> 1) they view the function of a city as moving and storing automobiles and anything that might hypothetically get in the way of that is bad ("we should only build these homes if they come with a massive amount of parking and generate no traffic!")

Imagine it's a thousand years ago and some cardinal is hearing a dispute between some guild representative and some local lord or something.

The parties will invariably appeal to religion because that's that the listener cares about. But they don't "really" care. They care about their dispute. And they care about religion insofar as it lets them convince, often actively misleading along the way, the audience into agreeing with their framing.

That's essentially what 1) is. People are screeching about traffic because the municipality invariable has rules that make they the municipality have to care about that.

People can, and do, do the same thing with other pretexts like safety and the environment, whatever the audience cares about.

I think their concerns about automobiles are actually genuine if overblown. People freak out about car stuff.

I do see 'concern trolling' as well. For instance I live in a place that doesn't see a lot of rain, so people will come out and "what about the WATER for those apartments?!" thinking they've found a gotcha, even while they themselves have a big green lawn and even if municipal use of water is a tiny fraction of the area's water

https://www.centraloregonlandwatch.org/update/2021/5/5/droug...