I'm not sure why we need to convince those people, as we don't require consensus. We enact policy as a whole.

Also, I'm not sure what "devaluing" is going on; by pure financial value there's almost no way to build enough to actually drive down the price of any individual home; more likely as zoning increases the home will go up in value, but individual condos or townhouses will be available for much less than a single family home.

If you mean "devaluing" by "I now have apartments on the block," there's absolutely no right whatsoever for somebody to control the use of that other property.

Anybody who thinks they can drop $1.5 million+ into an asset without risk needs reality check on how entitlements don't work. Besides the world doesn't owe any one an insurance for stupid ideas.

It doesn't. It requires building political will in the group that's been left out to override them.

Eventually an alternate location breaks out which offers amore compelling economic option for employees and employers, and the entire regional market implodes.

This ... kind of ... happened in Southern California in the early 1990s when the defence industry retrenched. SoCal housing prices had long led NoCal, and in the aftermath the south's values fell by a third or so. They've never really caught up. A different dynamic but similar result. Oddly, a consequence has been somewhat greater densification of the LA basin.

You could look at real estate in other and earlier times, especially industrial or extractive areas after the boom has passed.