i think you are putting your hopes too fervently on the formal institutional structure rather than the preferences of people on the ground. CA has made meaningful progress by pushing things up to the state level, especially ADUs. 1/

but how often, actually, does a sizable project get built over the objections of affluent neighbors? in SF, so much of the controversy has been in the Mission, far from the most valuable neighborhood to develop. why? there’s no institutional or legal preference for developing there. 2/

one can imagine a world where the broad public is more disenfranchised, and distinctions like “affluent” or “marginalized” cease to matter for political tractability. you might get a lot of dense housing built that way! eastern european communism did just that! 3/

but centralizing power so dramatically might be undesirable for nonhousing reasons. 4/

as long as local publics have meaningful political power, and their interests are deeply levered into housing, and the value of housing is location, location, location, the “character” (often exclusivity) of neighborhoods… 5/

it’s going to be a hard fight to build over neighbors’ very passionate objections. /fin