It does seem fine, at first, but the end result is the housing crisis, because people, having been given this power, will work very hard to ensure that expensive single-family homes with multiple parking spots and generous setbacks are the only living arrangement that's legal. (Let's not forget that people also marked out racial boundaries, when they were allowed to do that, too. When you let homeowners set housing-use policy, you get...bad results.)

Sure, some would be prime real estate but I’d rather have a few of these co-ops mixed into the cities than just private housing projects everywhere.

That said, I think that a concept similar to zoning is probably a good one to have on hand, particularly for uses like greenspace of various sorts. It's use does need to carefully controlled/moderated.

Seems like the blame for the housing crisis lies a lot more with landlords who'd rather kick out a tenant paying X for a new tenant able to pay out X*y - if you have more people moving in than moving out, and existing landlords can simply choose to serve the new, wealthier ones, you're going to have a problem. If you couldn't take advantage of the migration simply by choosing to rent to the higher-income and kick out your existing tenants, maybe the politically-connected multiple-property-owners would figure out a way to get more construction going. We used to have both rent control and more densification than we have today.

But, second, any objection that places the blame on "greedy landlords" is a total nonstarter. Everybody is responding to their incentives. Landlords aren't greedier than anybody else. If widget makers could set higher prices, they would. They don't because they can't, not because they're "less greedy."

SF is the second-densest "large" city in the US. I haven't found specific numbers, but looking at zoning maps at least 50% of the residential space is zoned for single-family homes only, with the majority of the remainder explicitly zoned for low-density residences. A big chunk of the city is basically a suburb! The rest of the Bay Area, of course, is more like 90% single-family housing. This year Berkeley passed a resolution removing single-family zoning throughout the entire city so perhaps the tides are shifting, but even if zoning laws and politics change, it'll take decades for this to meaningfully affect the housing supply.

There's land out on the periphery that hasn't yet been used for housing, but look: we urgently need to get our emissions under control because the course we're on will be catastrophic for the planet. Urban sprawl is massively inefficient.

Buying a house cannot entitle you to the neighborhood around you never changing if we are to have any hope of dealing with this mess. Change is part of life.

But I don't care what they want.

It's not up to them. It's illegitimate to tell a property owner that they can't build a duplex on their own property. It's an illegal taking. It's not up to a vote. My neighbor's opinion is irrelevant.

> There are plenty of places people for people to live and build.

Indeed, there are plenty of places to live and build and the burden is on those who don't want anyone to build near them to move to some place new if they don't like what their neighbors are doing. You have the burden exactly backwards. If you don't like what people are choosing to do on their own private property, then you can move. You shouldn't be allowed to tell everyone else to stop building.

As you can see, the land and real state market changes. Things used to be accessible, today many people flee to barely legal situations just because it is too expensive otherwise. What used to be desirable in one area might change over time, and punishing the first ones to try seem too harsh to me.