[ZoomerCretin]

Zoning restrictions in just three cities (San Francisco, San Jose, and New York) are responsible for all of the United States' GDP being lower by double-digit percentage.

It is in the interest of the entire country that these regions be forced to allow maximum housing development, because it will raise incomes across the entire country.

>Do the tax payers of SF not get a say in how their community is managed?

We know why zoning density restrictions exist, because their birth place was across the bay in Berkeley, whose proponents loudly extolled its benefits in pushing out anyone who was not White. This was the original intent of getting a say in development: to prevent undesirable racial minorities from moving in next door.

San Francisco weaponized housing density restrictions to push black people out of Haight-Ashbury, and to this day, continues to fight any and all housing development that might reverse this grave injustice.

[ZoomerCretin]

Found it: https://eml.berkeley.edu/~moretti/growth.pdf

If New York and the Bay Area alone relaxed their zoning, their GDP would be 33% higher, and US GDP would be 3.7% higher (as of 2009), and national average income would be $3,685 higher.