> Building affordable housing isn't a priority,

But why should it be? Why is creating low cost housing in the bay area better than spending that money in, say, Sacramento? What are the individual, societal and area benefits of doing it on the bay area vs anywhere else in the state of California?

I am being contrarian to be sure, Full disclosure: Australian with no dog in this fight.

So I ask because Tyler Cowan (https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/patrick-collison...) made the point that the Bay Area makes a lot of great global goods, and loosening housing regulation is effectively a tax on the current, extremely productive people that live in the Bay Area.

Given that these people pay taxes in California, why not find somewhere else to house less well to-do people? Somewhere less expensive, less productive and less likely to be problematic for the residents, would seem ideal.

$1,000,000 in SF buys sweet FA, but that would 3 median priced houses in Sacramento, and it is less than 100 miles away.

So I just wonder what the correct level is to do these things at: country, State, City, Suburb or street? I just think there are only so many dollars, why is the argument about where they are spent, rather than how effectively?

> loosening housing regulation is effectively a tax on the current, extremely productive people that live in the Bay Area

No, it's a tax on the landlords. How many producers of value are homeowners and not renters? (At least one person on HN, but I mean proportionally.)

Figure out a way of discouraging renters and landlords then. Disallow people from renting homes out or something.

Prop 13 and rent control are taxes that I, as a younger renter, pay to subsidize older less productive homeowners and renters.

Because the cost is in satisfying local rent-seeking, rather fundamental physical restrictions. If the cheapest housing unit costs three times as much in SF because of earthquake-proofing, HVAC, and density, then sure, build in Sacramento instead. However, roughly speaking, the price differential is because people in SF voted to have houses that cost three times as much (because they own houses and get to make those decisions consequence-free).

> loosening housing regulation is effectively a tax on the current, extremely productive people that live in the Bay Area.

That's an utterly ridiculous claim.

It's not my claim, it is Tyler Cowan's claim. In case you are unsure who he is, pretty much everyone who is anyone holds Tyler as a hero, Malcolm Gladwell for one.

So not ridiculous, not held by a random internet nobody, but thanks for your input ;)

Compare this with midtown ATL, where there's a huge residential explosion around an equally blooming tech sector.

It's what happens when the city government steps back and lets progress happens.

>Building affordable housing isn't a priority, though, apparently.

Man, this is infuriating. San Francisco isn't under a magic spell that makes affordable and market-rate housing distinct. They can be the same, like they are in the rest of the country, with enough housing.

But people spouting this line will never let that happen, because the proposed projects aren't immediately cheap.

skyscrapers are in SOMA. try to build one in mission/avenues

Because there are no homeless people in SOMA, right?

because there is zoning

Sure, in the downtown commercial areas. Every city I know of does not allow those skyscrapers to have apartments for rent, it is all for offices. (this is one of the reasons nobody in the US walks to work: there is no legal way to get a place to live near work for most people)

Note that a skyscraper is probably expensive enough to build that they would not put tiny apartments in it anyway, but the more moderate sized buildings downtown could be a mix of apartments and offices resulting in a usable city.

> Every city I know of does not allow those skyscrapers to have apartments for rent, it is all for offices.

Seattle, NYC, LA, Portland?

NYC is filled with plenty of residential skyscrapers.