Of course there are activists who disrupt city council meetings to increase Bay Area density. I find this utterly fascinating. This runs 180 degrees counter to

Of course there are activists who disrupt city council meetings to increase Bay Area density. I find this utterly fascinating. This runs 180 degrees counter to the usual narrative, that the activists are out to block increased density. Is there documentation? But the schools now have to absorb 120 households worth of children instead of 80 households worth. There are 240 cars on the road where normal density would have put 160. These are problems cities have always dealt with. Meanwhile urban high density towns where productivity and income is high are vilified as NIMBYs Huh? This also runs 180 degrees counter to the usual narrative. NIMBYs are seen as against higher density. Only in California will one be disowned and shamed for desiring a higher quality of life and for upward mobility. The usual narrative is that NIMBYs are for "higher for me, but not for thee." It is filled with people hungry for upward mobility coming from countries where the promise of a better life is in America. These are not folks who take a gap year to travel around Europe or grandma leaves a trust fund. To claim that we MUST be altruistic is itself a sign of privilege. No one I know is for NIMBYs being altruistic. Everyone wants NIMBYs to stop distorting the natural housing market. To stop being the opposite of altruistic. But now if we make California unCalifornia, we will be taking away the very identity that makes California what it is..it’s not just creation. It’s also creative destruction. The usual narrative is that NIMBYs are against creative destruction. NIMBYs are the ones saying "no." You're saying you're a NIMBY for creative destruction -- which takes the form of saying "no?"