[stackedinserter]

Unpopular opinion: there's nothing wrong with NIMBY. It's totally ok to not volunteer to have a dumpster at your house. Society may want it, but they lose nothing, gain everything, and you're left with a house with dumpster nearby.

If society wants to put dumpster so badly, compensate to those who (practically) lose their house. Let everyone pay, that's fair. Picking "haha this will be the loser this time" is not.

It's easy to be YIMBY when you don't own anything.

[danny_codes]

Such a strange assumption that your neighborhood would get worse by increasing density.

It seems there’s some strange bias in play where NIMBYs are somehow fearful of density.

FWIW SFH economics isn’t sustainable in highly desirable areas. You have to redistribute wealth from workers to land owners (the CA model), or raise taxes commensurate to resource consumption. I suspect there’s a limit to how much feudalism the working class will allow, and if land owners had to pay for the resources they consume they’d have to densify anyway.

Really the whole thing survives on handouts from workers to landowners

[stackedinserter]

> strange assumption that your neighborhood would get worse by increasing density.

I didn't make such assumption, I don't understand it either.

[zug_zug]

Hypothetically, what about allowing new property only of higher quality than existing ones? That way to assure it’s a net improvement for everyone