Just because someone wants to live in a city does not mean the city is doing a thing wrong by not doing every possible thing to accommodate them. That Seattle a

Just because someone wants to live in a city does not mean the city is doing a thing wrong by not doing every possible thing to accommodate them. That Seattle article is practically bursting with entitlement; she's demanding the neighborhood change to meet her living/working preferences. Why? Why are her demands any more valid than the people who live there already, or who can afford non-hyperdense housing and don't want to live in a neighborhood with it? It's hard not to see this as something like locusts complaining about farmers trying to stop them from devouring their crops. Maybe, just maybe, the things that make Capital Hill so compelling for her are the very things she wants to change about it to meet her wants.