This is such an odd joke.

I say joke, but I feel that many people feel it is true. In that if the Bay Area builds any of that housing, that in a few years they will be forced into living in it against their will.

For existing property owners, this is not a problem. They have their single family separate household. And yet it's those people that put up the most opposition to people who want to live in a different way. To me, an apartment on a rail line is far more valuable than a house that's only accessible by car. That's what I want, yet the market is not allowed to meet that demand because of zoning restrictions and NIMBY actions.

Well for starters that's probably illegal and would get challenged in court by various jurisdictions.

Municipalities could easily accomplish that with zoning restrictions.

They already do, for the opposite. Ban apartments and legislate only single family homes.

Also, a large portion of the voters are home owners in those districts.

I'm guessing you're trying to get at the fact that we did exactly this, but the opposite. The results have been less than stellar.

people who don't want to live in small apartments next to busy rail lines

The better plan would be to remove zoning restrictions (and while you are at it, institute a land value tax).