> I’m not sure why the state or voters felt it would be okay to take away local choice or why they thought it would be easy.
Because often said local choices have outsized non-local effects. And because, ideally, the state has an interest in improving the entirety of the state, not just your little area. So when the decisions your town makes degrades things in many surrounding communities, the state has an interest in preventing that.
Take something like the BART metro -- there was an opportunity when it was first being built to be a complete ring around the bay, but due to some local choices, many other communities in the south bay area were denied a metro system. And now, to actually complete that system it is much lengthier and expensive to do so.
> Rather than trying to force density on existing cities where residents value their current neighborhood character and quality of life, it would be better to bring economic opportunity to cities left behind that are smaller and have more space. It doesn’t make sense to crowd into a few coastal cities.
The density is a function of the economic productivity though, as most people seek out better opportunities. How do you actually create said opportunities where there are currently few? And importantly, how do you do it without creating the same exact problem that you're trying to solve, just in a different place?