This is how I was discussing with someone how growth should be. Rather than allowing developers to build a 1000 unit monstrosity (well monstrosities may also be

This is how I was discussing with someone how growth should be. Rather than allowing developers to build a 1000 unit monstrosity (well monstrosities may also be allowed but within limits), allow the city to grow by relaxing limits on everyone and you will see that over 20 years, some of the new supply will come from the houses already there. However today, I have seen examples in bay area, cities get pitted against residents (some call them nimbys but I do not agree with the characterization) by approving these monstrosities I mention and keeping the rules fairly rigid for ordinary homeowners. Some say it is because a) the developers have money to finance the politicians, and b) this allows the councillors to keep the development on the side of the city they do not live in. Not sure if the allegations of nimbyism to their neighborhoods are true, but have seen developer money talk. The article's example would be a welcome change if cities went this way. [ Dont want to name cities, but google cities vs residents with some creative search terms (yes I am not giving exact terms) and you will find many examples in bay area. ]