the key is not to be so manichean. it’s not an either/or choice. a dense new district in the Bay Area gets more agglomeration benefits than a new city in Nevada. 1/

does it get as much as if you could dramatically redevelop Pacific Heights or the Mission? no. but it’s lots more achievable (and lots less disruptive of actual people’s lives and interests, as an ethical matter). 2/

the point is to find ways forward that manage the tradeoffs between agglomeration and disruption well. it’s an error to think you can optimize only for one of these. 3/

there are no reforms, larger or smaller, that will vanquish NIMBY politics, because its the preferences that make the politics, not the tools that get wielded. 4/

yes, absolutely, new cities will eventually become as conservative as NIMBY neighborhoods, if they are successful and develop a base of residents who want to conserve what they love. 5/

but they are not there yet while the project is greenfield. well, most of them aren’t, there’s always somebody, but numbers matter in overcoming political objections. as California Forever has shown, if you are sufficiently arrogant, you can render even greenfield development politically toxic. /fin