Yes.

Yes, if you want to address the issue. Whether you should is another question. That is what the higher levels of government do. When the majority of citizens need something, you essentially use threat of violence to take it by force. You will never fix the "nimby problem" any other way.

Communist governments used the threat of violence to take by farmland by force. How did that turn out?

Worked out well in areas like Hawaii and many of the US territories we took by force.

> When the majority of citizens need something, you essentially use threat of violence to take it by force.

Colonialism, applied on behalf of the majority. Only done to their own citizens this time, those citizens othered using terms like “nimby”.

It certainly rhymes with how we’ve done things in the past.

Local governments have finite power given to them by state and federal government. So, the argument is more that state and federal government should actually exercise their authority to fix the underlying problem.

Abstractly hyper local optimization is suboptimal.

Strong statement. Got any proof of that?

All governments get their power from the people who they serve. As soon as they do not serve the interests of the people the represent they should be dissolved. Local government gets its power from the local people and no one else.

> Got any proof of that?

Most obviously their form and powers vary based on the state.

Several hundred years of court cases make there limits clear. Local governments regularly get overridden on all kinds of things.

Local governments are also completely dependent on outside help for all kinds of things. It’s common for them to even lack local police forces let alone a court system. Outliers like major cities seem extremely powerful, but for the most part they have similar powers to HOA’s.

PS: As to getting authority from the governed… Some let people outside the area vote, and a few that give corporations a say.

> Local governments have finite power given to them by state and federal government.

I know it's out of fashion, but the Tenth Amendment appears to say otherwise.

The Tenth Amendment, for whatever it's worth, talks about federal and state governments. Local governments: city, town, village, county, etc., are creatures of their state and wholely subordinate.

You may be misinterpreting how “nor” is used in the sentence.

The 10th makes it clear the constitution gives the federal government specific powers which means those specified powers aren’t available to the states or local governments.

The first draft is a little easier to understand: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” (Which is not) can be flipped to the front so -> “Those powers given to the United States are its alone, all other powers not specifically listed are retained by the States.”

Both versions makes it clear states are losing some power, but they are given a little spin to make it less obvious.