When someone opposes new construction in their neighborhood they give one of two explanations: This will lower property values! This will raise rents! The first explanation claims that an increased supply of housing will lower the returns on their own investment in property, and that construction of higher density housing has negative amenity effects which threaten the character of their neighborhood.
Wow, you wrote a whole lot of words just to ignore the obvious. It's ENTIRELY possible for both to be true - it just depends on what the nature of the neighborhood is pre-new-project(s), and what the nature of the new project is. To cite just one example, in a good-sized neighborhood with both single-family and apartment building housing types, a project that replaces single family housing - especially one that puts apartment buildings on blocks that previously didn't have any - and even more especially on blocks that did not previously have any for several blocks around - WILL depress the future value of the single family homes. Period. Not even debatable. AND, if there is a sufficient amount of such development to fundamentally change the nature of the neighborhood into a more desirable place for apartment dwellers - "gentrification" - it will ALSO raise the rents for the existing apartments. Sorry, but this is just how real estate works in the real world that us real people have to inhabit.
If this is really hard for you to understand - i.e., you're not just posturing here, but really believe what you're writing - then, think of it this way: The two people in the quotes at the top of the article can BOTH be right because, more often than not, they are talking about different SEGMENTS of the housing market in that neighborhood. They may well break down into the categories you cite - after all, homeowners of well established single family homes in a nice-enough neighborhood (lets say an outer urban or inner-ring suburban 'hood originally built in the early 50's), and renters in older rental property in the same neighborhood, are likely to be members of different demographics on more axes than one. But that doesn't mean their arguments cannot be right - either individually or both at the the same time. Very, very often, at least one of them is right, and I am personally aware of quite a few cases where both are correct simultaneously.
Development, and even more so, redevelopment can be hyperlocal issues with real winners and real losers - and the losers frequently end up being losers through nothing they DID (unless you count NOT getting out of a changing neighborhood, "in time", that once suited them, but no longer does). These issues deserved open-eyed public discussion. Shouting "NIMBY!" and "YIMBY!" at each other, fingers pointed, is rarely helpful, and that's pretty much what your article promotes...
Wow, you wrote a whole lot of words just to ignore the obvious. It's ENTIRELY possible for both to be true - it just depends on what the nature of the neighborhood is pre-new-project(s), and what the nature of the new project is. To cite just one example, in a good-sized neighborhood with both single-family and apartment building housing types, a project that replaces single family housing - especially one that puts apartment buildings on blocks that previously didn't have any - and even more especially on blocks that did not previously have any for several blocks around - WILL depress the future value of the single family homes. Period. Not even debatable. AND, if there is a sufficient amount of such development to fundamentally change the nature of the neighborhood into a more desirable place for apartment dwellers - "gentrification" - it will ALSO raise the rents for the existing apartments. Sorry, but this is just how real estate works in the real world that us real people have to inhabit.
If this is really hard for you to understand - i.e., you're not just posturing here, but really believe what you're writing - then, think of it this way: The two people in the quotes at the top of the article can BOTH be right because, more often than not, they are talking about different SEGMENTS of the housing market in that neighborhood. They may well break down into the categories you cite - after all, homeowners of well established single family homes in a nice-enough neighborhood (lets say an outer urban or inner-ring suburban 'hood originally built in the early 50's), and renters in older rental property in the same neighborhood, are likely to be members of different demographics on more axes than one. But that doesn't mean their arguments cannot be right - either individually or both at the the same time. Very, very often, at least one of them is right, and I am personally aware of quite a few cases where both are correct simultaneously.
Development, and even more so, redevelopment can be hyperlocal issues with real winners and real losers - and the losers frequently end up being losers through nothing they DID (unless you count NOT getting out of a changing neighborhood, "in time", that once suited them, but no longer does). These issues deserved open-eyed public discussion. Shouting "NIMBY!" and "YIMBY!" at each other, fingers pointed, is rarely helpful, and that's pretty much what your article promotes...