"But there's also the side of people wanting single family homes instead of apartment'
Most people who can't afford a home would not reject a decent apartment, they just want somewhere to live.
Also those are not the only two choices, there are duplex and triplex homes, illegal in most of us, and other variations
"Nothing wrong with people in a community wanting to set standards for their area."
So in this "democracy" people who don't own a house have no voice and no right? Why does this remind me of some other mechanism for opressing undesirables?
"So in this "democracy" people who don't own a house have no voice and no right?"
You don't have to own a house to vote. This isn't the 18th century where only land owners vote. If you have a sufficient number of renters, they can outweigh the owners.
For example, a municipality in CA decided to raise taxes on land lords of rentals. Land lords didn't want this, the renters did (probably misguided since the cost gets passed on to them).
"Why does this remind me of some other mechanism for opressing undesirables?"
You could tell us instead of being rhetorical. Otherwise the obvious answer is that you are missing details in your comparison and wrongly concluding that it's about oppression.
Most people who can't afford a home would not reject a decent apartment, they just want somewhere to live. Also those are not the only two choices, there are duplex and triplex homes, illegal in most of us, and other variations
https://youtu.be/CCOdQsZa15o
"Nothing wrong with people in a community wanting to set standards for their area."
So in this "democracy" people who don't own a house have no voice and no right? Why does this remind me of some other mechanism for opressing undesirables?