I fail to see what is objectionable about those desired outcomes if you are a progressive.

and 2) to allow for a new development regime to assert itself and take on the messy and complicated infill projects that are needed to create compact, urban environments that reduce Co2 emissions and provide diverse housing options that are accessible across a wide economic spectrum.

This class of builders/developers includes entities like housing authorities that can build social housing (e.g., the Center for Public Enterprise referenced in the piece) to ensure a steady supply of accessible housing.

Zoning reform is a necessary first step to 1) reduce 08 bubble style sprawl

The ZR movement is trying to reform existing regs to make infill housing legal in existing neighborhoods & projects more buildable and easier to finance. Ideally this allows a new class of developer to fill in the gaps & take on projects that the existing developer class rarely entertains.

which makes this type of housing the de facto preferred housing project to existing developers due to financing, existing entitlements & political economy. The current zoning regime in most places is the same one that produced the 08 housing bubble; zoning reform crowd is trying to change that.

The 2008 bubble was mostly related to suburban & exurban tract housing, which built out most of the greenfield land that was within the greater commuter shed in metro areas (except the sunbelt). We have to acknowledge that this development pattern was a condition of the current zoning regime,

This seems like an insincere reading of abundance, particularly in the context the broader yimby/zoning reform movement, which is mostly focused on infill redevelopment & allowing other housing types besides single-family detached housing to be legally built in existing n'hoods & next to transit.

you could approach this like Japan and be like "well shit, better root out some of these problems to tamp down on unrest," or you could scold the rabble. that's sure to work

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that the current discourse is more centered on not having every development project or land use change become some sort of de facto "public" referendum. I think your larger point stands though. Would love to see some pages diving deep into this.

Bc a lot of geriatric proto-fascists have moved here over the past few decades, it’s a southern state with all the baggage that comes with that, and the state Democratic Party has been terribly run for decades at this point. There’s still a lot of non-Desantis supporters in light of all that.