> Real "local control" would let people commuting to Cupertino from Stockton decide zoning in Cuptertino.

That's a sham argument. That would be letting corporations who demand workers be on site decide zoning by way of commuters from other areas. Every local zoning/district must then bend to the will of temporary workers (temporary in the sense that their employment is less permanent than land ownership).

Local voters, through property ownership or residency is the only acceptable form of governance. Workers should be angered at employers who demand them to be on site, not zoning regulations.

So police, teachers, firefighters, gardeners, construction workers, tradesmen, who work in a community and commute from outside it shouldn't have a say in the policies of the community? Most bay area cities don't have any of those people living locally anymore.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/08/25/cops-living-in-r...

https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2018/03/08/school-district-con...

When your city cannot house the people required for its basic functioning, its government is broken.

I agree with you that it's a problem. The solution is to find equitable ways to provide housing to those workers in the city where they should have a stake. Providing commuters a voice is a (pardon my language) shitty hack and ignores the underlying issue (wealth/income inequality in a constrained geographic region).

I would not be against subsidized housing (both rentals and coops where you acquire ownership interest) that is means/income tested, to fend off speculators, foreign investors, and high income/net worth individuals from soaking up all the housing stock.

I'm confused both by your proposal, and your resistance to this one. Commuters and "people with less wealth who have a stake in the community" are exactly the same group of people. What other criteria would you use?

I think we're talking past each other. Mind if I email you to continue the discussion?