A participação social pode ser ruim para o planejamento urbano?

A segunda parte do urbanismo austríaco-public-choice :

"...collective choice is inherently biased toward favoring a city’s or neighborhood’s current residents, against potential future residents. This makes policies created through collective choice inherently anti-density and anti-growth. It also means that cities come with a built-in vested interest that wants to protect their property. When planning departments allow this group to protect their interest through the political process, the market process is stifled because entrepreneurs cannot take advantage of available profit opportunities to increase urban density.Furthermore, collective choice leads to many unholy alliances, such as NIMBYs and historic preservationists, NIMBYs and environmentalists who want to protect open space, NIMBYs and those opposed to new transit projects, etc. In other words, collective choice leads to many of the results that urbanists criticize."

A primeira parte da série está aqui.
(Como seguidor do Mancur Olson, eu escrevi algo parecido, muitas luas atrás, sobre os riscos de políticas regionais abertas à participação: ver a página 185 aqui (pdf, 13 MB).)