[lumb63]

Surely there is some middle ground here. It’s ingenuous to suggest that nothing someone does on their property has impact on others: - A neighbor who installs a billboard in their back yard is constantly bombarding you with unwanted advertisements. - Your neighbor could be running a loud, unsightly business on their property, diminishing your quality of life and property value. - A hair contrived, but your neighbors could decide they’re unhappy with how lax you are regarding what others do on their property, so to teach you a lesson, they conspire to build incredibly high walls around your home so you can hardly ever see the sun.

I’m sympathetic to the people who want to improve urban planning to make our cities more livable. I don’t think it is correct or fair that they are quick to tell “NIMBYs” no, while they enforce “YIMBY” policies. It’s not symmetric to tell one group of people they have no say in what goes on in their neighborhood simply because it involves stopping something you want, while telling another that they have a say. The only thing differentiating these two camps is that people on each side of the argument are only sympathetic with those on their side.

[dsfyu404ed]

We've been down that well paved road to hell and the bay area is what it gets us. Mostly unfettered development is the far less evil. If you really don't like it that much then either pay in time (commute) or money (rich neighborhood) to live somewhere else.