[reducesuffering]

My experience is also different. When owning a home is wildly out of reach for the incomes of 95% of people in the area, and they complain about it, they still also complain every time new housing goes up that would lower costs. They say they hate traffic but then complain about bike lanes that would encourage less traffic. They say the primary education is full, when 2/5 schools are closing and enrollment is declining into an upside down pyramid because people can't afford enough housing to feel comfortable raising kids.

[rcme]

It sounds like we’re experiencing the same things then. The only difference is that I accept the choices of others, even if I disagree with them, whereas you believe you know better and would like to force your beliefs on others.

If 95% of people really cannot afford a home yet vote to restrict new housing starts, then maybe they prefer less housing for whatever reason. That’s not a reason to force housing upon them.

[reducesuffering]

Yes, this is the standard NIMBY first argument that of course leads to the prisoners' dilemma due to uncoordinated policy. Every locale wants less housing near them, so they go upscale and put the housing "somewhere else." But because everyone does that, everyone is worse off than coordinating, because you left it to each locale independently. (and the NIMBY argument is of course, state level bad, county level bad, city level good, land holder bad...) These people are forcing not-housing on my plot of land. That sure seems to be "force your beliefs on others."

Then there's how the whole thing is decided by a city level election with like 30% turnouts, most of whom vote purely by uneducated simple creeds like "greedy developers", "more traffic", "protect home values."