Interesting framing, because the history of anti-development is using government powers to take away private property rights. As an example I own an empty lot that is zoned for, say, up to four unit apartment building and then the voters all decide to reduce my zoning such that I can only build 1 house. This is a taking, right? That's NIMBYs taking what I have because they want something else.
Another example is a bunch of old ladies get together and have my house designated as a "historically significant" structure, thereby robbing me of my ability to build anything else, or even repaint the window sashes. You wouldn't believe that in Berkeley, California, this is perfectly legal without the agreement of the owner, right? In fact it's legal to do this without even _notifying_ the owner.
Finally, there's a pretty strong moral and ethical argument to be made that if I'm born and raised in a town and I live there my whole life but due to a housing crisis I am forced to move elsewhere, I should have had some input into the government of the original place. We shouldn't be saying that we divest our children in favor of their parents, just because they are the incumbents. That's just wrong.
Another example is a bunch of old ladies get together and have my house designated as a "historically significant" structure, thereby robbing me of my ability to build anything else, or even repaint the window sashes. You wouldn't believe that in Berkeley, California, this is perfectly legal without the agreement of the owner, right? In fact it's legal to do this without even _notifying_ the owner.
Finally, there's a pretty strong moral and ethical argument to be made that if I'm born and raised in a town and I live there my whole life but due to a housing crisis I am forced to move elsewhere, I should have had some input into the government of the original place. We shouldn't be saying that we divest our children in favor of their parents, just because they are the incumbents. That's just wrong.