I had one interesting experience when it came to explicit consent. I walked to the date, she drove. No alcohol was consumed by any parties.
She offered to give me a ride home, which I politely declined, and then accepted when she pushed. I asked her if she wanted to come inside, and she said yes. I asked her if she wanted to come upstairs, and she said yes. We went up to my bedroom, did the deed, I asked her if she wanted to take a shower together and she said yes. I asked her if she wanted to go for round 2 and she said no. She left, shortly thereafter, and I was pretty confused when she told me she had felt pressured into sex and didn't want to see me again, when I thought I had intentionally given her lots of opportunities to say yes or no.
I still don't think I need to get a legally binding document agreeing to engagement in sexual intercourse, but that experience really demonstrated to me that an extra awkward question or two is better than the alternative.
Oil companies sell oil and manipulate national policy to promote its use. Consumers buy it and support policy to promote its use. There's at least a bit of room for personal responsibility there.
I don't believe there are any explicit rules against redundancy in laws.
"The plastics industry" is a lot bigger than just disposable water bottles. Not to say you should use disposable bottles. According to the UN, 36% of plastics were used in packaging (which includes packaging of beverages, ie disposable water bottles).
Uhaul and Home Depot (among others) rent trucks. When I moved, I had no furniture and no car. I biked past a yard sale with a bunch of things I wanted, told them what I wanted, rode to Uhaul, rented a truck, and brought a couch, a desk, a table, and 4 chairs home with me, for a rental fee of $30 as I recall, and not much more to buy all that furniture.
That's valid.
I do think it's reasonable to have an interest in what kind of development is approved and funded. I wouldn't support developers who wanted to build McMansions, and luxury condos are less appealing than affordable housing. I expect there could be some extreme, unrealistic case in which you too might oppose a specific development, even if it was high density.
Aesthetic appeal (and yes, NIMBYism) is what kept a lot of small cities in North America, including mine, from being replaced by strip malls.
Of course, this line of reasoning could be continued to oppose anything and everything.
Pointing out that the proposed development would be out of place does not make you a hypocrite. Maybe you and any like-minded neighbors can explain your viewpoint, emphasizing that you would be happy with a smaller apartment building.
It may be that in a few decades, such structures will not look so out of place in your neighborhood. Developers seem to think there's a demand. You live in a desirable location.
I can commiserate. I'm in a similar area, with a mix of single family homes, duplexes, and small apartments, a few blocks from a walkable downtown. I don't think a 6 story building would be aesthetically pleasing next to the 2-3 story structures near me.
With that said, I emailed my representatives, and hope to attend the city meeting in support of a new zoning plan allowing for more apartments and businesses, without parking minimums in my neighborhood.