|
|
|
|
|
by jhall1468
2432 days ago
|
|
I'm not fond of the slippery slope argument, particularly when it comes from NIMBY's that bought their houses when markets were at a low because nobody wanted to live in these cities. Bay area residents, Seattle residents, etc need to get over themselves and accept reality for what it is. They aren't protecting anything but their own sense of self-worth and the "theory" that bad things will happen if a 3 story apartment complex comes into the neighborhood. The reality is, most of them want their property values insanely high, for when they are ready to sell and move to cheaper cities. |
|
Increasing density will actually benefit homeowners more than the status quo, because then their land becomes even more valuable. If you tear down a million dollar house and put up a four unit condo complex each costing $500K, then you essentially double the value. Holding onto a house that nobody can afford has less investment value than converting your land to higher density. The fact of the matter is that people are more motivated by preserving a lifestyle than they are by money.
Of course not everyone agrees on what an ideal lifestyle is, and some people strongly desire higher density. Ultimately voters will decide what type of growth is desirable.