[wankerrific]

No its not. I want the same things you do - good city services, shorter commutes, etc. Allowing runaway building without properly developing infrastructure is long term negative for everyone involved.

Most of those you label "NIMBY" are just looking to maintain an existing community and civic service level.

The people you should be directing your ire towards is not your strawman "NIMBY" but the city planners and commercial developers who overzone and overbuild office space and under-zone housing.

[ghobs91]

Why do you think they're under-zoning housing? Because office space tends to be built away from existing homes and doesn't face as much opposition from NIMBYs.

Housing, on the other hand, is blocked by them because that "gargantuan 4 story apt building" is going to lower their precious home value. I agree that infrastructure needs to keep up with development, but that's not impossible to do.

If NYC, Chicago, Seattle, etc can do it, why does SF seem to have such a hard time doing so? Because SF local government is a shitshow that does nothing but serve the interests of existing homeowners, who somehow want to benefit from the prosperity of growing cities without the construction/density those cities require.