Is SF obstinate or are the employers that insist on building their businesses there and attracting employees from other areas despite a lack of housing for them the obstinate ones?
Yes obviously it is the people who want to live there who are wrong. How dare they?
It's funny, especially considering all the 800K people who already live in San Francisco are the beneficiaries of previous liberal zoning rules - who are now pulling up the ladder behind them. The city was like 300K people in 1900. If they'd stopped building houses then, that would be the population now. I wouldn't be here, and assuming you live in SF, neither would you.
Folks just out here picking an arbitrary point in time and saying, whelp, I'm here, that's good enough for me. No new buildings! No up-zoning. No densification. No duplexes until the state forced it through with S.B. 9.
Without even stopping to consider the benefits of density: diversity, like actual diversity ala New York. Transit. Infrastructure. A tax base. Stuff we can use to have nice things.
But I guess my real question is, I own the land, who are you to stop me from developing it as I see fit?
So, you are arguing that the existing population should want to have their lives upended, real estate taxes raised, schools over-crowded, family and friends priced out of their homes, quaint neighborhoods turned into skyscraper projects, and endless highway and infrastructure projects to accommodate the employees of new industry when they are happy with the status quo?
If there's one thing we learned since highways joined us (thanks Eisenhower) its that 'one more lane' will never reduce traffic thanks to the principle of induced demand. Each time you add a lane, transit times go down which in turn induces more people to drive, which in turn brings traffic right back up to where it was.
What does help people get where they're going is transit which is something that gets exponentially better and more realistic with density. Hong Kong has trains every 1.9 minutes on the Island Line. Their worst case is every 10 minutes to Disneyland and 15 minutes to the airport during weekdays. [1]
Frankly, more infrastructure should never mean more highways.
But while I'm here let me answer the rest of your questions directly:
> So, you are arguing that the existing population should want to have their lives upended...
Why? If they own the land they decide what happens to it. If they don't it wasn't really their decision in the first place.
> ... real estate taxes raised ...
Absolutely, prop 13 is silly. I say this as an SF downtown homeowner.
> ... schools over-crowded ...
Nope, we'd build more.
> ... family and friends priced out of their homes ...
No, that's what's happening right now thanks to not building homes. Anyone who owns their home would see affordability remain the same and anyone who rents would see it improve.
> ... quaint neighborhoods turned into skyscraper projects ...
Some of them for sure! If you don't want a plot of land used to maximize utility, buy it. The fundamental ideal of property rights in the United States is that each can do what they want with their own property. If you want to live in a city where nobody wants anything other than low-rise development, move to a city with other like-minded folks or buy them out. Don't boat anchor development in one of the highest demand areas on earth to suit the minority opinion.
> ... and endless highway ...
Definitely not see above.
> ... and infrastructure projects to accommodate the employees of new industry ...
It's funny, especially considering all the 800K people who already live in San Francisco are the beneficiaries of previous liberal zoning rules - who are now pulling up the ladder behind them. The city was like 300K people in 1900. If they'd stopped building houses then, that would be the population now. I wouldn't be here, and assuming you live in SF, neither would you.
Folks just out here picking an arbitrary point in time and saying, whelp, I'm here, that's good enough for me. No new buildings! No up-zoning. No densification. No duplexes until the state forced it through with S.B. 9.
Without even stopping to consider the benefits of density: diversity, like actual diversity ala New York. Transit. Infrastructure. A tax base. Stuff we can use to have nice things.
But I guess my real question is, I own the land, who are you to stop me from developing it as I see fit?