Reading through this decision, it is clear that there is an overabundance of motivated reasoning here. The court very clearly is trying to justify its decision

Reading through this decision, it is clear that there is an overabundance of motivated reasoning here. The court very clearly is trying to justify its decision, not reach one based on the law. In particular given the amendment to the law in 2017 which added, among other things, these clauses: > It is the policy of the state that [the HAA] should be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing. and > despite the fact that, for decades, the Legislature has enacted numerous statutes intended to significantly increase the approval, development, and affordability of housing for all income levels, including this section Both of these quotations are very clearly statements of "fuck you courts, follow the law", which the court has summarily ignored, stating that even though it is routine for statutes to be interpreted in such a manner that singular nouns include plurals and plural nouns include the singular, that the statement "only residential units" does not include building a residential unit and nothing else.