Someone just moved in down the street from me with multiple work trucks and a trailer that they park on the street. It’s created a choke point in the primary means in and out of the neighborhood. They treat the area like a private cul-de-sac. I wish someone could have vetoed all of that stuff. It’s makes every trip to and from my home worse. I’m pretty sure they are also violating parking laws by parking too close to stop signs and intersections with crosswalks.

I don’t want to be that guy that calls the city to complain, but I think about it and curse to myself every time I need to navigate their maze of commercial vehicles in my residential area.

> We only accept this anti-competitive, anti-growth mindset when it comes to housing.

I don’t think this is the right framing of the mindset. They bought homes under certain conditions and with certain expectations. They would not have bought those homes if they were next to a high-rise. They want to maintain the environment that made the area valuable to them in the first place.

It’s not all that different than what happened during the national highway project. Neighborhoods that were once nice had a highway placed next to them that cut them off from the rest of the city and fundamentally changed the experience of living in those areas. Decades later people are still upset and we’ve seen effort to try and right some of those wrongs, but it’s not easy.

The YIMBY people and those who want to reconnect these neighborhoods torn apart by highways, are often of the same mindset and trying to help the same groups of people. Yet the ideas of growth or anti-growth seem selectively applied based on the goal. One could argue the highways were necessary for growth as well, but was it ok to fundamental change or devalue communities to do it? The difference I see is that the SF situation is framed as rich white people, while the highway projects impacted more poor and black communities. If destroying one was wrong, they’re probably both wrong.