It's worth bearing in mind that most of said laws are the creation of existing property owners, who just happen to form the main tax base.
Newer homebuyers who are paying taxes on the actual market-value of their homes tend to spend far less time at Supervisor meetings.
While it might be more economically rational for newer homebuyers to be the ones fighting development, it hasn't been my observation that they are. Obviously I could be wrong, I'd love to hear stories of rampant NIMBYism among the newly-landed.
Property owners get to vote and they stand to realize 100% of their capital gains, but they aren't really subject to taxation.
This is unrelated to property taxes, which go to the city/town not the state.
Citizens that own property are very motivated to vote against construction and so far have shown extreme solidarity against allowing dense construction even in small zones. Meanwhile renters, who appear to be a slim majority of citizens in the area, are not organized and do not vote reliably.
How much any one group may or may not contribute in taxes has very little to do with political outcomes since taxes don't vote. At most there is an indirect effect as city budgets drive strategies to collect more revenue by officials. Those officials still answer only to voting citizens.
Rent control / stabilization gives them an incentive to not allow construction as perhaps they, like all humans, oppose change but now don't have to face the negative consequences of opposing it.
50% of apartments in NYC are under some form of rent control / stabilization.
When the Bay Area Renters Federation and Grow San Francisco started, I felt some joy. Finally, after all these years, here is a housing movement that I can support.