Consider the question for states or countries. Would it make sense for Massachusetts residents to vote in Connecticut‘s elections? Or Canadian residents to vote in the US’s elections?
"Does it make sense that the people voting today can decide to stop other people from voting here in the future?"
That's what zoning, housing policy and other local government decisions are capable of doing.
Likewise, I don't want non-Americans living in Europe or elsewhere voting in state or federal elections because they might someday choose to become American citizens.
In both cases, those people might vote then end up never following through on their half of the commitment.
It's about whether the people currently living in X should be able to arrange things so that certain other groups of people will be impeded from living in X in the future.
There's clearly room for some debate there: most people would agree that nations can set their own standards for immigration and that these may exclude large classes of people.
However, if a town explicitly said "we do not want anyone who earns less than 400% of median household income to move here", I think that most people would find that at least a little troubling.
There really are not any mechanisms that would allow a US municipality to say that explicitly. However, things like zoning laws can be used to go fairly far in this direction in a more implicit way.
I think that's wrong.
If I live in Ward 10 of the city, why should the people of Ward 11 have any say in the by-laws for a neighbourhood that they don't live in? I'd argue because cohesive planning across neighbourhood boundaries is necessary for a healthy city.
The difference between your position and that of the grandparent is not one of fundamental principle. You're just at different places on a continuous scale.
They do. Residents of Massachusetts, Connecticut and other states all vote for President, Congressfolk and Senators.
For instance, Presidents, Senators, and Representatives are all Federal positions. The states (or for President, the state's electors) get to pick their own representatives, though, and it would be odd for one state to elect another state's representatives to Federal office (e.g. a Massachusetts vote being counted in the Connecticut US Senate election.)
Likewise, all counties in a state vote in State elections, but don't vote in each others' county elections. This goes down the line to cities within counties, districts within cities, etc.
Not that I disagree with your point (it's totally valid to point out that elections from multiple areas can all serve in one body), but I think the question was more about citizens from outside a region voting for policies/representatives within that region.
The municipality is a more or less arbitrary level of aggregation at which to make land use decisions.
aka, somebody else deciding that there should be more homes.
I think that's the wrong perspective to take. I don't want an authority to decide this - the locals should make their own choices (right or wrong).
But the flip side of that coin is local authorities that have zoning laws that allow the big and powerful builders to build pretty much whatever they want, wherever they want. Which always turns out to be high-rise condos for multi-millionaires and billionaires, most of whom have them as investment properties and don't actually live there.
You see that here in Austin, all along the river, especially downtown.
I wish we had some NIMBYism that we could actually aim at those plans for high-rise condos.
And without downtown, I don't know what your view or skyline would be of, other than an empty blue sky, of which 99.99% of Texas offers you that, if you want it.
Oh well, like you said, NIMBYism is certainly a thing.
The expensive single-family homes further up the river may take up a lot of horizontal space, but they don't ruin the skyline and since you have to dig down about as far as the building will be tall, they don't cause such massive damage to the natural surroundings.
Moreover, most of them are occupied. Most of the hi-rise condos are not occupied. They are pure empty investment properties from people who have more money than they know what to do with. If those condos came with a local residence requirement, then I'd feel a lot better about them being there.
That's normal. Median first-time homebuyer is 34, and that's for a starter house, which most people refuse to do nowadays.
I saved for a decade to buy my home in an area I enjoy, at a level of density I enjoy.
You can do the same, or you can choose to live somewhere cheaper that you can afford.
It’s your choice to live somewhere expensive, and to not want to save for a decade to get what you want.