> Indeed. but it's also unreasonable to expect that homeowners in a city should not be able to decide how much building they want to allow in their city

How far away does said land need to be before you think current homeowners shouldn't have a say anymore? Should someone who lives on the border of Palo Alto and another city be able to prevent housing being built in that other city, or just in Palo Alto? It's pretty arbitrary.

The people who are trying to prevent housing being built today are the same people who benefited from lots of new housing being built during the 1960s-1980s. Why should they have the right to prevent other people from doing what they themselves did? Should the Palo Alto residents in the 1960s-1980s have been able to prevent the newcomers at that time? I suspect very few current residents would agree with that, which is hypocritical.

I think there is a much simpler way to deal with this -- if land is zoned for housing, allow housing to be built. If some rich guy in Palo Alto wanted to control what happened on that land, he should have bought it. Why should anyone be able to veto the development of housing on land they don't own, if it is zoned for housing?

so, should a town be allowed to decide what kind of zoning it wants to have, or should it be decided by a decree from Federal government? So, suppose people in a town decided they want their town to be a town of 2 story single family homes. Should they be allowed to make that decision or not? Suppose all of New York decides to move to Palo Alto within the next 5 years. Should current homeowners in Palo Alto have the ability to decide how much housing and what kind of housing should be built to accommodate that demand?

It is unreasonable for the government to limit housing. It directly causes economic segregation. Only the wealthiest get the homes allowed by law while everyone else gets pushed further out. The market does not do this. Our segregation laws do.

If it were legal to build fourplexes anywhere in Palo Alto, merely wealthy families would be able to outbid some of the insanely wealthy with their four rent payments combined. For the most part, single family homeowners can't actually afford single family homes in such desirable locations, but our laws make it illegal for middle class families to outbid the wealthy the way they always have: using less land.

This is an obvious injustice, and the people who insist on laws that exclude others will soon find themselves in our history books. Stop letting Dixiecrats call themselves progressives.

"It is unreasonable for the government to limit housing" for which government? federal, state, local? Is it really that unreasonable for homeowners in a town to exercise some measure of control over their own town?

> I mean, it's a Bay wide problem, why can't all the building be done right outside Palo Alto?

I mean, climate change is a worldwide problem, why can't all the cutting of greenhouse gas emissions be done outside the US?

so you think that a town should have no say whatsoever in deciding what should be built in its borders? By this analogy ?