> If you want to restrict what your neighbor can build buy an easement. Otherwise talk to the invisible hand.

I'm sorry you're unhappy with how zoning and local governance exists today, but that's the hand that has been dealt.

> California makes money off of me being in it. Why is it good policy to drive an industry out?

If you're happy with the quality of life available with the status quo (renting forever with rents continually increasing faster than inflation), feel free to stay. It's your income; if you want to rent forever, that's your choice.

Owning in a high cost of living geographic area is not a right, it is a luxury obtained mostly by luck (either through a purchase before property value increased or a present day windfall of some sort, whether that's an inheritance, the startup lottery, or a high single or dual income that can support servicing a large amount of mortgage debt).

> I'm sorry you're unhappy with how zoning and local governance exists today, but that's the hand that has been dealt.

A hand that has resulted in the ""housing crisis"" which is why we are here talking about why and how it should be changed.

No one with the authority to change it is talking about changing it. No one invested in the status quo is willing to delegate the necessary authority to YIMBYs or their surrogates.

You’d be asking existing and potential property owners to vote against their own interests. Progress isn’t impossible, but it’s going to take decades to make meaningful reforms.

The NIMBYs are so stunningly effective because they're the only people engaged on the issue, not because their values are actually universal.

Like anything else in politics, it's a turnout game. Development regulation is an obscure issue. There's a lot of room for people who would be okay with denser cities (and thus haven't paid attention) to learn about it and show up.

And then of course there's the movement we're already seeing in state legislatures.

We’re saying the same thing: progress might eventually occur, but the outcomes will be for the next generation of CA residents.

> Owning in a high cost of living geographic area is not a right

Neither is a specific type of zoning. Your rights as a property owner are explicitly listed on your deed. Zoning is not one of them, and you have no basis to feel entitled to preservation of your neighborhood in the state it was when you bought it.

> Owning in a high cost of living geographic area is not a right, it is a luxury obtained mostly by luck

This is kind of a weird take. Whether someone can afford to fulfill as basic of a need as housing shouldn't be about luck, no matter the qualities of the area concerned. It's kind of like saying whether someone can afford to eat on a given day should be based on luck—we would think that's crazy, and for good reason. The housing crisis is currently ripping families and friendships apart, not to mention fraying the very fabric of civic and community life—all so a select few lucky folks can feel like they've made it. House prices in the Bay Area (and in other currently high-priced metros) will revert, sooner or later, but in the meantime, we're willing to cause a lot of pain and suffering in the name of picking winners and losers, if only momentarily. And speaking as someone who owns a home in a desirable part of the Bay Area and is 100% pro-housing, I don't really get it. It's really sad to see a lot of my neighbors supporting regressive anti-housing policy—it's almost like sociopathy on a massive scale.