Couple this with the fact that California is entrenched in bureaucratic red tape, and you can see why nothing ever gets done about it.
Who wins the political clash? Are there more voting owners, or voting renters?
Generally there are more owners, though California has one of the lowest home ownership rates at around 53%. Cities draw this average down -- most suburbs have higher ownership rates.
With this in mind it shouldn't be a surprise that owners outvote renters.
This system heavily favors existing home owners over the general public.
Doesn't matter. Owners win because we live in capitalist society, and capitalism means you must be an owner to get full rights. Non-gentry are second class citizens (no free movement, no access to clean water, no right to work the land, no right to build shelter).
No free movement: I can't travel to many places without a car because property owners decided only people who own cars should be legally allowed to access a place.
No access to clean water: water is a resource owned by corporations, the people drink at the corporation's pleasure.
No right to work/shelter ones self: all land has been sold off, new people born into this world must first serve the gentry until the gentry decide to pay them enough to buy some land of their own.
NYC exists under the same capitalist system as SF or LA or wherever.
Nothing you have described (need to drive, no clean water, etc.) applies to NYC.
Therefore, your gripes aren't caused by the capitalist system you are blaming.
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2012/06/03/infrastru... [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/nyregion/10tunnel.html [2] http://www.tenant.net/Oversight/50yrRentReg/history.html
Probably the best way to think of America is a society of land speculators. Europe was full, so we moved over the pond to settle a new land. During the expansion westward, communities built their towns up in the hopes that theirs would be the one that makes it big.
Today, renters are treated as slightly suspect drifters with 'no sense of community,' which is a coded way of saying they're okay with falling property values. Which is threatening in a society where the majority are invested in real estate. It's not too hard to look at policies and see the implicit high property value bias. Environmental regulations, property tax moratoriums, public schools, interest rate policies, urban growth boundaries, public transportation; they all tie in, if a bit obliquely.
So I'm not surprised in a country where 63 percent of people own the home they live in, that high housing prices aren't a political priority. When we've all collectively made a bet that home prices go up, should we be surprised when policies are voted in to support that opinion?
Very few buy gas from the pump with the expectation of selling it again once the price rises.
Housing as an investment object is a disease of the mind.