It's sad at first to see that someone who is simply in a different area geographically is afforded so much for so little effort. However when you factor in the cost of living there, it feels (slightly) better. I say slightly, because every time I've visited SF the actual costs of things has not been significantly different. I haven't had to pay rent or mortgage there, though.
Edit: And I don't live somewhere off in the woods, either. The county I live in is in the top 10 wealthiest counties in the country. There is something wrong in SF that is not just cost of living.
Regarding cost of living here, I just did some basic research using Portland as an example and it looks like I could reduce my mortgage by anywhere from 25-50% pretty easily without giving up anything in terms of bedrooms, square footage, location, etc. In terms of rentals, it looks comparable. Of course I probably couldn't get a job earning what I do in SF either. I haven't looked at relocating because (surprise!) we actually like it here and with kids you get pinned down unless things are pretty bad.
It's worth noting that I live in Alameda, the island/town the woman in the article was living in when she got evicted. We are literally having riots (two now) at city hall when tenant-friendly changes to local law have been discussed. They keep passing the ballot, though!
Alameda passed an anti-density measure in the early 70's in response to developers demolishing old Victorians in order to build crappy apartment buildings. That measure has in turn kept high density development from being done _anywhere_ on the island, including the old naval base where there is nothing historic to be preserved (except the ships floating on the water). Current anti-density arguments primarily come from people who don't want additional commute-hours congestion and landlords who are perfectly happy to rent a 2-bedroom apartment for $2200/mo. (Cheap compared to SF!)
I really hope that's not true