[parineum]

It's not a convenience excuse, it's a strawman. It's easy to dismiss the strawman.

It's much harder to act like the good guy when you're talking about turning a quiet neighborhood into a much denser neighborhood where the kids can't walk to school anymore because there are too many cars.

I never understand why people are so eager to turn a neighborhood they don't live in into something else rather than move to any of the multitude of neighborhoods that are already like that.

[tptacek]

Because it's not OK to take the areas of highest economic opportunity and lock them up for incumbent homeowners with exclusive zoning. I focus on the neighborhood I do in fact live in, for what it's worth.

[hollerith]

The economic opportunities are not something in the soil, but rather effects of the laws governing the place and the people that chose to live and work there. It might not be possible to make the change you want without changing who wants to live and work there and reducing the economic opportunities.

[parineum]

I didn't say that. There are good arguments on both sides of the issue but the pro-density/change side rarely makes any kind of argument that I've ever heard from the other side. Instead, it's just painted like they're a bunch of greedy bastards.

Imagine if someone wanted to change all the streets in your neighborhood to only accomodate bicycles but you own a home in the center of the city and commute 20 miles to a town in another county for work.

[tptacek]

I didn't call anybody a bastard.