> because the government no longer functions as intended
This seems contrary to what you're stating - local government exists to represent the interests of local residents. Protecting those residents from external forces is completely in-line with their mandate.
> If they don't like it, they can move.
A person who owns land somewhere should have more sway over local politics than a megacorp developer from another state or country. How about that developer moves their project somewhere else if they don't like it?
There are limits to the acceptable protections Home Rule local governments can supply, and a growing consensus that single-family zoning is not one of those acceptable protections, which is leading states to preempt local governments on that question.
The point of the comment you're responding to is that we're approaching a policy equilibrium where local governments don't matter anymore on this question, because they're not allowed to rule on it. See: California.
This seems contrary to what you're stating - local government exists to represent the interests of local residents. Protecting those residents from external forces is completely in-line with their mandate.
> If they don't like it, they can move.
A person who owns land somewhere should have more sway over local politics than a megacorp developer from another state or country. How about that developer moves their project somewhere else if they don't like it?