A person selling a good is protective of the value of the good they're selling. Selfish bastards. If I'm renting high-end apartments why would I want developments that make them or the area less attractive?
You don't want them, but what you want is entirely irrelevant. This isn't a discussion about what existing landlords do with their own property, it's about not letting them block the new housing that they have absolutely no stake in and that benefits everyone else in the city.
If it really benefited everyone we wouldn't be having this discussion and if landlords had nothing at stake they wouldn't be weighing in on the debate.
Just because someone doesn't have a financial stake in the literal plot of land doesn't mean that they aren't affected by new developments. Mediating disputes involving negative externalities is exactly the government's job.
Except that it does benefit everyone, which is why the Yimby movement is gaining traction at the rate it is. It just wasn't as clear-cut and financially painful to the average person until a few years ago which is why it took so long to correct.
Indeed - and a country made of single family homes has catastrophic externalities via its car dependence. Exclusivity in cities with economic opportunity denies it to all but the already-privileged and widens the gap. Housing scarcity hurts the poor and burdens local social services.
Beyond the hyperlocal level (like, block level) the externalities lens says build, build, build.
