There's a hyperbole to express on both sides, but I can understand why people who are worth $1-5 million and are past their 50s might feel threatened by this sort of development.

They aren't in a particularly marginalized position, but they are probably frightened about the rapid change and possibly out hundreds of thousands of dollars plus time they don't have.

I agree, build those homes and reduce the power of small groups to put up large barriers, but I also understand where the residents are coming from to some degree.

They can sell their house and live a life of luxury virtually anywhere else in the world.

I have a hard time sympathizing with such people. They're not out anything—they're amongst the most privileged people in the country.

Sure, I understand where they're coming from. That doesn't mean they have my sympathy. I understand why billionaires advocate for lowering their own taxes—that doesn't mean I give them an ounce of sympathy.

For many of those who move for retirement, the place they most love doesn't perfectly align when the best place to work and raise children. That makes it an easy decision. My parents moved to a place with more family, lower cost of living, and easier access to commercial areas. The fact that it is hard to find a job in this place no longer played a major role.

Sure, there are people living in Berkley and NYC who LOVE those places and want to die there. Still... that's not necessarily representative or even common. Many people move further away from urban centers even when starting a family.

Unconscionable!

Further, making financial decisions based on a plan with facts and figures rather than mere emotion is what responsible people do.

And the answer is "yes". Come on.

This was unnecessary. Don't make attempts to map a person's opinion to their age. That's a first step towards implicitly invalidating their opinion because of their age, which isn't a substantive rebuttal.

There are taxes, but people who have 100 times the median household income in the bank might be able to figure something out.

It makes sense that they're fighting for their money. And people deserve basic empathy, no matter what the situation. There could be solutions out there that make the most people happy.

The cynical view is that this is their greed, and they are taking money from people with less means with their demands.

Less cynically... we can try to find solutions to assure them their house value won't plummet, but encouraging a view where more prices at least stabilize won't put _that_ much strain on them, compared to the help it would give to other families with less means.

If that's the price that has to be paid, I think there's no moral argument to be made on this discussion, what remains is a legal-political challenge.

Finally, I do believe this is all part of investing into the housing market. If you want a risk-free investment, choose government bonds. If you want to play the housing game, this is part of the story. You can't expect to invest a few million into an overpriced industry with a scarcity-controversy, and expect to reap risk-free rewards. Everyone who buys a house in these areas knows that your money pouring in and your legal defences are inadvertently screwing with housing affordability. If you're okay with that and want to make a risky investment, so be it. But then don't treat it like some kind of safe retirement plan you worked your entire life towards, it's not.

That's usually marketed to older people.

Why not just build a massive cluster of skyscrapers and put all the people who want cheap rent there? It would cause much less impact on the existing homeowners at large. To me that is a much more equitable solution for both parties.

Personally, I would say if you can't afford to live there, don't. There are plenty of places to live and many people do.

2. Having moderately higher density has a lot of useful knock-on effects, like better walkability and transit support.

3. The objections are rooted in selfishness and classism/elitism. It's like someone objecting to a homeless shelter in their neighborhood because eww, homeless people. This common attitude doesn't mean we should never build homeless shelters.

A typical two bedroom in Shanghai is $870k [1]. Homes in Chongqing China are more expensive than in Columbus Ohio [2] -- yet wages are about 1/5th ($9k/yr in Chongqing vs $46k/yr in Columbus) [3]

[1] http://fortune.com/2017/07/18/china-beijing-property-housing...

[2] https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...

[3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/278350/average-annual-sa...

Also, earthquake protection makes SF based buildings more expensive to build, especially as they grow tall.

China has a massive housing imbalance. The skyscrapers are being purchased as investments by the newly rich and are out of reach to low/middle income folks. Also, not all those skyscrapers are good quality. In our condo on the 37th floor, we had to have the bathroom flooring completely redone because there were leaks all over the place. This building was built like 5 year ago! In addition, when you walk around the construction sites of those new skyscraper projects, you see those countryside workers crowded into hastily constructed dorms, 4 or 5 people in one tiny room. You can see them sitting around eating their small portion of rice and veggies. It is definitely a sight that would make most “living wage” Americans cringe...

My wife grew up in China and she loathes skyscrapers. We bought a single family home here in the USA with a nice size backyard and she has the happiest wife in the world. She often goes in our backyard just to sit and watch the squirrels. She also has a piano which she can play any time of the day. In China, neighbors complain when start playing your piano in those crowded skyscrapers....

I have an unproven hypothesis that most people on the planet would love their own single family home like we have here in the US. They aren't living in those dense urban areas because it is hip and cool. They are living there because they have no choice.

My guess is that if we re-zoned the Bay Area and replaced 1/4 of the current single family homes with 3-to-6-story apartment buildings we could cover several decades of regional housing demand and push housing prices down by 50%.

1: where? and 2: these homeowners will oppose it, because it still drives down the value of their investment because it drives down demand.

There is no way to drive down demand but keep prices high. That's not how economics works.

2. The logic being, if you have to screw people out of their equity (retirement) might as well make the smallest footprint.

I can't even touch the housing market in an area inconvenient to my work without literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in liquidity. That is cash that I simply do not have, nor do I have wealthy relatives that can front me the money. Please don't assume that just because an engineer has, what looks like a high income on paper, that they can even afford houses that cost millions of dollars in a high cost of living region as the Bay Area.

My coworkers that have set down roots here have to drive hours, and they're also making "at least 100k a year". What about the engineers that need jobs and homes, and the people that move just for their job? City's full, go away.

You and the parent agree. guywaffle's comment talks about people who make much less than you and are in the exact same situation. Absolutely true that a high income doesn't make spending 50% of it on housing any better. And someone who makes a smaller amount doesn't even have that option. You're both screwed, just in different degrees.

You are looking to moving out of the Bay Area for cheaper rent. There are people who make a lot less than you who can’t afford to live here. They drive from Tracy and Stockton to get paid a fraction of what you get. Stop crying.

You're watching it play out, but some seem to not like that the residents of the city have a greater say than the "not residents" of the city. I find that perfectly natural, normal, and desirable.

To sell the 3 units in the new lot, they will have to be relatively high end and there will probably be no clear net plus/minus in property values attributable to them. Instead of fighting the change tooth and claw, the neighborhood should be ensuring that the development as-built is high quality. For one, the lot setbacks look like to be as much as 20 feet, which is quite good.

I assume you work in some form of technology. Technology and related jobs have seen their wages increase astronomically compared to textiles or fast food. Sorry, you're not impoverished. You, and everyone else in your town, are now subject to 100% tax above a certain threshold, at 110% of full time minimum wage. This is so we can give that money to people who chose to not enter technology.

Ridiculous. Moderate taxation on a progressive marginal increase is fine. The extreme is absurd. Property rights are what make trade work without having to hire armed thugs.

I absolutely reject the notion that a home owner's personal reserve price to walk away from their property should be coercable.

That being said, my neighbor should have little say over what happens on my property outside of mutually agreed covenants.

Assuming they have little equity to start with, of course.

Can you help me understand why that's a good idea?

This IS not a failing in modern debate, but a much bigger issue.

I have seen less educated people show zero empathy for the opposing side many more times than the reverse.

Also you cannot have debates with some people, e.g. right wing authoritarians.

Some people are just born that way.