I don’t entirely disagree with you, but I find this explanation confusing. Take an urban homeowner in a single family zoned neighborhood.
They paid a large premium to buy it, and they must not like that. And if the land were up zoned, their property would suddenly be worth a lot more.
If land gets upzoned (or in this case built) in a faraway location, it doesn’t particularly effect them.
So I’m left to conclude, tentatively, that homeowners resist development for the actual reasons they give. They’re personally attached to their neighborhood. They don’t want to move. They like the way it looks, like the feeing of safety and intimacy, and don’t want to see that change too much. When they moved in, they were paying not only for the plot of land, but for the atmosphere of its surroundings, the local amenities, the view. They care about the environment, and don’t think we have adequate appreciation for its importance, or caution in appropriating it or tampering with it.
Now, maybe they could get all that and more at the price of some short-term disruption that would, in the long run, make conditions better for almost everybody. But they don’t want to deal with that disruption, to the tune of quite a lot of money.
It’s fine to say that the law is not an appropriate mechanism for enforcing the coordination feat of environmental protection or urban planning, or that you think these people have wrong opinions. But if you’re trying to model their true worldview, it seems more plausible to me that they’re revealing their honest preferences.
I don’t entirely disagree with you, but I find this explanation confusing. Take an urban homeowner in a single family zoned neighborhood.
They paid a large premium to buy it, and they must not like that. And if the land were up zoned, their property would suddenly be worth a lot more.
If land gets upzoned (or in this case built) in a faraway location, it doesn’t particularly effect them.
So I’m left to conclude, tentatively, that homeowners resist development for the actual reasons they give. They’re personally attached to their neighborhood. They don’t want to move. They like the way it looks, like the feeing of safety and intimacy, and don’t want to see that change too much. When they moved in, they were paying not only for the plot of land, but for the atmosphere of its surroundings, the local amenities, the view. They care about the environment, and don’t think we have adequate appreciation for its importance, or caution in appropriating it or tampering with it.
Now, maybe they could get all that and more at the price of some short-term disruption that would, in the long run, make conditions better for almost everybody. But they don’t want to deal with that disruption, to the tune of quite a lot of money.
It’s fine to say that the law is not an appropriate mechanism for enforcing the coordination feat of environmental protection or urban planning, or that you think these people have wrong opinions. But if you’re trying to model their true worldview, it seems more plausible to me that they’re revealing their honest preferences.