> to impose collective preferences

So why is zoning a city issue? Homelessness, poverty, and blight are a national concern. Let's do it federally, right?

> Land use policies don’t seem so different [from murder and theft]

I'm astonished that you'd make that comparison but whatever. Land use policies strike at the very foundation of property rights. In a way, they are theft. For the collective good, most people agree that some policies are necessary and important. But they've been weaponized to enrich a few at the expense of the many - the very opposite of collective good.

> Let's do it federally, right?

Find a way to fit it into the enumerated powers of the federal government? Then sure.

I’d hope that land would never be considered interstate commerce, but after recent rulings, I’m not sure the Constitution is even readable by the Court any more.

Legalism when it's something you disagree with, but "collective preference" when it's something you agree with.

The collective preference or legalism that’s in effect currently is that zoning is not a federal power.

For those who would prefer to change the status quo, there’s a documented process to recenter the country onto a new collective preference.