Casting shadow on their backyard. Bringing noise to their street. Ultimately, lowering the value of their property.

The key problem of US housing is that a house is seen as an investment vehicle, which should appreciate, or at least appreciate no slower than inflation. Keeping prices high and rising can't but go hand in hand with keeping supply scarce.

It's actually land that appreciates, which is why we should have a high land value tax and eliminate this extremely awful incentive.

Ultimately, lowering the value of their property.

Is this regularly true? IME, in Northern VA, land values have always increased with infill development. Thinking specifically of Arlington in the Courthouse/Ballston/Clarendon strip in the 90s and 00s. And now Reston.

Traffic and noise concerns might be legitimate, but I'm not buying the loss of value argument.

If there's enough demand to build denser housing near your house, and that's allowed, your land is automatically worth more.