On one hand, you don't own the street in front of your house. It's public and anyone can park there. And that's very fair.
On the other hand, I've lived in suburban neighborhoods without enough parking, and they look so run down and shitty--every street looks like Fast Eddie's Used Car Lot. If I was looking for a suburban home to move into, I would probably skip a neighborhood with streets blighted with parked cars everywhere. And definitely taking a lot that used to be zoned for a single family home and dumping a 14 family apartment on it will quickly turn a neighborhood into that street parking blight.
Poorly _maintained_ (cleaned, resurfaced, policed) streets are ugly. Streets are poorly maintained when the property tax base is insufficient.
Increasing density can amortize the cost of maintaining the streetscape over more households.
1. The right to live in it as long as you pay your property taxes.
2. Not have its use as a residence ruined by allowing industrial or farm activity near enough that sounds or smells would affect you.
Housing is housing. If someone buys up all the lots around you and builds apartments, they should have that right. The willingness to invest that much money is a signal that people need to live there.
Homelessness in my town is also detrimental to my experience of living in my house.
Burn it all!
Anything that matters is already regulated at the state level if not permitted there too. Basically nothing even slightly controversial isn't permitted locally. We could just get rid of basically all zoning and it would be mostly fine. Nobody wants to put a toxic waste processing plant or strip club in a classy neighborhood anyway because those people make poor neighbors for such an operation.
And "change" is like squeezing a balloon. If you stop it in one way, it bulges out in other ways: unaffordable housing for instance. Change still happened, just different from allowing the physical form of buildings to change.