It seems pretty clear cut given the focus on property rights in the States that whoever got there first does get to call the shots. There are maybe some overrides like eminent domain but it seems the only non-coercive way to change this is to get your own land and make your own rules (e.g. HOAs, incorporate towns with better rules, etc).

Besides, who's to say that these desirable places are not desirable because they are low-density? It's a chicken and egg problem.

> Besides, who's to say that these desirable places are not desirable because they are low-density? It's a chicken and egg problem.

If this were true, you wouldn't need zoning, and people would just build low density because that's what everyone wants anyways.

Property rights absolutism would mean landowners can build what they want. Zoning has already moved the question of allowed building types into the realm of public policy; now we’re talking about what the policy should be.

> It seems pretty clear cut given the focus on property rights in the States that whoever got there first does get to call the shots.

If we're concerned about property rights, why can't the property owners build at a higher density? Or sell to a developer that will build at a higher density? The fact is the zoning at play _restricts_ property rights it doesn't protect them.

Anyway zoning was never static (it wasn't ordained by God after all), so changing it isn't really a big deal. People are angry and surprised of course, but the writing has been on the wall for a long time.

I am super-duper not a lawyer, so I don't have a sense of what is true and legal. I'm mostly talking about what I think should be true and legal.

At a certain point, it starts to be like "two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner" when you get some of these communities that don't want anyone else there. And that's fundamentally unfair.

I like the Strong Towns notion of "no massive changes anywhere, but lots of smaller changes everywhere", although in practice it's not always quite so smooth.

My answer comes from more of a Libertarian perspective it is quite simple. The community does not own the privately held land. If every landowner in the community opposed development, zoning would be unnecessary. If some individuals want to sell to Developers, zoning is just oppression of the minority by Democratic means.

Being part of a democracy does not mean you get to control every single action that could impact you.

The majority can also buy out someone who wants to sell to a developer. I know a neighborhood where everyone pitched in to buy land that would have been developed and ruined their view, depreciating property prices. But they put their money where their mouths were by buying the land themselves.

That's another reason that people are frustrated with Central planning. Your community might have a very strong opinion, but they're not willing to pay for it. This means that they will settle for making it illegal.