But voters at a town hall on live television will rightly reply that anyone who wants to live in NYC is free to go there, and anyone who feels victimized by the situation in the Bay Area is free to leave.
The problem being that there is more demand for that kind of high density living than there is existing supply. Hence the desire to create more.
By contrast, if you want to live in a detached single family home, there are plenty on offer around Houston or Portland or dozens of other cities that already have a lower population density and thus less pressure for new high density housing.
The result of local dominant zoning is rampant NIMBYism, with unsustainable and anti-environmental suburban sprawl, people unable to afford rent in the areas with the most good jobs, and widespread economic segregation.
The system is working for some definition of working, but not terribly well.
There's a reason we have governments at a higher level than neighborhoods and cities. Not every decision makes sense there.
We've tried city level zoning, the result is that economically booming areas fight new residents, drastically raising rents while preventing others from joining in in the economic success. It's a disaster, just look at the bay area.
Or look at the cost of sprawl in how much nature we've cut down and our per capita energy usage. What part of that looks good to you?
If you zoom in too far, people get selfish and you hit externalities. Zoning isn't unique, sometimes you need more coordination for things to work.
Free for all zoning would be letting the people who actually own particular properties have the final say.
/s/actually live there/are upper-middle-class, white, and born at the right time/