3 ms·

People have a lot of reasons for resisting development. One of them is that it will increase traffic in the area and there's a good chance traffic is already ba

People have a lot of reasons for resisting development. One of them is that it will increase traffic in the area and there's a good chance traffic is already bad enough. Secondly no one wants to have a 3+ year large scale construction project going on in their neighborhood and all the headaches that come with that. People want peace and quiet and the only one benefiting from it is the developer so why not resist that. Additionally, people bought into a certain place because of its characteristics and often those are not respected by developers who just want to maximize their profit by building the most profitable thing they can get away with. Lastly, often "new development" means rentals in an area that is dominated by single family homes. Not to come off wrong but people want to live next to people of a similar class and standing as their own. Renters (and landlords) don't have the same skin in the game as home owners. Saying that I agree that some people will just find any excuse possible to resist. But their opinions are just as valid as the next guys and this is why we need to find compromise. I support thoughtful development and in making the dense part of town more dense.

Arainach 3y ago
There is no right to buy a piece of property and expect the surrounding area to stay static. If you want the town to stay small and quaint, buy the entire town. Towns that do not grow wilt away and die. There are absolutely towns that didn't grow across America. You can recognize them by their landmarks like the closed factory, the "fod lease" signs along Main Street, and so on. >Not to come off wrong but people want to live next to people of a similar class and standing as their own. Renters (and landlords) don't have the same skin in the game as home owners. This and your reference to "the dense part of town" tend to point to a different meaning of "don't have the same skin" than the initial read suggests. Even if that was not your intention, it's absolutely the practical effect of reinforcing old injustices by claiming the rich white areas should remain that way while the denser, inevitably more diverse areas have to absorb all change.

Arainach 3y ago

There is no right to buy a piece of property and expect the surrounding area to stay static. If you want the town to stay small and quaint, buy the entire town. Towns that do not grow wilt away and die. There are absolutely towns that didn't grow across America. You can recognize them by their landmarks like the closed factory, the "fod lease" signs along Main Street, and so on. >Not to come off wrong but people want to live next to people of a similar class and standing as their own. Renters (and landlords) don't have the same skin in the game as home owners. This and your reference to "the dense part of town" tend to point to a different meaning of "don't have the same skin" than the initial read suggests. Even if that was not your intention, it's absolutely the practical effect of reinforcing old injustices by claiming the rich white areas should remain that way while the denser, inevitably more diverse areas have to absorb all change.