I'm not here to defend unnecessary zoning restrictions, but your argument here is that the right to not be affected by the externalities of someone else's decisions should be limited to the uber-wealthy?.

It's completely reasonable to believe that a given person should be capable of quiet enjoyment of their property without having to purchase everything remotely close to it.

If you want to live in a very desirable area and you also want to have very few neighbors, you should have to pay for that luxury. Right now that luxury is effectively subsidized for a few people who are “grandfathered in”, thanks to the market distortion created by zoning.

Why should somebody be allowed to keep others out of property that they are not paying for. I find your contention competent wrong on all counts.

That cuts both ways; why should somebody be allowed to induce a negative impact on property that they are not paying for?

Prohibiting others in an entire area is a far far bigger "negative externality."

"You should've been filthy rich like Bill Gates!"

Really?

If a lot of people want to be in an area, but you want an area with fewer people, why should your single vote override everybody else's desires? Simply move elsewhere, as nobody has the right to interfere with the free association of others.

Why should people who don't live there now get a vote?

If I'm making a software product in a specific product area, do I get to keep out other people from ever making that product?

If a ship sinks at sea, and there's a deserted island nearby, does the first passenger on the ship that arrives on the island get to claim it and prevent anybody else from stepping onto the island? Do all those other people on the ship get a vote on who can step onto the island even if they were not there first?

Does owning a piece of property give you the right to veto a particular person purchasing the neighboring property because you don't want then next door?

We as a society have set up a bunch of rules as for how much control people get when they "purchase" property. It's not a single thing, it's actually a bundle of rights, and we have chosen a particular bundle, and that bundle can be changed, and has changed, over time. Zoning is a century old invention.

The idea that a single land owner in an area can block the sale of land to others is considered ridiculous by most. But how much more ridiculous is it then saying that somebody else can't build apartments on their land, particularly in areas where lack of housing has caused massive homelessness and and skyrocketing of housing prices.

> You should have bought a considerable amount of land next to your property too then.

Your suggestion is much worse. It'd require millions of dollars.

Doing this might also get yelled at by another activist group for buying up all the lands in the city.

A better alternative: we could just join city council and vote to reject any new building.

Not that I agree or disagree with NIMBY, it's just that your suggestion is much worse than the alternative for NIMBY-ists.