[nemo44x]

I could never understand why some people don't understand that people buy into a community because they like the community in the state when they bought into it. And that making large changes to the community would alter the community and what people liked about it will be diminished. Not to mention the practical aspects like utilities, road capacity, schools, etc. as you've pointed out.

For some reason, some people outside a community believe they should have a voice on what the actual community wants. As if a community should be expected to want to ruin what makes their space attractive so interlopers can infest it?

Some development where it makes sense - sure. But no, we aren't converting our homes and properties into multi-family dwellings.

[SkyPuncher]

I used to agree with this when I was a kid. Then I realized that it’s literally just a part of live in a modernized country.

Both my wife’s and I home were “out in the country” when we were kids. Now they’re surrounded by houses. The same pattern is basically everywhere. If you want the community of 20 years ago, move to a new one that looks like it.

It’s simply part of the constant change of life. Being bitter over it isn’t helpful or anyone.

[nemo44x]

I don’t understand your point. Every town in existence was “out in the country” at one point. The land owners/community made the choice to subdivide and develop the land. But it was their decision as a community to do this.

My town was a bucolic paradise at one time and then in the late 19th century a few of the regional villages merged and the community of land owners began to subdivide and develop the land and establish a new town. And now it’s highly desired. This was their choice to transform their holiday community into the bedroom community it is today. And now us, as the land owning community, get to decide how further development goes. Not interlopers with no skin in the game. And we do develop new things but they’re rightfully contested and very carefully decided upon because this is our home.

[camel_Snake]

I'm probably one of those people you're referring to, and quite honestly it's not that I don't realize or understand - it's that I don't care. The community you love wasn't always that way - it changed to become what you enjoy, likely to the similar anger/detriment of the previous residents who like the "old" community. I imagine racial segregationists and apartheid advocates used disconcertingly similar arguments.

[jjav]

> it's that I don't care

Ok. So hoefully you can see why people who like their homes and their town will rationally do everything possible to oppose a person who is an outsider and comes in saying they don't care about anything the residents enjoy and just wants to change it all (destroy it)?

[kjkjadksj]

Building turnover is such that you can’t really destroy it all to be fair. Either way its not your town, you just live there. Who builds on land? Not people who show up and say you should build on land. No, its the landowners who build on land. You don’t have claim for what other people ought to do with their land. If they think its a good business decision to build and apartment on their land, so be it. This is america, not a feudal society.

[secstate]

Your last point is very important. Zoning at a federal level would be required to clear some basic anti segregation. Would it be perfect? No. But the zoning in my town is 100% in the same spirit as redlining. No one would describe themselves as racist or classist. Maybe that's just human nature?

[tourmalinetaco]

So, if I convinced a bunch of people in nearby rural areas, none of which live in your city, to demand to your mayor to do things in a way you personally dislike, you would welcome the change with open arms? Or is your belief that all external change is good only extend as long as you personally do not receive repercussions?

This mentality is the same one that’s leading California and New York to ruin, by the way. :D

[nemo44x]

> it's that I don't care.

Can you understand why a community would want to exclude you? That antisocial attitudes like this are shunned accordingly and projects that would attract them are avoided. We actively select to avoid these kinds of antagonistic attitudes getting a foothold because we know what makes our community attractive. Certainly it isn't people that "don't care" about what the community values. You'll need to find somewhere lower rent for that.

> The community you love wasn't always that way - it changed to become what you enjoy, likely to the similar anger/detriment of the previous residents who like the "old" community.

How do you know this? Likely even? Communities do change, of course. But there's a reason why the most highly sought after places continue to be the most highly sought after places and it isn't because they gleefully rip down the very things that make them sough after. Especially so "don't cares" can move in and not care about the place.

> I imagine racial segregationists and apartheid advocates used disconcertingly similar arguments.

What does that have to do with a community wanting to limit and select what they consider appropriate development in the modern age?

[RealityVoid]

> That antisocial attitudes like this are shunned accordingly and projects that would attract them are avoided.

I don't find them antisocial whatsoever. Especially since, to my reading, the wider society is _ better_ because of the change. New communities take root and a better place arises.

