That's interesting; where I'm from, people only get votes at one municipality (I they qualify for multiple, they choose one as the primary residence), so any people with secondary homes for vacations or rentals are automatically outvoted by the actual residents in local elections.

It's not about voting, it's about showing up to Planning and Zoning meetings and opposing anything that might obstruct scenic views or negatively impact property values. Most significant developments require rezoning and therefore a public input period.

Then there are outsized impact fees and red tape from the city and county once it gets past P&Z.

Actual residents may be concerned about pissing off the 2nd and 3rd home owners, who can be quite vocal even if they don’t have a vote. Locals depend on them for revenue, and might know them personally and like them. This is covered somewhat in the Outside article.

Damn. Should have changed so that only residents get a vote.

Nobody should get a vote. Residents are the worst about opposing more housing.

The ONLY constitutional basis for getting a say over how much housing your neighbor builds is excluding Black people (see the appellate ruling, Ambler Realty v City of Euclid). All zoning in the United States is based on the power of that ruling to keep Black people out.

Wierd. While I don't disagree with you that one of the primary uses of zoning has been racial discrimination and segregation, Ambler v. Euclid was about industrial land use in the context of otherwise residential property. The decision may indeed have to led to an expansion in the use of zoning for racist purposes, but it was not in and of itself about such a purpose.

This is a normal take of the case, but not what the appellate court decision was about.

SCOTUS ignored the real issue - the apartments - and focused on the industrial uses in order to ignore the apartment issue.

Actually, we are both wrong.

SCOTUS did explicitly address the apartment buildings and gave what to many contemporary eyes would be an absurd judgement:

"With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private house purposes; that in such sections very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover, the coming of one apartment house is followed by others, interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which otherwise would fall upon the smaller homes, and bringing, as their necessary accompaniments, the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business, and the occupation, by means of moving and parked automobiles, of larger portions of the streets, thus detracting from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open spaces for play, enjoyed by those in more favored localities-until, finally, the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed. Under these circumstances, apartment houses, which in a different environment would be not only entirely unobjectionable but highly desirable, come very near to being nuisances."

Yes - they made up a way to avoid the explicitly racist appellate case entirely, by claiming housing was a nuisance without saying the real reason the city considered it a nuisance out loud.