> Most people who live (and vote) in Santa Cruz prefer to be in a low density area. While I understand that some people actually like to live in denser cities, the majority prefer some space and privacy.
Sure, there's nothing wrong with that. What _is_ unreasonable is fighting tooth and nail to prevent anyone without a sufficiently large bag of money from moving to Santa Cruz to try and preserve that low density.
> Places like Santa Cruz have never had any real intentional urban planning, so building a lot of additional housing is going to overload the infrastructure. They would need to upgrade all the utilities, build more schools, and completely revamp the transportation system.
I don't see how this is a valid argument against densification. It's not as if the current infrastructure in Santa Cruz was just lying around when people got there. Every growing population center has had to deal with expanding infrastructure to match. This isn't some novel, unsolvable problem.
> Good luck convincing any long-term Santa Cruz residents that they should sacrifice their quality of life and live in the middle of a construction zone for years for the sake of reducing someone else's rent.
Why should they get to decide? Why are their preferences so much more important than those of poorer or newer residents?
>What _is_ unreasonable is fighting tooth and nail to prevent anyone without a sufficiently large bag of money from moving to Santa Cruz to try and preserve that low density.
Why? Why shouldn't locals be allowed to set development restrictions to their liking? Even if their desire is to intentionally stop population growth.
Because there are major societal losses incurred by preventing development. I see no reason why governments should enable locals to enjoy the benefits of high property values and low density while externalizing the costs of that behavior onto others.
Sure, there's nothing wrong with that. What _is_ unreasonable is fighting tooth and nail to prevent anyone without a sufficiently large bag of money from moving to Santa Cruz to try and preserve that low density.
> Places like Santa Cruz have never had any real intentional urban planning, so building a lot of additional housing is going to overload the infrastructure. They would need to upgrade all the utilities, build more schools, and completely revamp the transportation system.
I don't see how this is a valid argument against densification. It's not as if the current infrastructure in Santa Cruz was just lying around when people got there. Every growing population center has had to deal with expanding infrastructure to match. This isn't some novel, unsolvable problem.
> Good luck convincing any long-term Santa Cruz residents that they should sacrifice their quality of life and live in the middle of a construction zone for years for the sake of reducing someone else's rent.
Why should they get to decide? Why are their preferences so much more important than those of poorer or newer residents?