> NIMBY exists to protect most people's largest financial asset. To protect some peoples most larges financial asset, at the expense of everyone else. I think

> NIMBY exists to protect most people's largest financial asset. To protect some peoples most larges financial asset, at the expense of everyone else. I think as an owner the incentives are pretty clear. It is also cleary why the city indulges them: city officials live in the city and are owners, and local propositions will always have more participation of owners (concentrated interests) than renters and visitors (who might not be able to vote, dont have residency, nationality, commitment, etc). Seattle and SF are cruising on the back of tech, they are not producing benefit with their regulations. This is not up for economic debate: official econoimsts of the city of SF and the state of California have made their case already. This can only turn economical if another city provides a better incentive than these and competes away at the taxation level. The cities live on their incumbency, but they will pay a price in homelessness until another city starts taking away their business.