[Apocryphon]

All of that goes to show that the left/right dichotomy breaks down and is rendered meaningless in San Francisco. It's more of an issue of those who are willing to contest the entrenched landowner interests against those who are not. In that, the NIMBY/YIMBY/PHIMBY debate is rivened by sniping from all sides. One needs only glance over at the corresponding social media flamewars to realize how much of mess it is.

[wahern]

That sad thing is that SF is a very liberal and compassionate city. Voters perennially approve increased taxes to fund homeless, drug, and housing initiatives. By any standard except the extreme radicalism of today's culture warriors, achieving a workable, productive, and liberal consensus should be trivial.

The majority of SF residents are renters. And a good number of homeowners would be happy to relinquish some control regarding zoning to improve the bureaucratic situation--certainly anyone who has owned property in this city for any significant length of time has come to appreciate the excessive cost in both time and money of doing anything to their properties.

But national politics has completely overshadowed local politics. Renters oppose easing development costs (even when they come with extraordinary dislocation protections, such as mandatory, multi-year rent cost reimbursements) because the national political ideology of the left has daemonized any and all development as gentrification, which is intrinsically evil. It's a sister phenomenon to anti-corporatism--corporations are intrinsically evil, and therefore anything which might benefit corporations is to be rejected. No wonder politics on the left has become performative--that's exactly what the ideology and its advocates now demand. (The same is true of drug policy--precisely nobody in SF, or perhaps most of the U.S., IMO, opposes "harm reduction" as a primary consideration and target for drug and homelessness policies. But the left has transformed "harm reduction" into a rigid set of performative policy mandates.)