Because I don't see "California" as one entity like a sports team. I see it as various groups each competing with each other, like an ecosystem. Beverly Hills and Santa Monica just happen to be "winning" (rather arbitrarily). Using authority to punish them for (peacefully) winning is tyranny. Just let them win.
> The state is removing the restriction
That was enforced by a local democracy, for what is fundamentally local concern. The state should not be able to supersede local authority for local concerns, it's authoritarian.
This is a tragedy of the commons type thing. If every local democracy votes in favor of local concerns (no new housing), then the problem doesn't solve itself; California has a bunch of angry residents that can't find anywhere to live. Whatever you think is right or wrong, there is still an elected government at the state level, and it's not only homeowners that vote in those elections. So their hand is forced to do something given the gridlock at the local level. (If it was only Santa Monica that refused to build new housing, then this wouldn't have become a state-level issue. But every locale is making the exact same decision, because it's in their current residents' best interests. The state has to take into account the views of everyone.)
It's really convenient for you to not see California as one entity. Unfortunately for you, that's not reality and we are, in fact, part of a single entity.
> Beverly Hills and Santa Monica just happen to be "winning" (rather arbitrarily). Using authority to punish them for (peacefully) winning is tyranny. Just let them win.
The residents of those areas have been using authority to make their "wins" a fait accompli for nearly 100 years, but yeah, it's tyranny if we remove their priviliges.
> The state should not be able to supersede local authority for local concerns, it's authoritarian.
California voters elected the legislature and executive who signed off on it. If Santa Monica restricts housing, it affects neighboring cities. Please explain how it is authoritarian for the state to balance these concerns?
All politics is local. Every citizen of a city is also a citizen of the state. "Local" is a demarcation drawn where ever it's convenient for the speaker. A smaller group should not be able to supersede the superior authority at the larger polity's expense.
In this case, the locally-optimal choices cities are making is having deleterious effects on the quality of life of the citizens of the state as a whole. It is perfectly reasonable for the state to therefore act.
Because I don't see "California" as one entity like a sports team. I see it as various groups each competing with each other, like an ecosystem. Beverly Hills and Santa Monica just happen to be "winning" (rather arbitrarily). Using authority to punish them for (peacefully) winning is tyranny. Just let them win.
> The state is removing the restriction
That was enforced by a local democracy, for what is fundamentally local concern. The state should not be able to supersede local authority for local concerns, it's authoritarian.