Cheap is an excellent attribute to have, we should all be so lucky, especially when it comes to something as fundamental as housing. In growing cities, it's a sign that market economies are working and that supply is allowed to increase, the way it should.

Despite what some may think, expensive housing doesn't benefit anyone, not even those who own the housing. Not, unless you're willing to leave the area, then you can cash out and live like a king.

The dynamic I'm talking about is that, say, a house in Palo Alto costs 2.5 million dollars, whereas one in Bend might cost 500,000 - and be completely unaffordable to many people here. It'd be nice, in an ideal world, if the person moving from Palo Alto came because they like Bend for what it is, rather than 'oh gosh I can buy a house and live on the rest', if that makes sense?

But ... that's one of the things they like about it!

Everyone has a limited budget and you can't ask people not to consider the rental prices while choosing the locality.

I don't intend to speak for 'davidw, but communities imply a social contract and people picking where to live based primarily on rental prices seem quite a bit less likely to build a rapport with that community. I'm not blaming them for it--late capitalism, yo--but it is a thing and it's not unreasonable for an established, community-concerned member to be like "hey, there's more to us than where your apartment is."

>cash out and live like a king

That's increasingly the problem in CA. Current residents have spent so much on housing that their only chance for a decent retirement is of their home values keep going up. They've paid so much that they haven't contributed nearly enough to their retirement accounts.

You can hardly blame a NIMBY if nearly 100% of their net worth is tied up in their home value and falling home values will result in them having 0 retirement and no ability to sell their home and move because they are so far underwater.

That depends on the definition of the word "blame" that you're using. If it's a moral castigation? No, of course not; they are being ground down by the shitty circumstances that entrap most of us and of course it's hard to hold as a moral failing the maximization of what little they have (and while it is a lot to people below them, yeah, it's little in the grand scheme of things).

But if it is an identification of a problem? I think it is fair. The amount of misery that NIMBYs can spread through forced inaction significantly outweighs the amount received in the case of action, I think.

The first one. "You can hardly blame them" pretty much always denotes moral castigation rather than the technical attribution of fault.