This article approaches the issue from the preconception that building housing is the best, obvious and inevitable decision for Bay Area communities. Because of this, any obstacles to it must be due either to a) fossilized regulations from a former age; or b) greed and entitlement.
As to a), I find that the democratic process is actually very engaged in making housing decisions. As a resident of Alameda, we are constantly getting new housing approved, because our voting populace happens to support it. In other towns, maybe that's not the case. But the laws and regulations that protect against development are not necessarily byproducts from a former age that are no longer applicable, but in fact still representative of the will of the people. And in any case, the will of the people can change them!
As to b), I think there are great reasons why someone would be against development other than greed and entitlement. If rich and powerful interests (such as Big Tech) threaten to change your way of life, don't you have the right as an American to vote your conscience, even if it goes against the tides of change? Or are we only allowed to vote in a way that would ultimately favor Big Tech in some way? People that think in this way remind me of the current situation in Hong Kong - where it's a "democracy," but you're only allowed to vote for the "approved" candidates. In other words, no democracy at all.
An objection has been raised that people who don't like the tech industry being here can move somewhere else. Well, the same is true for the tech industry itself. In fact, it appears that Big Tech is playing a game of chicken, and banks on the fact that the Bay Area towns will blink first. We have seen this before, where Uber deliberately broke the law by running a commercial car service without paying for the required licenses and permits. Then, they sicced their lawyers on the towns that tried to stop them until people got so enamored of the service they couldn't imagine life without it, and the political will was decidedly in their favor. All in the name of "disruption."
I have no issue ascribing legitimate motives to those who wish not to be "disrupted," and refuse to accept that as an inevitability. What would the answer be to a big corporation belching toxic fumes into the atmosphere? "Well, that's just the march of progress, we all need to adapt?" I didn't think so. Instead, we will continue to put these things to a vote (or fight for our right to do so where we wrongfully can't). That's how we make decisions in America.