Your opinion. They are attractive enough to sell or the developer losses money.
it's harder to maintain a "neighborhood feel".
Obviously not a great concern to those doing the buying, or again the developer's houses would not sell.
Existing infrastructure is generally vastly undersized, which means that the city/county taxpayers are forced to pay for arterial development, drainage, fire/police protection, etc.
Then you should be tickled pink that the developer has maximized the number of taxpayers per acre. This creates a larger tax base and reduces everybody's share of the increase.
A little NIMBY always seems to crop up amongst those that have already "got theirs".
The NIMBY label is usually dispensed by those who claim that whatever is being put in my back yard, imposes no actual costs upon me. To see whether the label applies to a personal concern about housing developments, let's see if we can identify any legitimate costs that they impose upon me.
One additional cost I face is higher taxes to pay for the aforementioned infrastructure improvements. Thus, it's not NIMBY, it's NIMW (not in my wallet). You tacitly admit this when you say: This creates a larger tax base and reduces everybody's share of the increase.
IOW, the development raises my taxes, just not as much. Of course, my taxes wouldn't increase at all if the development wasn't built in the first place, or if the developer/home-buyers paid for the imposed costs.
I'll take your comment as an admission that the new developments involve real monetary costs to ME -- which was the point that editor-surveyor refused to acknowledge.
Beyond taxes, if the development is near me, I face increased noise, pollution, and traffic. This is not NIMBY either, as these factors impose real costs on me.
By affixing the NIMBY label, you're apparently really saying that I have no legitimate grounds for complaint, given that the development isn't on my property. However, that's only true if the development imposes no costs on me -- and as we see, that is not the case. Of course the developments do impose costs.
Whether the benefits of the development outweigh the costs is a different question. But to deny that there are costs -- as editor-surveyor did, and you appear to be doing -- is ludicrous.