[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.