> Presumably you think it's not good for land owners of "desirable areas" because local laws create a monopoly that allows the landowners to extract wealth from others, through restriction of land use?

I think individuals should reap the rewards or suffer the losses from their individual decisions. If a community generates value, they are entitled to the rewards. If they run things into the ground (see Detroit as a notorious example), they're left holding the bag.

> Can you see why there might be laws against that?

Can I see why people would want to force themselves into a desirable situation that they had no part in creating? Sure. That doesn't make it right.

> It is pretty well established that zoning was invented and is justified merely to enforce economic segregation. That economic segregation is perhaps the interest of landowners in these "desirable areas"?

Citation needed on the first claim, but yes economic segregation is desirable to most people. That's not news.

> I think by surfacing the true motivations of what's going on, it will become very clear why municipalities must be subjected to laws to enforce better behavior.

The true motivations aren't hidden. Have nots are trying to get a piece of something desirable, and the people who already have it want to keep it.