Regardless, the community will change wether you want it or not. I find it rare that people wanting to stop something from happening get what they want. It's rather the people that want to build something that actually get stuff done.

[nemo44x]

Never said anything about not wanting to build something but rather the community determines the terms. This is how it goes and will in any non-tyrannical society. The stakeholders are the key constituents when it comes to decision making. Not outside interlopers.

[ryandrake]

But there is so much inefficiently-used land and so many cities that you don't have to deliberately go into an existing town and change its nature head to toe.

There are plenty of already-urban areas that have poorly-used lots that could benefit from building more urban housing. Why not start there? Keep like housing styles together: If you're the one single family house in the middle of a city surrounded by dozens of apartments, then yea, that lot should probably be re-developed into an apartment. The single family home is out of place and the neighborhood is already set up for dense living.

But if you're in a small town that's all single family houses, it doesn't make sense to re-develop a random sampling of them into apartment buildings. 1. They'd look out of place and 2. These small towns don't have the infrastructure to suddenly 3X-10X their populations. They'd need more schools, transportation, electric capacity, water/sewer capacity, trash collection, retail, industry, everything.

[kaibee]

> For some reason, some people outside a community believe they should have a voice on what the actual community wants. As if a community should be expected to want to ruin what makes their space attractive so interlopers can infest it?

I don't understand the notion that that community exists in a vacuum where they're entitled to be insulated from the world changing around them.

[sokoloff]

I don't think that it's entitled to be insulated from the world changing around it, but I do think that the residents of, say, Palo Alto, should have more say about the planning and permitting in Palo Alto than I do (living 3000 miles away from there), no matter how much "some people outside a community believe they should have a voice on what the actual community wants."

I don't live there; I shouldn't have any say on their policies (except via federal law-making, limited by the 10th Amendment delegation of powers).

[mint2]

Why letting each city have the entire say on its planning is very obviously going to end badly for society. it’s not hard to see it’s a prisoners dilemma or tragedy of the commons type fiasco.

I have a hard time believe that people aren’t aware of that. Especially since we tried it for decades and the obvious happened - it has gone horribly.

Of course the average current home owners in Palo Alto doesn’t want it to change. But Palo Alto doesn’t exist on an island or something. Why would the nearby towns have different views? Mountain View doesn’t want to change! San Mateo doesn’t want to change!

Wowza! How about that, now the entire bay won’t change if left to each town.

And you know what, for decades that’s what we did and we can see what happened. All we got for it was a massive housing shortage.

We tried letting towns set their policy. It went horribly, as it obviously would.

It’s like Kant, would the outcome be acceptable if all the similar actors took this action? No? Well why shouldn’t they if this town does it.

[medvezhenok]

They should have some say, but they should not be able to act as a cartel and prevent permitting altogether. And I say that as a new homeowner.

General zoning policy should be decided at a state level (or federal) - like in Japan. Otherwise, no individual community wants more development (of course), but it's a bitter pill that they have to swallow together if we want to solve the housing problem.

[mike50]

Anyone who lives in a area with hundreds of competing jurisdictions sees this problem everyday. One tiny village says yes the neighboring tiny village files a lawsuit. The smaller the jurisdiction the more desperate the government is for funding and tuft.

[kjkjadksj]

Residents do have say. They are the ones selling or developing their land. Clearly a certain percentage don’t care.

[coev]

> I could never understand why some people don't understand that people buy into a community because they like the community in the state when they bought into it.

And the guy who bought 10 years before you hates you, the newcomer, changing their neighborhood and ruining its character.

[nemo44x]

Probably not since I haven’t tried to force dramatic changes to the character of the town. And I’ve poured quite a bit of money into renovating my home making the neighborhood even more desirable.

In essence I found a neighborhood I liked and I’ve made sure I fit in rather than an interloper that is trying to make a quick buck at the towns long term expense.

[yimmothathird]

I could never understand why people expect everything to be static and never change.

[kjkjadksj]

Its usually from a lack of understanding history and nuance