If zoning allows a multiplex to be built on your lot, and you decide to sell it because the market values redeveloping it more than you value staying, then I think that's your decision.

In the big picture, if you want single-family suburbs to continue to exist and be affordable it makes sense to allow at least some places to become dense. The more people who want density and can choose it, the less competition there will be for farther-out suburban houses.

Homeowners in the Bay Area can predict the second and third order consequences of a zoning change?

And predict the actual ulterior motives of anyone advocating for such a change before it occurs?

They’re not automatons that can be fooled so easily.

If redevelopment is the assumed outcome of the zoning change, then that means the single-family suburb is existing in spite of market demands, held back only by such zoning laws preventing denser development.

I don't know the specific situation there, and I'm not saying that shouldn't ever exist, but it's worth considering why we are using zoning to preserve artificial anti-density in a place that has grown to demand higher housing density, and what the effects are of doing so on a widespread basis.

The immediate first order consequence would be higher housing prices, which seems to be the case across the US, with the cost of housing increasing much more rapidly than overall inflation or wages.

How does this relate to the fact that there are people want to ‘come take your suburban house away’? Who do indeed have such motives?

Could you be a bit clearer about what you're talking about here? This is like a vague hint, and I can't tell what you're actually trying to say.

So I absolutely deplore the "what's your point?" attempt to try to pretend that somebody you disagree with didn't actually have a point. In fact, I downvote it when I see it - if the point was clear, and someone asks "what's your point?", I downvote.

I'm not doing that. I really can't tell. Who are these people who want to ‘come take your suburban house away’, and how do they attempt to do so?

You seem to be referring to specific people in the Bay Area. I'm not in the Bay Area, and I don't really know the politics there as it relates to real estate. So, who specifically wants this, and what are they doing?

How does your opinion on what is to be ‘deplored’, or not, outweigh my opinion?

So this seems like a non sequitor…?

If you believe I, or anyone else, is making false pretenses one way or the other, on any subject, then list out the arguments for the case directly.

I am not accusing you of false pretenses. I am asking for the specifics of what you are talking about. You won't answer (or at least, so far you haven't).

I will ask one more time: What, specifically, are you talking about?