I've seen an interesting solution to the rhetoric you rightly point out that embeds the GP's solution into intensification: the NIMBY's are offered not just a u

I've seen an interesting solution to the rhetoric you rightly point out that embeds the GP's solution into intensification: the NIMBY's are offered not just a unit that replaces their home, but an additional unit besides (perhaps a square meter-for-square meter exchange, rounded up to the nearest residence unit) for rental income, and are put up in a new temporary residence that the development costs cover (and thus the new residents pay for). As for local politics, YIMBYs always outnumber NIMBYs on a project-per-project basis, so instead of an all-encompassing ruling, I posit the YIMBYs put up each individual project's area for vote by the general population, possibly even as a slate of projects, by the general vote instead of representative vote. Taxing jurisdiction (municipality, county, state, *etc.) tells everyone: continue to let projects like this pass, and we can hold down taxes flat to the rate of inflation for the next N decades; let it fail, and they will double within X years (due to infrastructure costs increasing as the square of the distance from the city center).