They can sell their house and live a life of luxury virtually anywhere else in the world.
I have a hard time sympathizing with such people. They're not out anything—they're amongst the most privileged people in the country.
Sure, I understand where they're coming from. That doesn't mean they have my sympathy. I understand why billionaires advocate for lowering their own taxes—that doesn't mean I give them an ounce of sympathy.
For many of those who move for retirement, the place they most love doesn't perfectly align when the best place to work and raise children. That makes it an easy decision. My parents moved to a place with more family, lower cost of living, and easier access to commercial areas. The fact that it is hard to find a job in this place no longer played a major role.
Sure, there are people living in Berkley and NYC who LOVE those places and want to die there. Still... that's not necessarily representative or even common. Many people move further away from urban centers even when starting a family.
Unconscionable!
Further, making financial decisions based on a plan with facts and figures rather than mere emotion is what responsible people do.
And the answer is "yes". Come on.
This was unnecessary. Don't make attempts to map a person's opinion to their age. That's a first step towards implicitly invalidating their opinion because of their age, which isn't a substantive rebuttal.
There are taxes, but people who have 100 times the median household income in the bank might be able to figure something out.
It makes sense that they're fighting for their money. And people deserve basic empathy, no matter what the situation. There could be solutions out there that make the most people happy.
The cynical view is that this is their greed, and they are taking money from people with less means with their demands.
Less cynically... we can try to find solutions to assure them their house value won't plummet, but encouraging a view where more prices at least stabilize won't put _that_ much strain on them, compared to the help it would give to other families with less means.
If that's the price that has to be paid, I think there's no moral argument to be made on this discussion, what remains is a legal-political challenge.
Finally, I do believe this is all part of investing into the housing market. If you want a risk-free investment, choose government bonds. If you want to play the housing game, this is part of the story. You can't expect to invest a few million into an overpriced industry with a scarcity-controversy, and expect to reap risk-free rewards. Everyone who buys a house in these areas knows that your money pouring in and your legal defences are inadvertently screwing with housing affordability. If you're okay with that and want to make a risky investment, so be it. But then don't treat it like some kind of safe retirement plan you worked your entire life towards, it's not.
That's usually marketed to older people.
There's a hyperbole to express on both sides, but I can understand why people who are worth $1-5 million and are past their 50s might feel threatened by this sort of development.
They aren't in a particularly marginalized position, but they are probably frightened about the rapid change and possibly out hundreds of thousands of dollars plus time they don't have.
I agree, build those homes and reduce the power of small groups to put up large barriers, but I also understand where the residents are coming from to some degree.