[jgwil2]

You're being pedantic and quibbling over terminology, but ultimately your position appears to be that we should continue to create an artificial housing scarcity in proximity to city centers, such that the only way to have a reasonable commute is either (a) already owning property in a city or inner suburb or (b) being rich enough to buy in now. Why don't you try arguing for that position instead of nitpicking comments disagreeing with you?

[pandaman]

I am sorry if it appears so but "neighbors" is not some esoteric term, if you use common words to express some special meaning it's on you to convey your intent. Let me rephrase what I understood you were saying: You're prioritizing existing neighbors and uses over the outsiders. Am I right or you meant something else?

I admit that "monoculture" (as well as "straw man") are the words that many people use without knowing their meaning, I got carried away because it's the pretty common to read on HN that there is literally no MFH zoning and no commercial zoning, just SFH.

Scarcity being artificial is your opinion. I see natural scarcity coming from geometry: there are only so much land in certain distance from the given point. And yes, there are about three common ways to live where you want: already own a property, buy a property or rent a property.

[jgwil2]

> Scarcity being artificial is your opinion. I see natural scarcity coming from geometry: there are only so much land in certain distance from the given point.

Wow, you came so close there. The answer was density! Better luck next time!

See? Being condescending is easy.