freedom of movement != freedom over the personal property of others, or freedom from binding agreements. You can walk the streets of any neighbourhood you please. Using state authority to overrule local decisions about local matters is what I'm objecting to here.

No one is taking their personal property? The state is removing the restriction around what a developer can build on their own property.

Further, the state is doing their job. If the town next to mine enacts restrictive housing measures, then my town is likely to become more burdened by the issue. If we then enact restrictive housing, the next town over now has to deal with the effects of 2 freeriders. Why should the rest of California allow Beverly Hills and Santa Monica to saddle us with the burden of housing everyone? So the wealthy can have their enclaves?

> the rest of California

Because I don't see "California" as one entity like a sports team. I see it as various groups each competing with each other, like an ecosystem. Beverly Hills and Santa Monica just happen to be "winning" (rather arbitrarily). Using authority to punish them for (peacefully) winning is tyranny. Just let them win.

> The state is removing the restriction

That was enforced by a local democracy, for what is fundamentally local concern. The state should not be able to supersede local authority for local concerns, it's authoritarian.

This is a tragedy of the commons type thing. If every local democracy votes in favor of local concerns (no new housing), then the problem doesn't solve itself; California has a bunch of angry residents that can't find anywhere to live. Whatever you think is right or wrong, there is still an elected government at the state level, and it's not only homeowners that vote in those elections. So their hand is forced to do something given the gridlock at the local level. (If it was only Santa Monica that refused to build new housing, then this wouldn't have become a state-level issue. But every locale is making the exact same decision, because it's in their current residents' best interests. The state has to take into account the views of everyone.)

It's really convenient for you to not see California as one entity. Unfortunately for you, that's not reality and we are, in fact, part of a single entity.

> Beverly Hills and Santa Monica just happen to be "winning" (rather arbitrarily). Using authority to punish them for (peacefully) winning is tyranny. Just let them win.

The residents of those areas have been using authority to make their "wins" a fait accompli for nearly 100 years, but yeah, it's tyranny if we remove their priviliges.

> The state should not be able to supersede local authority for local concerns, it's authoritarian.

California voters elected the legislature and executive who signed off on it. If Santa Monica restricts housing, it affects neighboring cities. Please explain how it is authoritarian for the state to balance these concerns?

You genuinely don't see how a city controlling what a property owner can build on their land isn't authoritarian?

All politics is local. Every citizen of a city is also a citizen of the state. "Local" is a demarcation drawn where ever it's convenient for the speaker. A smaller group should not be able to supersede the superior authority at the larger polity's expense.

In this case, the locally-optimal choices cities are making is having deleterious effects on the quality of life of the citizens of the state as a whole. It is perfectly reasonable for the state to therefore act.

My house is worthless to me if they put a batch asphalt plant next door, as my whole purpose for my house was to raise my children in. They tried to get a variance. Luckily I come from California, so I am not adverse to raising friction and gathering a coalition and was able to get enough people to the planning meeting to keep zoning rules enforced and not allow that exception.

What is the point of your anecdote, no one is suggesting that we remove industrial zoning? This law removes specific residential housing restrictions which require single-family in areas that have enough demand that developers will build multi-tenant buildings. You can still raise your children fine in a slightly more dense neighborhood, everything will adapt.

And why should an individual not be able to build whatever they want (including apartments) on land they own? Why should local decisions override individual freedom?