Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ive thought a lot about this. For many residents, building more housing and letting more people in would irreparably change the “character” of the neighborhood. This can mean more crime, traffic, and pollution. Past a certain density automotive transportation becomes unfeasable and people will be forced to rely on public or other alternative forms of transportation like walking or riding a bike. Reducing housing cost…
I'm not fond of the slippery slope argument, particularly when it comes from NIMBY's that bought their houses when markets were at a low because nobody wanted to live in these cities. Bay area residents, Seattle residents, etc need to get over themselves and accept reality for what it is. They aren't protecting anything but their own sense of self-worth and the "theory" that bad things will happen if a 3 story apartm…
Increasing density will actually benefit homeowners more than the status quo, because then their land becomes even more valuable. If you tear down a million dollar house and put up a four unit condo complex each costing $500K, then you essentially double the value. Holding onto a house that nobody can afford has less investment value than converting your land to higher density. The fact of the matter is that people are more motivated by preserving a lifestyle than they are by money.
Of course not everyone agrees on what an ideal lifestyle is, and some people strongly desire higher density. Ultimately voters will decide what type of growth is desirable.