There’s nothing wrong with free enterprise and making an honest living, but building/development companies have crossed the line when they seek to subvert the will of the people through obfuscation and outright lies. Even worse, we have seen dark money attempt to influence our local elections in favor of pro-development candidates.
Profit-motivated builders and developers see local government regulations and an informed public as an obstacle to be overcome. Consequently, they now seek to use their influence at the state level, and take decision-making power away from localities.
Local municipal representatives are the only bulwark that residents have against these profit-motivated forces, and they are derelict in their duty if they fail to protect the safety and well-being of their constituents.
High density residential is the most profitable product for developers to build, so that is what their narratives tend to push for. Here are a few examples:
“You can’t stop development”
While it’s true that development that complies with existing zoning cannot legally be stopped, local governing boards are not obligated to approve projects that they feel their jurisdictions are not ready for.
“Voting against a high-density project could be illegal and risks a lawsuit”
As detailed in this post, governing boards are empowered to say “no”, but sadly some elected officials have swallowed the lie. Here’s an example of a developer propagandist who pushes this falsehood:
“You can only get road improvements by getting developers to build them, in exchange for allowing them to build high density residential units”
This conflicts with the “illegal” narrative – apparently we CAN vote no, after all! As for road improvements, developers are only required to mitigate the impact that their developments have on traffic – not improve pre-existing issues. It’s possible that these mitigations might have some unintended benefits, but these would come with all the other problems that high-density development brings.
“Zoning ordinances are anti-free market“
As elected officials, our first responsibility is to our constituents, not the “free market”. If residents wanted to get rid of zoning regulations, someone would run on that platform and win. Profit-motivated interests should not seek to override the will of the people, as expressed via representative government. Who would you prefer to make decisions about higher-density projects – a developer, or your elected representative?
“Zoning ordinances are exclusionary, and if you don’t get rid of them you are a bigoted NIMBY”
This is just virtue-signaling, name-calling, and more top-down thinking from those who prefer anti-democratic corporate interests. Local governments are obligated to the local residents, not potential residents. Potential residents should only be considered to the extent that they benefit the local residents. When leaders get distracted by outside interests, they end up working against what local residents want.
“Higher-density zoning will make housing more affordable”
On a surface level, this seems to make sense because a greater supply should fill some of the demand and bring prices down. But that doesn’t seem to be the way it works out. If higher-density development made real estate more affordable, it would be cheaper to buy in big cities. Also, the price of the home is just one factor – if taxes go up because the residential development does not pay for itself, the locality becomes less affordable.
“High density development brings in more tax dollars”
The large amount of revenue brought in by apartment blocks is often cited as a reason to build more, while the cost in town services is ignored. If you had a business, would you only pay attention to revenue and ignore expenses? Of course not! Likewise, a town should balance expected tax revenue with the cost to serve when making decisions on developments.
“You live in a development you hypocrite”
As implied by Brett Jensen last week, the suggestion is that people who live in developments owe a dept of loyalty to developers. Or, they should see development as an absolute good that never has any downsides. How convenient it would be for developers if people thought this way! However, the reality is that people don’t buy houses inside developments because they love construction and development.