One more fallacy you have posted:
>>Lots of people think it's immoral for neighbors to be able to micromanage the living spaces of other neighbors outside of basic safety issues. I'm not sure how you'd defend imposing your will on other people just because you can at any given moment.
No one is micromanaging the living spaces of other neighbors. As you say, it's a democracy.
I have lived in towns that had zoning, and voted it out. Some years later, there were meetings where people were asking "If we had zoning, this siht would not have happened, would it?", but they did decide to create zoning, then abolish it, then reinstate it.
It is simply false to imply that I have some micromanaging power over my neighbor, beyond the democratically agreed rules that require them to apply for variances to the zoning rules, and allow abutters to submit comments on those variance requests, which must also be considered.
In Switzerland, you will drive around and see poles standing on land. These are marking the corners of a proposed new building and must be erected for months before a hearing on the building, so everyone can comment and post objections, requests for adjustments, etc. before permission is granted to build.
This is not some kind of unfair micromanagement, it is taking into consideration everyone's local concerns before making a decision.
Zoning does not exist as you imaging because of petty concerns over property value and fear of unknown people. It exists because too many people will build things that negatively affect their neighbors, and are democratically introduced. I get to vote on them in my town, and you in yours. I don't get to vote in your town, and you don't get to vote in mine, any more than I get to vote in Switzerland, or some Swiss guy gets to vote here.