As long as you agree with the majority of the state, it works out for you, but it's a bold power grab that may not end well in other situations.
Local control in places like Palo Alto is two wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner.
Also, one of the easiest ways to make people better off is to let them move to where the jobs are. That used to be very common in the United States. That has been stunted in some part by rigid land use laws that pull up the ladder behind the people who got in while the getting was good.
There is a lot of work in economics showing the benefits of clustering, rather than having a talented up and coming person move to, say, Cyanide Springs Oklahoma because it's cheap.
Unless you think living in an apartment with no garage, no yard, no storage, and no way to stockpile food (save costs) is a quality of life increase?
Our children will probably not have children if forced to live this way at this price.
Personally I don't really get it, but I don't live in San Francisco.
So democracy?
Look at this chart. The majority should not always control the few.
edit: never thought I'd see anti-gay-marriage on HN but here we are.
I'm Not from the US, but from a country with overwhelming support for same-sex marriage. I'm also from a country that has a proper democracy where voter turn out is 98+% and first-past the post isn't a thing.
What is the alternative you suggest... you hope you get a ruler who agrees with you? Good luck with that.
The nation is very divided and there's no hope of overthrowing first-past-the-post here.
And when the nation doesn't agree on things, allowing the majority to rule can be terrifying.
