-Forgotten-Government-Segr...

[1] https://www.strongtowns.org

[2] https://www.strongtowns.org/curbside-chat-1/2015/12/14/ameri...

[dillondoyle]

Replacing low density with high density shouldn't have to touch outdoor/public spaces. I live in Denver and people from around my state complain about this all the time. Perfectly possible to keep (or even expand) recreation spaces if we allow more density. Might be better to argue about increased population use of same public recreation resources (crowded trails) but that's the same selfish complaints as this whole thread - it comes down to why some feel because they have it already that they should be able to exclude others from having it in the future.

[sliverstorm]

Replacing low density with high density shouldn't have to touch outdoor/public spaces [...] Perfectly possible to keep (or even expand) recreation spaces if we allow more density.

Right, I'm pretty sure I specifically acknowledged this in my previous comment.

why some feel because they have it already that they should be able to exclude others from having it in the future

If some hypothetical resource has a determinate carrying capacity and any greater usage degrades the resource for everyone, it's not unreasonable to exclude people. See the fixed number of backcountry permits Yosemite issues. Some things simply cannot be had by everyone. Given this, how do you decide who gets, and who does not get?

We really only have three systems that I know of- 1) lottery, ala Yosemite permits 2) free market, ala Bay Area low density housing, also ski condos 3) precedent/i-was-there-first, ala people who already own a house there get to stay there as it becomes desirable, also prescriptive easements of public trails on private land