Property improvements on personal residences aren't a financial investment. They usually don't have a high, or even positive, rate of return. Rather, they're improvements to your home and your quality of life. They're also your kids' home, and could be their kids' home, and so on.

Government bureaucrats should not have free control over those improvements after 100 years. Making all land rentable clearly isn't about encouraging development and affordability; a land value tax could do that. Making all land only rentable is clearly a scheme to allow government to steal valuable land from the current owners who otherwise could afford the taxes and wouldn't sell.

Many NIMBYs don't even care about their home value (unless they've purchased recently and don't want to be underwater on their mortgage). If you actually talk to most homeowners, especially the long term ones, they care much more about the neighborhood and home they've built so hard to create. Seeing a life of memories razed for concrete and glass townhomes/towers isn't an easy pill for anyone to swallow.

All that said, we do need to upzone for affordability. But all of this talk of "we aren't protecting your investment" is misguided, that isn't what single family homeowners care about.

Buildings are actually a deprecating asset, even if you renovate them, outside of maybe some rare heritage art pieces or other similar rare things. The only reason why RE 'goes up' is the value of the land underneath. You can easily demonstrate this by two neighbor buildings on similar kinds of land with equal sqft, the newer building usually sells for significantly more than the older 50 yo one.

There are some exceptions (eg. older craftsman houses in Portland/Seattle seem to be appreciating as more of them are razed for higher density).

Craftsman homes are much more popular in those cities than any style besides possibly mid century modern.