The real issues - in CA at least - are the property tax lock-in that incentivized NIMBYism and the gross costs of lawsuits and regulations for developers. I believe we need the regulations that protect the sensitive environments and to discourage sprawl, yet we currently make it impossible to redevelop brown and grayfield (commercial retail, etc) lots or even single-family zoned neighborhoods that could accommodate flats (2-4 units per lot).
Zoning code has become a problem in desirable cities that have a housing shortage. It's not just small housing that has value - it's any housing.
I'm not even being facetious. My city is incredibly expensive to live in. I'm willing to hear solid alternatives.
Source: lived in US suburbs most of my life. Still have a rib that aches some mornings from when I got hit years ago (the driver was shocked when I started calling the police).
ftfy. If you're the one operating a two ton machine that moves at high speeds in residential neighborhoods, the onus of responsibility for not killing someone is on you.
I live in the bay area now and I can't recall the last time I had a threatening encounter with a driver.
We do have a crisis of entitlement: people feel entitled to hold the vertical space in their neighborhoods empty when it is worth much more than they're willing to pay.
The unreasonable luxuries being demanded here are unobstructed views and a cozy small-town feeling for the price of one house purchased decades ago, when they are worth the price of several dozen skyscrapers.
Remember that what you value is not what other people value. Living in Tampa or Akron might fulfill your needs, for others it might make them question their reason for existence.