People argue against deregulating housing density often with second-order issues. For example: "more housing density will only serve the rich" or variants on t

People argue against deregulating housing density often with second-order issues. For example: "more housing density will only serve the rich" or variants on that theme. "more housing density will change the character of our neighborhood" is another argument. "more housing density will overburden our water / sewer / power / streets" is yet another. "more housing density will overburden our schools and public safety" is another. The first-order argument for higher housing density is this: "There isn't enough housing for the population. Some people are homeless. Other people are paying more than we can afford. We need more housing." The second-order questions are legitimate, but they boil down to tactical issues of carrying capacity. Using them to counter the first-order argument is rhetorical trickery as ancient as Aristotle. If people my age (I have a grandkid) wanted our neighborhoods to stay in some gauzy Ward- and June- Cleaver state, we shoulda got vasectomies at age 20. We didn't.