[mwfunk]

I always thought it was from nimbyism, but that's an assumption. The biggest resistance to new housing or denser housing in an area that already contains housing often comes from residents who think it'll decrease their property values. So they push back on it as much as possible.

On the other extreme, you have people up in arms about gentrification, where they oppose new or better housing because they're worried it'll increase their property values. But in both cases, it's the people who already live there that push back on more and/or denser housing.

[romwell]

This is great logic.

"Sure, my house is valuable now, but if I could also walk to a grocery store, a barbershop, a coffee shop, an electronics store, a beer pub, a few restaurants, and a few other kinds of stores, AND get on public transportation that would take me to local hubs and office spaces -- surely my house would drop value like crazy then!".

Greater logic: people looking to rent a small, inexpensive apartment are clearly the same people looking to buy a house with a backyard, so increasing the supply of the former would decrease prices for the latter by the law of supply and demand.

Exploding brain logic: ignoring property values going up every time the subway/local rail starts expansion into an area. Also voting against public transport expansion because nobody is using it anyway. AND also voting against constructing dense housing, because it will increase traffic.

Note that all three are required to block mixed-used dense walkable developments on the premise of "my property value" --- and that all three currently apply to the Bay Area.

[earthboundkid]

> "Sure, my house is valuable now, but if I could also walk to a grocery store, a barbershop, a coffee shop, an electronics store, a beer pub, a few restaurants, and a few other kinds of stores, AND get on public transportation that would take me to local hubs and office spaces -- surely my house would drop value like crazy then!".

In many cities, the logic of opposing transit is pretty explicitly racist. In Atlanta, I would hear MARTA derided as being only for black people, and in Baltimore's suburbs in 2018 there was a stink from suburbanites who live on the light rail route complaining that the train was "bringing in crime".

[earthboundkid]

Oh also in DC, there was supposedly a crime wave where hoodlums would take the subway to get away. I thought this was incredibly dumb because just post a cop at the station if it happens more than once? You literally have ten minutes to half an hour for the cop to get there. And yet the media reported it as fact.

[graeme]

It’s the law too. Zoning generally prohibits putting stores and houses together. The law also requires that developers build a minimum amount of parking. Even Houston, reputed to be a zoning free for all, has mandatory parking minimums, which guarantee sprawl and car centric streets.

I live in the plateau neighbourhood of Montreal and as far as I can tell it’s one of the few in north america that doesn’t require any parking. Travel is more like the dutch. You walk, bike, or take a short metro ride and it’s not terribly slower than a car for most of your daily trips, if not faster.