That’s a reasonable argument. My feeling, which is a bit arbitrary, is that governmental power makes the most sense at the lowest layer (local government) and should be increasingly thin and limited in scope the further it gets from the layer of individuals. This is what allows many people of different backgrounds and perspectives to coexist peacefully in a nation, with local communities that are more tightly knit, while sharing some fundamental rights and very basic services like a military across different communities. Unfortunately the ever-ballooning size and scope of government at the federal and state level has threatened that decentralized notion of sovereignty.

> My feeling, which is a bit arbitrary

And there's the crux of the problem. You want to base housing policy on your arbitrary feelings, not on things that actually make for good and successful housing policy.

> This is what allows many people of different backgrounds and perspectives to coexist peacefully in a nation, with local communities that are more tightly knit

I'm sure you aren't intending this, but that's just another way of saying that segregation and red-lining should be legal. Because that's the end result when you allow these types of decisions to be made at a local level, without allowing interference from a county, state, or federal government.

The way for people of different backgrounds and perspectives to coexist peacefully is to refuse to allow subsets of those people to impose their values on others.

I agree, and hopefully we can all transact using cryptocurrency, making our money decentralized and sovereign as well.