>If citizens moved into a community because it was 'spacious and quiet' then it's 100% their right to keep it that way, and utterly bizarre that outsider should

>If citizens moved into a community because it was 'spacious and quiet' then it's 100% their right to keep it that way, and utterly bizarre that outsider should think they have the right to force some kind of change. No, it's not. If you want the entire town to be frozen in time then you should purchase the entire town. Your right to control development ends at the property line. It's also utterly hypocritical in the Bay Area's case because it contradicts the position taken by most of the local and state governments on immigration; they proudly proclaim their status as "sanctuary cities" where all immigrants are welcome, but at the same time they don't want anybody new (whether they're immigrant or not) moving into their neighborhoods. The NIMBY attitude in Bay Area cities is ridiculous because it's Trumpism on a local scale. They want to prevent "outsiders" from living in their community because they perceive that they are somehow negatively impacted by other people being able to obtain affordable housing. >The 'solution' is probably to have much better/deeper/faster integration between transport services, how in holy cow is there not a 'very fast train' that goes around the bay, out to Sac, down to Morgan Hill, and up to Santa Rosa? With great connectors? because NIMBYs don't want it. They'll complain about the noise, or that it ruins "the view"/"the character"/etc, or that it might indirectly urbanize their town despite no new housing being constructed, or that it'll make it easier for homeless people to come in, etc.