In reality, TX cities are largely copying CA cities' worst policies in terms of preventing new housing construction; we need to fundamentally allow landowners to build as much housing on that land as any given land owner wishes to build.<p><i>But what about all the “affordable” destination cities? Restrictions there are, in most cases, just as bad. Duplexes and fourplexes are banned in 84 percent of residential neighborhoods in Charlotte. In Salt Lake City, minimum-parking mandates mean that apartments can’t be built without either towering garages or huge lots. In Austin, naysayers have successfully delayed a liberalizing zoning overhaul for a decade. And even in pro-growth states such as Georgia, California-style NIMBYism stands in the way of new housing in most suburbs.</i><p><i>To the extent that these cities were ever affordable, it was because they had undeveloped land on their periphery, where developers could build low-density residential subdivisions—just about the only thing that zoning doesn’t prohibit. But as Dallas is discovering, you eventually run out of vacant land within a reasonable commute of job centers. In Miami, local policy makers are even rolling back flexible-zoning rules in a brazen attempt to block new infill development.</i>
After spending my teens in a mid 50s suburb (now considered near downtown), I've always lived in inner city neighborhoods. They are MUCH DENSER than current zoning codes permit.<p>Narrow frontages, separations and streets with garages on back alleys give you lots of density AND neighborhoods people want to live in.
Move from California to Texas because you don't like the outcomes of the policies you voted for, then proceed to vote for the same policies in Texas.<p>Why are Californians like this?