The point is that the state made a decision for the state’s benefit without considering the impact on the town itself. And this is natural: those in the state government have little incentive to care about the impact on the town.
Also, ironically, the town has excellent train and bus coverage. Most don’t own cars. And if they do, they use them seldomly. We all moved here because we don’t like cars and wanted a place with good mass transit. Now all those benefits are gone.
When people want housing change, I think they really want to transfer some of the wealth from landowners to other people. But in my case, no wealth was transferred. It was literally destroyed. Everyone is worse off.
I think we agree, actually. In your case the state is imposing a negative externality (more cars). I am investigating moving to bloommerwede.nl/ and I will be FURIOUS if the Dutch government forces them to start letting cars through.
Just out of curiosity, may I ask roughly where you are?
I hope we can agree that the common enemy here is cars. The cities have spent most of a century fighting homes for, among other reasons, the belief that more homes means more cars (which isn't true if your city isn't horrible, but almost all American cities are car-choked hellscapes).
So far as I'm aware Builder's Remedy should not mean more roads being built. Hopefully, it eventually leads to car infrastructure like parking garages being removed in favour of housing.
Also, ironically, the town has excellent train and bus coverage. Most don’t own cars. And if they do, they use them seldomly. We all moved here because we don’t like cars and wanted a place with good mass transit. Now all those benefits are gone.
When people want housing change, I think they really want to transfer some of the wealth from landowners to other people. But in my case, no wealth was transferred. It was literally destroyed. Everyone is worse off.