[PeterStuer]

It is not complicated. People buy a property because they like to live in that location. If you are going to drastically change that environment, you destroy the very reason they liked it so much they made it the biggest purchase of their life.

[downrightmike]

Like when they put up a datacenter next door and suddenly you're living in cyberpunk 2077

[casey2]

...and legally there is zero basis for freezing markets based on someones' feelings.

[davidw]

"Destroy" - see, that's the kind of rhetoric we hear when it turns out they're building like a small apartment building or something.

Change happens one way or another. If a place has 10 homes and 100 people want to live there, you can either 1) build more homes or 2) see the 10 wealthiest of those 100 people eventually get the housing in that place. Both are pretty significant change, just one is more visible because you can see the homes that got built, rather than the less wealthy people priced out.

[PeterStuer]

What about "I bought this property because I like this environment to live here" is difficult to understand?

[mlsu]

I love driving around when there's no traffic. It's only natural that I should have the right to restrict the number of cars on the road.

Oh, you want to buy a car? Too bad -- it's my right to preserve my driving experience, therefore, no car for you.

[davidw]

You bought a property, not the entire neighborhood or city. Those do not belong to you.

Cities change and adapt over time.

[FuriouslyAdrift]

I purposely bought my house in a federal and state historic neighborhood so that I wouldn't have to wake up one morning and discover I was back in a dense neighborhood. I lived in downtown urban environments from age of 18 to 52. That was enough. There are plenty of high density housing options being built all over my city downtown including office building conversions. I'm all for it. That's just not how I want to live and I should have that choice.

[FuriouslyAdrift]

And then the current residents leave before their investments (their homes) lose value and the neighborhood as a whole loses value (or turns into a slum).

People vote with their feet and their wallets.

[xboxnolifes]

I love all of those examples of cities where the housing prices dropped because people moved out due to building more housing.

[davidw]

This is not actually a thing that happens because 'someone built an apartment building'.

[FuriouslyAdrift]

Never heard of white flight, huh?

[PeterStuer]

Once again, you use the passive. Change is active. Someone is doing the changing, and then they are trying to insult the people that refuse to let them have their way.

[davidw]

I explained two kinds of change, one that is more visible, where housing is built to accommodate people moving in, and a second kind where supply does not meet demand so the people change.

Boulder, CO is an example of #2 - they put a bunch of restrictions on growth years ago , so what 'change' looked like there is wealthy people moving in, and the working class being pushed out to 'leapfrog development' like Longmont, where they then commute in the serve the landed gentry.

You can easily see the first kind, but you have to look at statistics to see the second - income averages, price of housing, vacancy rates, what kinds of jobs your kids' friends' parents have and so on.

There are different things that could create demand to live somewhere - jobs, and amenities are common ones though.

[PeterStuer]

"I want a free Lamborgini in your garage. You're just a NIMBY denying my need"

[adammarples]

What about "I built a property here because I like the environment and you're welcome to sell up" do you not like?