Thanks Chris, except you leave out the part . . .

The speaker is discussing future housing balance but criticizes Chris for not mentioning negative impacts of mandatory siphoning for property developers. People lose value, privacy, and sunlight without compensation due to high-rise builds. Luxury units are prioritized over affordable housing, with only temporary affordable allocations. The speaker questions the fairness of the scheme and emphasizes the need for housing and retirement security for everyone, not just pitting NIMBYs against each other. I think I'm going to have a fair balance of housing in the future. Thanks, Chris. Except you leave out the part where you are mandatorily siphoning, with people's homes and to privatize property developers, the homes next door and over the back fence to these eight plus story builds, lose millions of dollars of value, privacy, amenity, and sometimes all their sunlight without any compensation. Despite the fact that your scheme extracts their value and gives it to someone else, it's particularly egregious where you've grandfathered SFDs like Landmark Group's Linfield House that's opportunistically cited beyond. The Todd Zones, you ended up agreeing with councils. We see that proposed units are mostly marketed and priced as luxury. I'm not sure how that's really substantially improving affordable supply. We see that any portion allocated to affordable housing is only temporary. These apartment blocks and the changes they bring are permanent. You've conveniently pitted NIMBY against NIMBY, but really we all deserve housing and retirement security. Is this happening over your back fence at Chris NIMBY?