My point is that nothing will ever change if this governing structure continues. By law, cities only protect their constituents, so any high-density development is going to encounter insane barriers since the increased competition within the area would drop values of nearby single-family homes, and cities will be made aware of this by the NIMBYs that show up at city hall meetings to push back against the development.

I don't have a serious objection nor see a constitutional challenge to having a state impose restrictions upon itself or its cities. (The same thing done federally is the problem.)

That still leaves the problem in your original proposal of "how exactly do you plan to enforce the required level of high-density development if no one is asking to do it?"

I regard your objection as naive.

The National 55 MPH speed limit shows the federal government, through the power of the purse, can have a strong influence on state traffic laws.

The history of zoning shows how the State Standard Zoning Enabling Act - a federal work - can influence the states to change.

There appear to be easy ways to tweak judge2020's proposal to make it better reflect demand, but I don't care to argue that issue.

> AHJs imposing restrictions on themselves

judge2020's point is that zoning laws support current residents, not future residents, so AHJs have a systemic bias against making these changes.

judge2020's proposal is to look towards the democratically elected bodies which have a wider scope.

As a concrete example, California recently made it easier to build mother-in-law units (ADUs in CA terms), by reducing the requirements cities and counties can enforce. See https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2020/03/12... . This law is why I mentioned mother-in-law units as an example.

That change in California law has no constitutional issues like what you are opposed to.

I agree (and said) that a state law has no such US Constitutional concern.

If CA voters can’t manage to do this for CA, it doesn’t seem like it’s going to be any easier to get it to pass federally.

I pointed to an example of a "this" they did.

Just because it isn't easy doesn't mean judge2020 isn't right.

You said you staunchly oppose a state government forcing a certain type of development onto cities, without explaining why you oppose it, nor stating if you support the current forced state of development.

I don’t object to a state government setting restrictions on their cities’ zoning rules.

I do oppose states “[forcing] cities [to] have a certain minimum amount of high-density development every year” because it’s not at all obvious how to implement forcing development that is not supported or requested by developers.

I have no significant objections to the current level of state restrictions in my state of MA, in which no developers are forced to develop property against their wishes.

The problem is that democracy doesn't seem to be working well on that level and is negatively impacting people outside that narrow scope as well.

If you poll people if we should build more in their city, you get a majority in favor. Then you get community meetings in which a vocal minority that can actually afford (typically better off and older) to go to community meetings and create pressure shoot down projects or cripples them.

On a larger scope you have folks who are denied economic opportunity due to housing policy that gets set by people who are already in, but kick away the ladder for everyone else. As a concrete example, I know lots of people who'd love to live (again) in SF in part due to the job market, but cannot or it would be super hard for them.