[threatofrain]

At what point is it reasonable for the major Californian cities to stop growing? Aren't there states where the entire state population could fit inside a single Californian city? Aren't there cities whose population could amount to several US states? People are complaining about California's governance, taxes, and pricing, so what's wrong with encouraging movement to other states?

A popular HN perspective would describe SF's problem as NIMBY and that we should allow developers to build without regulations like mandatory parking, but the transportation situation in SF is really bad. I feel that a city cannot just scale linearly once you pass a certain population / density threshold.

When I go to SF I expect to burn 20 minutes solely on parking or to pay very expensive parking fees for private lots. If you use any major highways in California during rush hour then expect a 30-45 min tax on your time. If people want SF to pass 1M then there needs to be a deliberate public works project to revamp the infrastructure in a massive way.

Also, do people think that building more lots would make things cheaper? London's population is ~9M, NYC is ~8.4M, Tokyo is ~14M. If London gets to 10M, is housing going to be finally affordable to UK citizens? When will Tokyo be affordable? SF is approximately 3-4x the population density of London and 3x of Tokyo. The vibe I get when driving around SF residentials is one of claustrophobic density, like the city can't afford any interstitial gaps between lots for things like trees.

[bb88]

> People are complaining about California's governance, taxes, and pricing, so what's wrong with encouraging movement to other states?

In short, public golf courses -- moreover -- the protection of public golf courses. That's pure NIMBYism right there. California chose golf courses over housing. Think about that.