I definitely want more housing near my land. It means more restaurants and shops that I can easily walk to, more likelihood that my friends will live in easy walking distance, etc.

Perhaps the only solution then is to build in everybody's backyard. "Why don't we build over there instead of here" is more difficult to argue when the same construction is happening everywhere.

> Everyone would benefit if more housing were built, but nobody wants more built near their land.

Letting land owners build on land they already own with fewer restrictions solves this problem. If it's a matter of aesthetics or "neighborhood character" and not a matter of habitability as defined by the housing code, then why should the wants of whoever owns land that happens to be nearby factor in?

> nobody wants more built near their land

Absolute nonsense.