Your arguments are well reasoned and I respect you. I didn't know you were coming from a different urban context, assumed you lived in NYC or Chicago, etc. I live in San Francisco and the policies the YIMBYs are agitating for here would permanently destroy my city, and cities like it. My economic narrative applies to those cities. Like an old growth forest, once you fuck with it it's hard to go back. >If it's all been tore down bla bla bla etc.
It hasn't been torn down in cities like mine because of strict land use controls, which the YIMBY's are trying to roll back. >Somehow Coca Cola bla bla bla
The YIMBYs + Upzoning are not a problem in cities like Atlanta, they're a problem in cities that are actually good like New York. In Atlanta, there is no "neighborhood charm" to protect or preserve –it's a sea of strip malls, low-rise, and suburb. You can do whatever you want over there as long as your budget and economy can support it.
It doesn't sound like there's much of an incentive to go dense, given the availability of land around the city and your highway network. Upzoning wouldn't change that. >San Fran bla bla bla
San Francisco will be fine as long as they get their shit together on homelessness. Cali needs to fix criminal justice too and let metros actually prosecute. Any change to the existing single family residential stock would be catastrophic to QoL and economy for reasons I outlined earlier, and would not meaningfully relieve housing pressure. Ditto with NYC. Do not upzone NYC and SF. >Rapid growth WWII bla bla bla>Razing land bla bla bla
I'm not going to fight you on Atlanta and cities like it because I agree - those cities fucking suck and in a perfect world we would snap our fingers and go back. I think the question you need to ask yourself is if your policy proposals can actually change anything. I don't think they can, unfortunately. You should move somewhere better.