[opportune]

"The people that don't live there but would like to may not like it" What about the people that live there renting, or who work there, and can't afford a home?

To me your argument is essentially saying because people have voted this way, that means it must be good. That is not really an argument or position other than that you don't care about the issue.

The big issue with the bay area is a huge mismatch with where housing is and where jobs (or offices and commercial activity, whatever) are. That is not something the "free market of cities" competing for people can solve like you think it can. Those jobs and people already exist, and the mismatch fundamentally makes things worse.

[rightbyte]

Unless you have a rent controlled apartment or a inherited home I would say the Bay area is mainly cycling through fools that has not yet realised it is not working out it in the long term.

When I lived and worked there it took like half a year before I realized there were almost no kids. It is not a place where people really want to live.

https://www.sfgate.com/mommyfiles/article/Many-families-leav...

[jelliclesfarm]

That’s for the city of San Francisco. Not the Bay Area. There are plenty of kids in SF Bay Area.

Maybe if SF made a priority to resolve safety and homelessness in the city, more people would want to live there.

Raising kids is expensive enough and why do it in a place where they want to tax you to death with no relatable or relevant benefit.