The definition of "harming you" in CA is far more inclusive than it is on the east coast and that is reflected in the local laws that restrict what people can do on their own property.

That's obviously not how it works though. By voting and electing people who want to change the status quo, they can tell people what to do with their property.

(edited for typos)

That's a false equivalence. People moving in aren't telling people in San Francisco what to do with their property. There is a mutual transaction (between a developer in San Francisco that wants to build say a high-rise apartment and people who want to rent it), that is being blocked by NIMBYs who have no property interest in the land on which the apartment would sit.

> By voting and electing people who want to change the status quo, they can tell people what to do with their property.

Only because Euclid was wrongly decided: http://oldurbanist.blogspot.com/2011/11/ever-since-euclid.ht....

And if building a high rise damages the value of an adjacent property with no compensation, that's a taking, no?