All analogies are flawed but this one doesn't even register to me as useful. Style is inherently subjective so obviously there's going to be personal preferenc

All analogies are flawed but this one doesn't even register to me as useful. Style is inherently subjective so obviously there's going to be personal preferences, and consistency means enforcing one and only one version of preferences onto others. That's not exactly the problem with more housing. It's not a question of style or character. People use those words when they talk about "the character of their neighborhood changing" or "these ugly concrete monstrosities", but really it's always the same thing: 1. I don't want my housing prices to go down. I want my house prices to only go up. 2. Lower priced housing will be populated by more poor people who are more likely to bring crime, and I don't want crime to increase in my area. The thing is, they're not even wrong. They exaggerate, sure. But you can sympathize with both factors. On 1: The American dream has been sold to everyone that housing is a guaranteed investment that should always go up. For many people it's the only retirement hope they have or any inheritance they hope to pass to their children. On 2: Income IS inversely correlated with crime. Because our modern capitalist culture decided not to optimize for a social safety net, the only solution we've thought of so far is deep segregation (not racial, but economic) So, in isolation, individuals making the classic "I want more Housing but Not In My Back Yard" argument is entirely logical. But in the aggregate, it only contributes to a vicious spiral. And there is NO good reason for a billionaire to dare make that argument. He can afford a small dip to his housing value. Holy shit, leave some crumbs for the rest of us.