Not everybody wants new tenements in their nice neighborhood.
Democracy has spoken.
The builders are operating under the laws of the community. The NIMBYs are abusing the legal system in an attempt to subvert the will of the people.
The State of California recently revoked the rights of quite a few smaller jurisdictions to set their own zoning laws because they abdicated that right by refusing to set zoning laws that allowed for new development. So...
Voters at every level pretty consistently vote for more development, seeing clearly that development beats homeless encampments, and that a rising tide lifts all boats. The obstructionist lawsuits come from sub-jurisdictional groups like the residents of one particular building in this case. Federalism doesn't apply here any more than "socialism" does.
Appeals to imaginary international conspiracies aside, this is pretty simple: in many areas we have, and will continue to have, more people who need places to live than we have places for them to live. Either we build more places, or we deal with the consequences of failure. People abusing the legal system to stick their fingers in their ears until the problem moves a few blocks or a city or a state away are running out of time, because the tricks are seen clearly.
Every selfish NIMBY is saying much the same thing: any and all development that led to the point where I could move here and buy my place is well and good and the natural order of things, and every bit of construction that happens after I close on my property is horrible and evil and will irreparably damage the character of the neighborhood. Of course, anyone who has lived in the area just a few years more could say the same thing about the freshly-minted NIMBY, all the way back to those who lived here 500 years ago.
It's obvious nonsense.
People don’t want to become California and will work to prevent their states from resembling it.
Ah yes, having the largest GDP in the country and one of the highest in the world is certainly something to avoid.
I'll grant that California is in some ways a negative model. For example, I hate that the NIMBY capture that has been a factor in driving prices up in California has started to show up in Texas.
Oh yeah, that's another bad assumption you made. I live in Texas, a place people often move to from California in part because it's growing rapidly, since NIMBYs haven't yet captured the legal system here. Of course, it's fun to see people who moved here within the last couple of years speak up at city council meetings against new development, because they're trying to "California my Texas" by bringing their NIMBY nonsense with them. They struggle to explain why the house that was built for them within the last three years is good, while the new houses are bad, of course.
Or stop the YIMBY nonsense and let's build enough places to live for people who need to live somewhere.