I'd question using terms like "progressive" there. For instance, the reason SF is so expensive is that it's impossible to build more housing. That's not in any way a progressive policy.
I don't want to say its _only_ because of "progressive" policies, but specifically affordability is hurt by lack of construction, and construction is hurt by things like low income housing units, high fee's for new construction, and rent control. Those are all marketed as progressive and they are choking supply.
The entire reason why Senate Bill 827 failed was because progressives said it didn't protect the low income from gentrification.
"Progressive" generally goes along with the mentality there's no problem that is not solvable by government, which is usually the least efficient and cost effective mechanism for most problems.
This undoubtedly causes a ripple effect through the economy as all costs proceed to rise over time if not in check. Never mind how many preferred policies like rent control and micromanaged environmental laws that accumulate like technical debt and paralyze development have wrecked the housing market and soak the tech industry like a huge transfer tax that benefits those who got in the right place at the right time in the 80s/90s and shut everything down.
"Affordable housing" is another misnomered policy that is shooting oneself in the foot. Instead of just having market pricing and allowing the city to grow as demanded you let a few poor people stay because they win a lottery and still drive the bulk of people far out.
The syringe, shit laden road to hell is paved with good intentions still holds true today, and why I call myself a liberal but not a progressive in the political sense. There's a definite distinction, and certainly not unreasonable to hope that voters driven out by those policies take a moment to think of how things got there.
The entire reason why Senate Bill 827 failed was because progressives said it didn't protect the low income from gentrification.