[kelnos]

> demanding Palo Alto or some other high end desirable community to build them a place to live

That's not what's happening. They're asking to be allowed to build. Y'know, like pay a developer to build them a house.

But no, I guess it's totally fair that the people who live there already just happened to be born at the right time and place to get to take advantage of living in a desirable area, and everyone else can just pound sand.

As a SF resident (haven't lived down near Palo Alto in years), the housing crisis is what's responsible for homelessness and for the high cost of everything (not just housing) here. If I could wave a magic wand and 50k new housing units appeared in desirable neighborhoods within the city limits, I'd do it in an instant. Life would be so much better not just for the people who want to live here, but for the people who already live here. (And yes, I say this as a SF homeowner who might stand to have a reduced home value.)

But NIMBYs love the whole "I got mine, fuck you" shtick, even if ultimately it's against their and their neighbors' own interests.

> in some fancy place (Manhattan! San Francisco!) that is out of touch price wise for almost every human being on Earth.

You're just talking in circles. The reason these places are out of touch price wise for so many people is because of the anti-housing policies in place in these cities.

[rus20376]

> pay a developer to build them a house

I seriously doubt anyone living in an RV has a plot of land in Palo Alto that they are forbidden to develop.

Is it just boiled down to the sentiment that you want to "stick to the rich!" by forcing the government to bulldoze their communities?

[kelnos]

> I seriously doubt anyone living in an RV has a plot of land in Palo Alto that they are forbidden to develop.

Sigh, I didn't mean that literally. Of course what I actually meant was: if housing policy allows for building more housing, with less friction, and less unnecessary cost, developers will naturally build more, and faster, because there's demand, and then people won't have to live in RVs, because there will be housing units available than they can afford.

> Is it just boiled down to the sentiment that you want to "stick to the rich!" by forcing the government to bulldoze their communities?

Wow, not what I said, and not what I think. If you're going to continue to take the most uncharitable interpretations of what I say, I don't really think there's much point in continuing to participate in this discussion.

There's plenty of land in all these places. No need to bulldoze anything. And not sure why you keep bringing up "the government". The government won't be doing anything except making it easier and more affordable to build housing.