[dionidium]

> There are a plethora of totally valid reasons why people would be opposed to endless urban sprawl, consolidation, and population growth.

There really aren't, though, in the sense that the costs (both societal and individual) drastically outweigh the benefits. Of course prohibitions on new construction are narrowly beneficial to specific individuals. Who wants some guys starting up new construction at 7AM next door? If you like your quiet little block, then why on Earth would you want it to densify? Somebody else's construction project is little more than an annoyance, after all. If you can ban it, then great!

The problem is that these individual preferences come with enormous costs, both economic and with respect to individual freedom. When weighed against the downsides, those banal individual preferences about densification are no longer compelling.

In short, yes, people do have rational, coherent reasons to oppose growth, but, no, those complaints are not in the end valid.

[stoppingin]

Everything in your post is just your own personal opinion.

> The problem is that these individual preferences come with enormous costs, both economic and with respect to individual freedom...

What if I don't agree with increasing the population? If I don't want to increase the number of people in the city I'm living in, then why on earth would I want urban consolidation? Does anyone actually enjoy living in a tiny apartment, as opposed to being able to afford a house with a yard? The need for endless population increase is not just some foregone conclusion. Not everyone here is an SWE living in SF, with SF problems, and SF opinions.

> In short, yes, people do have rational, coherent reasons to oppose growth, but, no, those complaints are not in the end valid.

I don't agree with your opinion. Should I just classify all of it as 'invalid'?

[tshaddox]

> What if I don't agree with increasing the population? If I don't want to increase the number of people in the city I'm living in, then why on earth would I want urban consolidation?

I’m not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for with those “what if” questions. What if you preferred that the human race go extinct? I suppose the answer to all of these “what if” questions is simply that other people will disagree with you and oppose you in various ways.

[dionidium]

> Does anyone actually enjoy living in a tiny apartment, as opposed to being able to afford a house with a yard?

In order to answer this question for yourself you need to first accept an iron law of economics: because decisions are not made in a vacuum, there is no such thing as an abstract preference, only constraints and tradeoffs.

My preference is that I have a 10,000 square foot single-family home located on an otherwise empty block of land just south of Central Park. That way I get everything great about single-family living and access to the economic and cultural superpower that is Manhattan.

But, and I mean this technically and in the kindest way possible: literally who gives a shit?

Everything in life is tradeoffs. The NIMBY position is that tradeoffs can be wished away by legislation. But they cannot. It only deranges the situation.

[KptMarchewa]

>What if I don't agree with increasing the population? If I don't want to increase the number of people in the city I'm living in, then why on earth would I want urban consolidation?

Society should ignore your whining.