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.
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.
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 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.
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?"