Yes, it may be selfish, but for environmentalists it is selfish and hypocritical. I'm specifically looking at the wealthy, anti-growth, green community on the SF Peninsula.
There are plenty of hypocrites on both sides of the isle. Lots of people who claim to be against regulation... unless it's on their block. People who are environmentalists... unless it means there will be an apartment complex put up next door blocking their view. People who are pro-growth and pro-business... unless it's in their neighborhood. People who are for making housing more affordable, etc etc etc.
So-called environmentalists don't have a monopoly on hypocrisy, it's pretty much universal.
Yet some people vote for representatives who approve measures like SB50, and others vote for representatives who reject them. That is the dividing line that matters. How they vote, and invest time and money to influence other people’s vote, is what determines who is a hypocrite.
You should get to know the other group of environmentalists who aren't wealthy, are pro-density, and are less likely to live in the peninsula (although I'm sure they exist there too). There are a lot more of them, so it shouldn't be hard!
Because by definition, they hardly represent the majority of pro-density advocates. If the GP has common cause with YIMBY urbanist environmentalists, then by numbers they are in good company.
The anti local density environmental crowd might represent more dollars, though. That's perhaps the issue.
I suspect, however that the divide is more generational. For the older generation, environmentalism was far more about preserving local wildlands and the wildlife in your backyard. The environmental problems that face the younger generation are far larger in scope and far more deeply intertwined with questions about how we power society.
Selfish is the wrong word I think, people are myopic about density and assume its inevitably a negative. A number of cities have shown that's not the case.
Paris is shaped like a snail and concentric circles of density and affluence with the inner most circle being most affluent.
Paris also has a stellar and reliable public transport system and is very walkable. Bay Area wants the density (and property taxes inflow) but don’t want to invest in infrastructure and public transport.
> Bay Area wants the density (and property taxes inflow)
They already have sufficient density and property prices to actually invest in infrastructure. The problem has always been Prop 13 and the artificial limits placed on taxes that would otherwise fund infrastructure locally.
That's largely true, but many parts of Paris itself are relatively working class (the 13th district, the 19th district) and still very dense.
Similarly while the outskirts of Paris don't have a subway system (they have the RER, akin to BART) they are still very dense.
Walkability comes from density almost inevitably because it's financially doable to have more stores/activities/restaurants in a smaller space while still getting customers. This makes walking around the city interesting.
I think the issues in the Bay Area cities I know relatively well (SF and SJ) comes down to political will to zone neighborhoods properly.
I don't see anyone from the suburbs demanding to demolish Manhattan and turn it into farm land. Likewise I wouldn't demand to have housing built for me in a specific town instead of living elsewhere.
Maybe because that's where the best jobs are. Maybe because that's where they're from and it's not their fault they're getting priced out (gentrification). Maybe because they just really like the place. In any case, you don't get to be a gatekeeper. Cities are public.