>[1] That is to say, nobody that isn't mentally ill or detached from reality.
I too hate to nitpick, but...unless we're taking a very literal view of starving, as opposed to a constant struggle to feeding yourself, you should check out the percentage of SF schoolchildren on subsidized lunches or perhaps spend some time among the homeless, particularly homeless youth. I can assure you there are plenty of people going hungry in SF.
I suppose you are correct in that no one is holding a gun to their head though, just a case of bad luck I guess.
Middle class americans priced out of SF are among the global 1%. It's stupendous luck.
And yet it's your hypothetical John Smith homeowner who I should be sympathetic to.
If John Smith is renting out his house for $4,000 a month it's other people who are redistributing their wealth to him.
Privately owned land is essentially another form of privatized tax collection and all the same rules about guns being pointed at you apply.
I hate to nitpick, but ...
NIMBY is a general term that refers to preserving a particular, entrenched environment.
So yes, San Francisco NIMBYism in early 21st century does seem to be in opposition to increasing environmental sustainability. I'm sure there are plenty of NIMBY environments around the world that don't fit that mold, though.
The socially equitable part is more of a reach, however.
Nobody has a gun to their head forcing them to live in San Francisco and likewise, nobody[1] is starving in San Francisco. John Smith who bought a home in SF in the early 80s and is retired on his post office pension and social security shouldn't be redistributing his wealth to anyone.
[1] That is to say, nobody that isn't mentally ill or detached from reality.