If you'd like a balanced model of housing policy, you might take an in-depth look at Portland, Oregon's land-use/housing policy. As the owner of an older home in a "historic" neighborhood there, and as someone who is also concerned about affordable housing, I think the city planning board does a good job weighing neighborhood concerns about over-building with the need for growth.
I am super sympathetic to moving zoning decisions up the government ladder (basically, we need to emulate Japan). But voting for EVERY level of government skews white and old. So I am not really sure that democratic legitimacy is much greater at those levels. It's just that citizens have to rely more on the representatives' discretion rather than intervening directly in planning decisions. Maybe that works in practice, but it's pretty bad for people who think we need greater democracy.
If you'd like a balanced model of housing policy, you might take an in-depth look at Portland, Oregon's land-use/housing policy. As the owner of an older home in a "historic" neighborhood there, and as someone who is also concerned about affordable housing, I think the city planning board does a good job weighing neighborhood concerns about over-building with the need for growth.
Nimbyism is bad, but it is very democratic.
I am super sympathetic to moving zoning decisions up the government ladder (basically, we need to emulate Japan). But voting for EVERY level of government skews white and old. So I am not really sure that democratic legitimacy is much greater at those levels. It's just that citizens have to rely more on the representatives' discretion rather than intervening directly in planning decisions. Maybe that works in practice, but it's pretty bad for people who think we need greater democracy.