The nature of a NIMBY is to label any change as bad, regardless of the benefits to other people. If that isn't cynical, I don't know what is.

Would you defend segregationists, who tried desperately to preserve the racial makeup of their neighborhoods, schools, and buses?

It's a rhetorical question of course -- I know you would not. My point is just that your logic can be (and is) used to defend any number of despicable causes. There's no reason our civil society has to put up with with this nonsense.

Just because a certain principle can be used destructively does not mean the principle itself is flawed.

That's kind of a strange thing to say. I'd argue it's clearly not true in this case. Do you disagree? Can you maybe explain why?

I read your comment as arguing that people who structure their social systems based on conservative principles e.g. we like our neighborhood a certain way so we resist rapid change (barring explicit racism, of course) are a tax on society.

I agree with your example and agree that people wanting an explicitly racially segregated community are cynical and racist. But an similarly conservatively principled person may simply prefer a low-density lifestyle and act in ways that resist change for that reason. There may even be scenarios where we can look back and correlate responsible, well meaning, application of certain principles with undesirable social trends, but I don't think that alone invalidates the principle.

I don't know if I misread your comment, but it was odd to see a broad critique on conservatives and their principles:

> My point is just that your logic can be (and is) used to defend any number of despicable causes.

I could use plenty of sound logic to defend despicable causes, but fact that the cause is despicable does not alone invalidate the logic if the logic is sound. When sound logic argues for despicable things (which it often does) we introduce ethics and morality to judge whether we should actually act on the logical conclusion.

I think a better way to phrase your comment would be, "We shouldn't have to put up with despicable causes, period". I'm being a little pedantic, yes.

Is there another part of the market where you apply this twisted reasoning? I thought 1992 was a pretty good year for Japanese sports cars. I think building new cars after 1992 should have been illegal. We can keep 1992 cars affordable through price controls.

Bad analogy. A 1992 car does not change when new models are released to others. But changes to neighbourhoods from increased density can be negative to quality of life, such as having a quiet road suddenly become a connector road for large amounts of commuter traffic (kids no longer playing outside), or schools get overcrowded, or there is standing-room only on the subway for a long commute into town.

Traffic is a consequence of segregated uses and insufficient density. Densification is how a quiet residential neighborhood might come to support pedestrian life, service its resident’s need without making them get on a collector road, fund additional public transit capacity, etc.

Some mid-rise condos down the block are far better than another suburban subdivision a few miles down the road, as traffic goes.

What about all the people who would prefer lower density over all those other things that you mention?

The problem is that due to the way most property taxes and house prices work those people are getting a free ride off of the prosperity of the city: a tragedy of the commons.

Assuming this quiet neighbourhood is near an urban area with nice jobs/schools/amenities etc, the value of the 'hood is created by the network effects of the city. Growth of the city means growth in the value of that 'hood. The people living there usually aren't doing a lot to increase the value of their properties. But as property assessments lag market values, or the way taxes are structures, those owners can see flat costs for their housing while their values rise. Meanwhile by refusing to add density to their neighbourhood they are driving up the costs for others. When they eventually sell or move they get all of the gains in property value all the while having very low carrying costs.

If they wanted a quiet neighbourhood they could move to a smaller town or further out from the city centre, but I don't think they do. If the market were better organized then their behaviour would be dampened by higher taxes as their property values rise. Owners would then have an economic choice: resist density in your 'hood and pay more for that privilege, move somewhere cheaper, or allow more density which will keep costs flat.

> If they wanted a quiet neighbourhood they could move to a smaller town or further out from the city centre, but I don't think they do.

Well, I did move out to a smaller town, pretty much as far away from the regional megapolis as I could while still being within reach of its metro area. But it seems that demand for "moving out" is such that it turns small towns into big towns pretty quickly, which kinda defeats the purpose. I'm not opposed to paying higher property taxes to keep the neighborhood low-density, but it's not like we even get that option.

Yeah I hope we can eventually find a way to price these kinds of things more accurately. Like a sibling comment says: price in the externalities of low-density living and let those who want to pay them pay them, or else increase the density of the area.

In your case it's sounds like you're paying it to some extent: longer and/or more expensive commute.

We do a terrible job of capturing all the externalities that come from that low density. Low density requires much more infrastructure to serve it, and gets subsidized by the high density areas further in. If all that was captured in the actual costs of living in those low density areas, you might very well decide that low density was too expensive, and that you preferred high density areas instead.

If you can afford to waste land out of your own pocket, go right ahead. But supporting and subsidizing people who want to live an economically inefficient and socially detrimental lifestyle, in part by outlawing efficient and pro-social alternatives, is a terrible use of government power.

That's the best analogy to NIMBY housing policy I've ever read.

That says more about you than the analogy.