“The people” (local voters in the places that have the lomits in place) are the ones who want rules against building housing, not some external-to-the-people government.

This is what the internet urbanists don’t get. Government is a mirror on its electorate. You want urbanist principles it starts by educating this electorate directly, not waiting for the government to do something to get itself unseated by that angry electorate the next cycle.

Well, or you change the level of government you target to one whose constituency is less invested in the policies causing the problem and more concerned with solving the problem, e.g., over the last several years the California State government restricting the practical ability of local governments to restrict housing.

This kind of thinking is why we're advancing significantly down the road to authoritarianism.

I don't think that when higher levels of government make it harder for lower levels to restrict individual freedom that is “the road to authoritarianism”.

In fact, I’d argue its exactly the opposite.

Is that meant as a counter argument?

Even if a majority would vote for a construction ban, many people would build new housing if it was legal. Both people who would vote against and for a ban.