Except for price, because a lot of people want to live in dense areas.
Why exactly do you think you should have a say over how other people live? That's what you claim to oppose, but your support of zoning in order to prevent other people from building density on their own property is exactly that.
> Except for price, because a lot of people want to live in dense areas.
And the way to fix that is for urban areas to allow for more construction of living space. Which, historically, urban areas are very bad at doing, for example by restricting the maximum height of buildings. But how is that the suburbs' fault?
> Why exactly do you think you should have a say over how other people live?
I have said no such thing. I have never said there should not be urban areas. Indeed, I have explicitly said that there should be areas of all different kinds, urban, suburban, and rural, so that everyone's different preferences can be accommodated somewhere. You are the one who keeps talking as if everywhere should be dense urban areas.
> your support of zoning in order to prevent other people from building density on their own property is exactly that.
So you think I should be able to build a single family home in the middle of Manhattan, provided I can buy the land?
Zoning is much more of an issue in urban areas, and in fact, as I noted above, is one of the main reasons why urban housing is overly expensive.
You have explicitly said other people in your suburb should not be able to build dense housing on their property. Why?
And if there are many people who want urban areas and not enough housing to accommodate, would you support expanding them, or is this an attack on your preferences?
> You have explicitly said other people in your suburb should not be able to build dense housing on their property.
I have said no such thing. I have said that in a suburb, most people won't want to do that. But that doesn't mean nobody will. In every suburb I've lived in, there has been a mix of single family homes, townhomes, and apartments. Some suburbs are even evolving to the point where they have a core area that is basically urban, with almost all buildings being high rise. I have already said that such things are to be expected over time.
> if there are many people who want urban areas and not enough housing to accommodate, would you support expanding them
If the urban area is already fully built out, and it acquires the additional land legally on the open market, sure.
But much so-called "urban" area is nowhere near fully built out. For example, much of the city of San Francisco is still fairly low density, with little or no high rise and many lots still being single family homes, and is kept that way by restrictive zoning, even though there are multitudes of people clamoring to live there. Before expanding the city out into the suburbs, I would say the city should first allow more people to live in the land that is already part of the city, and adjust its zoning to make that possible.
The whole point I'm making is that many suburbs are zoned by law to be exclusively single family. That's a problem. Expanding that zoning doesn't mandate density, but it will allow it where it is currently banned.
Why exactly do you think you should have a say over how other people live? That's what you claim to oppose, but your support of zoning in order to prevent other people from building density on their own property is exactly that.