I agree with you a lot here. Not in California, so have not looked at the bill so was curious as to if this applied to developers or just homeowners with large

I agree with you a lot here. Not in California, so have not looked at the bill so was curious as to if this applied to developers or just homeowners with large lots? Housing has a lot of regulatory capture that benefits already existing property holders unproportionally. I see it here in Central Oregon. Especially as home ownership is the primary way in which families build wealth or reserve wealth. It can also be a very costly venture to re-zone properties. Even though in a lot of cases, the barrier to re-zone does not make much sense. SFH and MFH, it is not like these are based on some premise of the land has to be a certain quality. The same applies to business zoning. Why does it even make sense to say, you can build a restaurant here, but not a house?