This is also why NIMBYism is such a problem. No city is static... it is either growing or dying. Often both, simultaneously. If the ability to change is constrained, the city-organism is more likely to die as conditions change.
The people that don't live there but would like to may not like it, but the local government has no obligation to represent them. Cities that want to grow can court them instead.
Besides, there have been lots of great NIMBYs over the years. The ones that saved Paris from Le Corbusier's modernization plan "Plan Voisin"[1], or the ones that saved Seattle from having about 500% more interstates than it needed[2].
To be more specific, of the two levels of governance that primarily dictates how a city develops (municipal law & state law), neither actually represents "the city" in it's truest sense.
If I had unlimited power to reshape state boundaries, I'd redraw states to each represent one metropolitan statistical areas. An example of why: MA state law dictates that zoning requires a supermajority of town/city vote to change. Recently there were efforts to amend this law to allow upzoning with simple majority when considered beneficial (e.g. near major transit lines). And yet, this bill and bills like it never go anywhere: MA state government also represents cape cod, central MA including Worcester metropolitan area, and western MA including Springfield metropolitan area. None of these areas are likely to benefit from changes to MA zoning law.
To put it another way, if the point of federalism is to maximize representation in government decision making, our antiquated state lines have done the opposite. Culturally I'm more similar to the guy who commutes into Boston from New Hampshire than I am to most anybody in western MA. Changes to MA state law that affect dense cities will affect him more than the person out in a small town in cape cod.
Our state lines were drawn to provide people representation. They now are used to deny people representation. If you were drawing state lines by scratch, why on earth would you put southern California and northern California in the same state? Or South Florida and the Panhandle? Upstate New York and NYC? State lines were drawn a long time ago, in some cases hundreds of years when we were a mostly agrarian society, and here we are acting like they mean anything years later.
Anyways just a rant. I don't think state lines are the biggest issue we have in the modern world, but it's a major pet peeve of mine.
To me your argument is essentially saying because people have voted this way, that means it must be good. That is not really an argument or position other than that you don't care about the issue.
The big issue with the bay area is a huge mismatch with where housing is and where jobs (or offices and commercial activity, whatever) are. That is not something the "free market of cities" competing for people can solve like you think it can. Those jobs and people already exist, and the mismatch fundamentally makes things worse.
When I lived and worked there it took like half a year before I realized there were almost no kids. It is not a place where people really want to live.
https://www.sfgate.com/mommyfiles/article/Many-families-leav...
Maybe if SF made a priority to resolve safety and homelessness in the city, more people would want to live there.
Raising kids is expensive enough and why do it in a place where they want to tax you to death with no relatable or relevant benefit.
The West Seattle bridge and its associated highway is on there, too.