On the other hand it eliminates the NIBMY problem. Since the tenants do not own their home they don't have the pressure to protect their investment. The landlord receives returns on his investment through rent on a monthly basis which lessens the risk of a sudden development reducing the value of the home. Home owners that live in their own home on the other hand face the full risk since they can only recoup their costs when they sell the property.
Which introduces the problem of "Whatever, it isn't my mine I will just move away when the area gets shit" leading to lower quality stock.
On my current street, opposite the flats further up, there is regular fly tipping and various illegal activities. The fly tipping can take weeks to be dealt with as nobody rings the council (I've started emailing the council when I notice it, but I don't walk that way often).
Renters just don't have enough skin in the game to maintain the communities.
I'm not entirely sure that NIMBY is rational with respect to maximizing the value of a real estate investment--wouldn't free construction plus taking out equity loans to build as dense as justified by demand be even better? IMHO, NIMBYism is more of a sentimental phenomenon.
