We live in a democracy in which most people think that the government should step in to ensure commodities necessary for survival, like housing or food, remain affordable. Given that in California (and many other places) every community severely restricts multi-family housing, the state has to force some otherwise-unwilling municipalities to zone for denser residential. It would be unfair for the state to deliver mandates to some cities while letting the richest places, such as Palo Alto, off the hook.

In other words: it'd be one thing if it were just Palo Alto that were unaffordable, but because it's a statewide problem, fairness demands that every city should chip in to the solution.

" in which most people think that the government should step in " ! Really? Proof?

Housing is affordable; just not the housing you'd like. Food is inflating but starvation in the US is rare.

Considering California's housing costs are astronomical compared to the rest of the US, isn't its approach to restriction a sign of the model working? If not why is there so much market based demand driving up the prices?

And since many people can and do leave the state as a result of being priced out, where is the "statewide problem"?

This sounds more like an opinionated list of the way you wish things were. Also makes me curious how much you have vested in the state / community. As things are increasingly so, when in California, do as the ("Romans").