[ajross]

> Isn’t that how a democracy is supposed to work? If the residents don’t want the changes, where does one derive the (moral) authority to override their desires?

From the same place the "residents" derive it? Governments act for the good of the governed and via their consent. Those towns are in the State of California, the United States, etc... There's no absolutist principle that says that the "most local enclosing government" wins (in fact the Federal constitution clearly says the opposite).

[sokoloff]

The federal government has priority when the relevant power has been granted to it by the states. See the Tenth Amendment, which is unfortunately read/followed only slightly more frequently than the Third.

[ajross]

FWIW, that's not correct. The tenth amendment is a limitation on unenumerated powers. It says nothing about precedence of conflicting powers where those are enumerated. That's what the Supremacy clause is about, and it's abundantly clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

Not that it really matters here, since the relevant conflict is between state and municipal law. But the 10th amendment tends to be pretty badly misunderstood by internet libertarians, so it was an interesting digression.

[sokoloff]

I agree with everything you wrote except your first sentence. What of what I wrote was incorrect in the context of the unbounded claim that “feds win”, particularly on a thread dealing with real estate zoning issues?