Restrictive zoning, inadequate infrastructure, bureaucratic red-tape, high interest rates, soaring construction costs are all implicated in the housing crisis afflicting Vermont and New Hampshire. But we begin to wonder whether one of the most significant barriers to building more housing is that many people who already live in the Twin States simply don’t want the kind of multi-unit housing development that would put a real dent in the problem.

This reflection is sparked by two articles that appeared in the business section of last weekend’s Valley News. One, by VtDigger, described how a couple of neighbors have tied up in the courts for several years a widely supported 25-unit affordable housing project in Putney, Vt. The Vermont Supreme Court recently rebuffed the fourth of those appeals, clearing the way for the project, which is located close to Putney’s village center and is served by water and sewer infrastructure. The site makes it an ideal place to build affordable housing, as one of the developers put it.

To say the least, the two neighbors did not see it that way. One said, “I want (Putney) to be a vital, evolving community — not a community burdened with crime and arson.” Although she later walked back that sentiment, we infer that her objection was based at least in part on the kind of people whom she perceived would live in the apartments. We also suspect that this is a more common source of opposition than people are comfortable acknowledging.

While this Vermont case may be a classic example of NIMBY-ism by neighbors, the other article, by the Concord Monitor, detailed virulent community opposition in Warner, N.H., to any form of new housing development.

Warner, a town of 3,000 residents, a third of whom are over 55 years of age, currently has a median house price of $400,000 and describes itself as having the character of “a historic New England town.”

The cause of the uproar was a suggestion that the town apply to participate in the state’s new Housing Champions program and thereby become eligible to apply for grants to aid in building new affordable housing. Although the program is voluntary and participation does not require communities to follow through and actually build such housing, it ran into a buzz saw of opposition from a couple of dozen residents. Their attitude can be inferred from the following comment: “We don’t want sidewalks, we don’t want workforce housing, we don’t want higher taxes.”

Whether this represents the views of the broader community is unclear. But it seems likely that this outlook is not confined to those who turned out to turn thumbs down on a modest proposal to address the state’s grievous lack of housing. There are certainly communities that like things just the way they are, including the barrier presented to newcomers by sky-high home prices. Increased density and economic and racial diversity hold no attraction for them, especially if taxes rise as a result of development.

It’s fair, we suppose, to attribute these attitudes in part to selfishness. But it also has to be acknowledged that many long-time residents are not familiar or comfortable with multi-unit developments, whether affordable or market rate. Such projects can seem like unwelcome outliers in towns with traditional single-family-home settlement patterns. As an Enfield resident put it recently to town officials considering a 300-unit development: “Enfield doesn’t want this kind of thing.” Similar objections have been raised to large-scale housing projects proposed for downtown Lebanon, where some long-time residents cling to the notion that the city is still the small town they have known and loved, and not the bustling micropolitan employment and shopping hub that it has manifestly become.

Housing advocates on both sides of the Connecticut River have issued daunting projections about how many new housing units are needed now and in the future. In New Hampshire, the estimate is that the state needs more than 20,000 units to meet current demand. The Upper Valley is said to need an estimated 10,000 additional homes by 2030.

What hasn’t been articulated so well is who will be living in these homes, where they will be working, the relationship of current to future demand and what the benefits will be in terms of social life, cultural enrichment and economic activity for residents already here. Advocates and planners need to do more to convince people, or at least more people, that it is in their interest to welcome such development.