[unglaublich]

Exactly. Nimbyism at its finest: all gains are mine; all losses should be covered.

It's bizarre that at the same time, real estate investors think all value increases are rightfully theirs, but they should be protected from any decrease in value.

You can hardly call it 'investing' if you're protected from the downsides.

[bjackman]

I don't oppose destruction of housing because of people losing their investment - expropriate it for all I care. But reducing the housing supply is bad for everyone. That's the important problem with nimbyism: it's not that it demands unfair advantages for homeowners as investors, it's that it prevents development that is needed for a better world.

There's definitely an argument to be made that globally iconic feats of architecture have intrinsic value that's more important than a bit of housing. But you do need to account for the social impact of aggravating housing scarcity to make that argument.

[bluGill]

We need to build more housing, but that doesn't mean we need to keep existing housing. Most old buildings should be replaced - they were not built with modern codes in mind and so are expensive to heat, dangerous in fire, have not accessible bathrooms, or other such things wrong that are difficult to correct.

[ossobuco]

> Nimbyism at its finest: all gains are mine; all losses should be covered

Nimbyims? This is corporate capitalism at its finest. Private profits, socialized and externalized losses.