You don’t have a right to live wherever you want. This is economics at work (housing costs increase until reaching equilibrium with supply, with supply being constrained by geographic or governance limitations).

Economics also dictates if that more people want to live in a place, more housing will be built. But intervention by law to prevent housing or slow it alters this.

Zoning trumps economic forces. Local citizens are exerting their rights over their community, which they’re entitled to do.

These are hard problems to solve, I readily admit.

Zoning is reactionary though and there is a relatively long delay from when a problem with zoning first occurs, to when it is reported, to when locals organize, to when it reaches municipal government, to when it finally gets passed. I know municipal governments have a lot on their plate, but it'd be nice if there was a mandatory review of zoning laws zone by zone to preemptively investigate if the laws are helping or if the laws are hurting.

Yes, agree entirely. You have to balance the wants of existing citizens with the housing demand from potential citizens.

With limited livable space on the Earth, "rights over their community" is not a tenable position. If every person had significant rights over a large area of land beyond where they explicitly own, there'd be no space left for other people.

It seems to me that people want to live in a place because it's a good place for living.

In your opinion what is the end game of not zone restrictions?

I was trying to tackle the "too many people" problem directly. You've given a counterexample to the `manicdee's assertion that '"too few houses" is the same problem as "too many people."': well done!

Freedom of movement only allows you to get to a destination: it doesn't guarantee that you'll have sufficient resources at your disposal to do something once you at your destination (e.g. acquire a house, or find a job).