California's forty-year "just say no" anti-housing campaign simply cannot be sustained while retaining functional cities, towns, and a state as a whole.
Or to put a twist on the tired argument: propertyowners and banks have no right to an ever-accellerating rate of asset inflation if it renders both society and economy unsustainable.
(That housing is now a crisis across the US, and in numerous other countries, doesn't diminish this argument at all.)
The median home price is $800,000, over 10x the median income of $75,235 (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA)
This isn't 100,000 people, an entire city's worth of people, who would prefer a shorter commute. It's 100,000 people, an entire city's worth, 40,000 families, a generation of children, who need a roof over their head, a bathroom, a kitchen, places to study and rest.
Your comment utterly ignores and misrepresents the reality.
Spars suburbs do no one any good other than those fortunate enough to be wealthy enough to live in places that end up being subsidised by high-density neighbourhoods, often home to poorer residents.
