"... a strong desire by incumbents to keep the place the same and not turn it into skyscraper-filled Guangzhou. For a lot of people not building housing is an important priority in their life that they will fight for."
Which is totally reasonable.
You or I may not like it, or disagree with it, or work against that idea, but it's incorrect to claim that incumbent property owners (anywhere) protecting their perceived value in the status quo is somehow wrong or morally bankrupt or misinformed or illiberal.
Sorry, it's morally bankrupt. Four middle class families spend more on housing than most Bay Area single-family homeowners. If it were legal for those families to live in a four-plex, they'd outbid wealthy families for that land. The wealthy pay cheaper prices by using the law to prevent people with less money from bidding against them. The wealthy can't actually afford the idyllic single-family neighborhoods they claim the right to without economic segregation laws.
"Sorry, it's morally bankrupt. Four middle class families spend more on housing than most Bay Area single-family homeowners. If it were legal for those families to live in a four-plex, they'd outbid wealthy families for that land."
In the face of injustice, some accept it as the way the world works. Others fight to end injustice. Economic segregation laws are abhorrent, and I am fighting to end them in Austin. I hope others fight to end them everywhere.
They own property, and the value of that property is linked to how hard it is to find housing for other people. Their actions make economic sense (is this what you are referring to as "reasonable"?).
Still, most people find these actions to be immoral, as they result in plenty of suffering and wasted potential. The mealymouthed excuses about preserving historical parking lots or not creating wind tunnels or whatever are easy to see through.
The balancing act is between "what I can do with my own property" and "what I can legislate to limit what other people do with their own property". Only the most libertarian would tilt almost completely in favor of the first, but I think that currently the balance in too many places is tilted far too much towards the second. And I would not hesitate to call it illiberal.
1. In one city, incumbents rule. Their property values rise to a level that keeps everyone else out. They make all the rules. They were there first and they win. It's theirs and outsiders should respect that.
2. The second city is open to anyone, always changing. Incumbents cannot expect gains by virtue of having been first. Everyone there has the same expectation of benefiting from the city as anyone else. Anyone in the country is free (and able) to make a life there, if they choose.
I know which city sounds better to me. I know which one sounds like it benefits the most people, for the longest amount of time.
Again, at the same time, why should I cheer for people who are coming in, forcing out people who have lived there for their entire lives, simply because they have more money? That sounds like straight up bullying to me.
Which is totally reasonable.
You or I may not like it, or disagree with it, or work against that idea, but it's incorrect to claim that incumbent property owners (anywhere) protecting their perceived value in the status quo is somehow wrong or morally bankrupt or misinformed or illiberal.