No one is telling a SFH owner that they have to do anything. Instead, SFH are being allowed to have more options for what to do with their property.
In fact giving more options for property actually increases the value of that property.
This may be worth it broadly, but it absolutely enforces our preferences onto the SFH owner.
If we choose to overturn those collective preferences, we need to have principled discussions as to why our preferences should rule over the other groups'.
Geometry is an arbitrary basis for power, not a principled one. There’s no deep reason why the block is too small to decide and the state is too big to decide and the City of Sunnyvale is just right.
The same way with the proposed city stock shares - nobody is going to tell you what you can do with it.
>Instead, SFH are being allowed to have more options for what to do with their property.
no. It is a rich&powerful well-connected developer who is getting zoning changes and only to his properties (similar to the situation when only the major shareholder would get additional stock/dividend issued for free) at the cost to all the other residents and property owners. Privatization of profits with socialization of costs - the main reason for the NIMBY.
>In fact giving more options for property actually increases the value of that property.
Nobody is giving more options. Uniform re-zoning never practically happens. It is always a targeted action for the benefit of specific powerful developer who has already at least got an option on those targeted properties. At least the common stock schema i propose would allow to spread some of those gains toward all the others who also bear the costs, ie. the whole city.