SF is not special or unique at all and the rich and poor do not agree on housing policy. Both groups are looking out for their immediate near term interests.

The rich want to maintain their low density single family neighbourhoods exactly as they were when they bought into them.

The poor simply want to keep their current home and have it not torn down, as every other apartment is almost certain to be dramatically more expensive to rent than their current one.

If the city suggested building mid rise buildings with a percentage of below market units in leafy rich neighbourhoods far from low income areas you'd see that low income persons would be quite happy about this development. The rich wouldn't be.

Of course this is almost never the case. Rich homeowners vote in greater numbers and have the time and capacity to fight back, and so what we see is that the areas first in line for redevelopment are almost always low income areas (ie. The Mission) while rich ultra low density areas are left untouched.

Both the rich and the poor oppose almost all new construction. So yeah, they agree.

> If the city suggested building mid rise buildings with a percentage of below market units in leafy rich neighbourhoods far from low income areas you'd see that low income persons would be quite happy about this development. The rich wouldn't be.

I don't believe that. There are many in SF who oppose all new construction, and many others who want 100% of new construction to be subsidized housing.

The claim that low income persons would oppose new low income housing in rich areas that they do not live in is not believable and I'd love to see the evidence of that. There is none.

People need to stop trying to make the housing issue a one dimensional fight of pro-housing vs anti-housing. It's dramatically more complex than that.