Indeed, they want the authority over the land without buying or otherwise having to expend finances to control the land.
From what I've seen the actual policies being pushed by "yimbys" seem much closer to yiyby.
We already have a number of rules of what you can and can't do with your private property that I think most people agree on. You can't build a slaughterhouse right in the middle of a residential area. You can't dump your garbage into the water flowing through your property. Etc.
Those are rules we all agree on because they have immediate and very visible primary effects.
The things we're talking about now are less visible secondary effects, but they're still very real.
The ability of our entire society to be able to securely and affordably house all its members is a much stronger imperative than the ability of people in any particular area to have nice views, or neighbors who all share the same socioeconomic class/skin color/native language as them.
Yimbys go even smaller. They don't care about things that are not in their backyard.
You want an apartment building on your land? Cool, none on my land thanks.
If you care about freedom, go with yimbys. The nimbys are the ones putting encumbrances on your property.
You could just be honest and say "I want to use government power to suit my needs, even if it costs other people. But no one else can do that". It's pretty selfish but at least we'll know where you stand.
You can't know that though. Unless you hold a referendum to renew the rules every year and they pass by a 100% majority.
The only honest way to do it is without invoking government power. Move to a gated community. Have a neighborhood association, funded solely by residents, whose bylaws require that it gets to have any property up for sale in the community as long as it matches any other accepted offer on it.
If you want your "dream community" spend your own money. Don't go into other people's pockets.
The key being that anyone can use them. Everyone benefits. With restrictive zoning only property owners who want their neighborhood to remain unchanged benefit but everyone pays the cost.
The community can express its desires by building whatever kind of housing they want on their property. What you're talking about is my property having to reflect the desires of the rest of the community.
Potential new residents should have no say, and actual new residents knew what they were before they purchased the property.
If you want property to be a neighbourhood thing then you should also be required to let the benefits of your own property accrue to your whole neighbourhood and not just yourself. So no tall fences for example. How come everyone else should have to do what you want, but you shouldn't have to do what everyone else wants?
Obviously, every single existing property owner wants it to stop right now. Because more housing means more supply, means less money for them. They naturally want to pull the ladder up.
But if you just let them, then there's 0 new homes being built in the US. And then the economy implodes.
We have to toe a line necessarily. If you just allow the tragedy of the commons to happen 100%, then everyone loses. Everyone, including those who benefit.
Its like feudalism. Feudalism seems like a fantastic idea if you're a feudal lord. But... Its actually not. No, you lose too.
Imagine how much richer those feudal lords could have been had they not impeded the progress of Europe for hundreds of years.
Upzoning actually increases land values, because it gives you the option to develop your land into a higher-productivity use (and hence higher potential rents).
NIMBYs in my observation tend to be anti-change; they bought with the neighbourhood a particular way and want it to stay that way. Upzoning brings in a change in the vibe and demographic that they don't want.