Not saying that it is the right way to do things, but its hard to deny the presence.
It immediately reminds me of one of my all time memorable yet confusing quotes.
"Every revolutionary ends by becoming either an oppressor or a heretic. In the purely historical universe that they have chosen, rebellion and revolution end in the same dilemma: either police rule or insanity." Albert Camus, The Rebel
If everything is determined by local control like this then every single college town will come to the same conclusion.
I can empathize with the homeowners there - but obviously bad for society as a whole if every single town acts selfishly.
Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods is a group of residents that organizing collective action and is bringing a legal challenge against a massively wealthy and powerful organization which they believe is impacting their quality of life. Doesn't seem unreasonable.
That is what I mean when I say it is coordination.
How do you arrive at the conclusion that it is really not good overall? I don't see what you mean.
But you can bet your bottom dollar those organizations would be the first to launch legal action against the little guy if they thought they were being impacted by their activity, so what's the problem with action in the other direction?
Lots of things have existed for a long time, in the context of a society where they have always had to coexist and interact with others. Why would existing for some time give them license to affect the community and people around them in any way?
This isn't like someone moving next to a pub and demand they stop playing music, or next to a farm and complain about the smell of manure. The complaint is about the adverse changes.