> simply overriding NIMBYs at the state level > Yes, because we love democracy, don't we folks. Home ownership is about 50/50 in the Bay. If CA acts against N

> simply overriding NIMBYs at the state level > Yes, because we love democracy, don't we folks. Home ownership is about 50/50 in the Bay. If CA acts against NIMBY short-term interests that isn't in and of itself anti-democratic. It could make sense to question whether that's a power that should reside with the state, one might attack some of the common anti-NIMBY arguments (e.g., that people without homes are disproportionately unable to participate in local politics), and any individual state-level solution could be undesirable on its own merits, but going straight for the jugular and asserting the state is being undemocratic by not protecting NIMBYs seems overly inflammatory.