>Those who fought attempts to grow the housing capacity of our old neighborhood got what they wanted: all the same old houses, parks and stores. But at the expense of the people who had lived there in the first place by trading them for new arrivals. Population growth does not require displacement when you prioritize making space rather than the aesthetic of buildings.

This was a side effect of untaxing land (e.g. prop 13).

Nobody is going to fight a new development that threatens their home equity more than a newcomer who is up to their eyeballs in mortgage debt. The "aesthetics" of a neighborhood suddenly take on new meaning when you're staring down the barrel of negative equity.

This is also why rent control's effect on inhibiting new building is grossly exaggerated (& may even be negative). Getting rid of it pushes up rents which pushes up house prices which ramps up NIMBYism that inhibits housing development.

The greatest level of home building in New York coincided with the greatest level of rent control.

There is a very clear and identifiable villain in California here for deliberately engineering this situation: Howard Jarvis.

He is now dead but his lobbying lives on under the equally villainous Jon Coupal.