[bouis]

This is a false dilemma. Higher wages cause rent to increase (as you mentioned), but new housing causes rent to decrease (as OP mentioned). If high wages are making housing unaffordable for people, you can increase the housing supply.

I think with the existing situation in SF where you have a lot of young people with high wages who will live in a run-down place in the mission and pay $2-5k, if you build a bunch of luxury condos and need people to fill them, those people will move out of the mission and into a luxury condo. As buying pressure for lower quality housing e.g. off Mission St. is released into the luxury market, prices come down and schoolteachers can once again afford the Mission, or Lower Haight, or wherever.

One valid point I see coming from the anti-development camp is that the new surge in tech jobs is caused by a credit bubble, and once that crashes, you'd have all this excess supply, and it will tank the SF housing market, making the NIMBYs worse off than if expansion happened gradually.

I guess it comes down to whether you "believe in" the sustainability of bay area tech.

[morgante]

Opposition to development from existing homeowners is entirely logical. They're the ones who have the most to lose.

It's disguising of this NIMBYism as looking out for low-income renters that is ridiculous.