Frankly that's a waste of time. People are are all too happy not paying their fair share of taxes and will fight hard to preserve that inequity. The clearly correct approach is for the state to continue its current path of overruling local zoning ordinances and to allow increases in density against the will of local homeowners.

> The clearly correct approach is for the state to continue its current path of overruling local zoning ordinances and to allow increases in density against the will of local homeowners.

That's a very radical statement. In your view, the role of the state is to go against the wishes of people who actually live there? To satify whom? People who are not citizens of the state who might later move in if things change?

What if the state angers the locals to leave and the outsiders who instigated the change decide not to move in after all?

Can you document historical cases of cities and states which thrived on such an approach?