Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Okay, but without that, in the SF peninsula (or whatever it's actually called), there's not enough supply, even if it's genuine (not artificial).

With genuine high demand/low supply, you'd have the same number of people paying more for the same spaces and those who cannot afford it having to commute in, which is a whole other problem.

I agree that the government probably oversteps and has bad ideas and can be draconian about it. Of course.  But for the Bay Area specifically, the artificial limitation of supply is irrelevant, because the demand will far outpace supply there.

.
I find the conversation a waste of time because greed isn't ending anytime soon.  I'm just flabbergasted that in times when the poor can't afford affordable housing, the only new construction is "luxury" this and that.  It's fucking idiotic.

Sorry, maybe I was a little too quick. I then went to run an errand and thought of additional things I should have said lol...

The issue to me isn't really about SF. It's everywhere. And when responding to OAM, it's important to highlight that this isn't a liberal or conservative problem. It's a human problem.

The general aspect of humanity, and this transcends politics, is "I've already got mine, so f**k you if you want a bit of it."

It would be easy to blame that attitude in Scottsdale AZ on a bunch of conservatives. A little harder to blame that attitude in SF on them being liberal. Which is why I say it transcends it.

This attitude happens throughout the rest of the Bay Area as well. It happens all over the country. It's a natural attitude of "I moved here because I liked it; and if you try to f**king change it I'll sue your a$$ off."

Without zoning, the entire Bay Area would be higher density. Because there would be economic incentive for developers to increase it. Buy a couple SFHs, demolish them and turn them into duplexes (or fourplexes), worry about the parking externalities problems later, sell it off knowing the new owner can live in one unit and have rental income from the other(s), and BOOM! you've made a profit. There's already an entire industry devoted to flipping houses (and multiple TV shows glorifying it); do you think the same wouldn't happen for turning SFHs into duplexes if zoning didn't prevent it?

The dipshits in your hometown are the same as every dipshit everywhere. I used SF as an example, but the entire Bay Area is full of people that are fighting against density, and in the aggregate, that's FAR more effective than anything just done in SF.

So this is interesting and I agree with most of it, but I honestly still don't think it fixes the affordability problem.

It might help. At the moment more than a few cities out that way are throwing up apartments like the world is ending. It's gonna be like putting paper towels on a bullet wound, but it's something.

But the issue is still demand, demand, demand.

SF might have spent all that time fighting against more density. And yet, SF is very, very, very dense. It is not lacking for density. It is not a city of big lawns, big lots, big houses. And yet, being super dense doesn't at all correlate with having affordable housing.

Until you have people say "enough," stop paying and just leave, all the damn density in the world won't produce anything affordable.

But they won’t leave because they’re housing is being subsidized by one program or another. Thus they live in a state of stasis. They neither gain anything, nor lose. Arguably the longer they stay the more they lose, because the best solution is always to find the best opportunity for their future in an area that has a low cost of living and better (col adjusted) wages.

I understand there are a lot of factors. Life is complicated. What I should have said is that the programs are a major reason why people won’t leave.