A. You've misunderstood georgism. It is possible to increase value of land, often substantially. The insight of georgism is that it is usually not the landowner

A. You've misunderstood georgism. It is possible to increase value of land, often substantially. The insight of georgism is that it is usually not the landowners own actions that increases land's value. If the nearby school is ranked highly, then lots of people will want to move into my neighbourhood and the value of my ~~house~~ the land my house sits on will go up. But the school usually didn't improve because of something I did. B. I would benefit massively from being able to build a condo on my plot of land downtown, where right now I have a single family home. Each unit would sell for hundreds of thousands of dollar, and a high rise condo could have hundreds of units. Subtracting the cost of construction, I would still make a tidy profit. However, if the value of a unit went down low enough, then I would make hardly any profit at all. If everyone in the city was permitted to develop their homes into condos, pretty quickly the market would be saturated, and the price of a condo unit would drop substantially. Likely it would reach the cost of constructing the condo unit (+ interest etc). Furthermore, once the value of housing went down, the value of my house would go down too. So I as a homeowner would likey become poorer. It makes sense for me to want to build a condo on my land. However, I should oppose everyone else being able to build condos on their land, even if that means that neither can I. Thus, NIMBYism.