[tomlagier]

Morally, I'm very pro-high density housing. Just like I'm pro-public transit. But in reality, my expressed preference is a single-family house with a yard and the convenience a car brings. I'm not sure how to square these things.

[kiba]

Cars are only convenient when there's infrastructure everywhere for cars, including parking spots.

[NoGravitas]

It's also the case that adding infrastructure for cars makes everything else (walking, forms of public transit other than bus) less convenient, by taking up space and making everything far apart.

[jeffbee]

That's fine if it you prefer it. The question is whether you can use the force of law to prevent other people from realizing their preference on their own property.

[oxymoran]

But the answer is obvious: if the force of law can be applied over home design preferences, there is no longer such a thing as private property.Yes, there is a clear need for building regulations related to safety, but that’s an entirely different argument.

[Daishiman]

There has never been freedom to build whatever you want on your own land.

Private property doesn't mean "mine and mine alone"; it means you get to use it in a way accordingly granted by the state's monopoly of force.

[6gvONxR4sf7o]

The problem is that some of people's preferences include externalities. I prefer that my neighbor upstream not dam or pollute the creek that runs to my yard. I prefer that my neighbor behind me not put up a 100 foot concrete wall that blocks my view of nature. But it's their property, as you say. So people band together and decide that they want to live in a community that abides by certain rules and pass zoning laws, getting us where we are today. Externalities are a thing, and surely at least some zoning makes sense.