Ironically low density neighborhoods such as the Sunset District are the few places you can actually get fiber in San Francisco. The grid streets of single family homes and above ground utilities make for an easy permitting process with little challenges. This is changing; but for years I’ve looked at my Westside friends’ Sonic.net Gigabit service with envy. I generally agree with your statement though.

It may be a shock, but other things are more important to some people.

And since when do suburbs not have walkable schools?

I am not judging, just saying there are obvious trade-offs as well as different common visions of a “good life”. People live in different places brcause they enjoy different things.

For schools, in my experience (outside of the US if it matters) primary to middle school are easy to have close. High-school is tougher to get in the neighborhood, university will usually mean moving far far away.

Except if you live in a megacity, where you’ll have better chances to get top level universities at commutable distance.

I have young kids. Until recently I lived in the East Village, and now in a proper house on 1/3 acre in Colorado. Life in Manhattan is fun but damn is it hard. Especially with young kids. And that was lower Manhattan, probably the richest, most charming high-density place in the world. I can completely understand why the residents of Vancouver wouldn't want to see their quaint little neighborhood demolished for the sake of stacking more people into the city in a bunch of glass-and-concrete trash cans.

Then just move. After years of living downtown (Chicago, Baltimore, etc.) I moved to the suburb of Annapolis. It has its charms, but if Annapolis suddenly explodes in population, I don't see myself as having a right to freeze it in time circa 2018. You have no right to tell people what they can do with their own property, unless it's harming you. (And your snowflake aesthetic sensibilities do not count as harm.)

>You have no right to tell people what they can do with their own property, unless it's harming you.

The definition of "harming you" in CA is far more inclusive than it is on the east coast and that is reflected in the local laws that restrict what people can do on their own property.

And I as well, would tell those who are unhappy with the cost of housing in SF to just move to a cheaper area. By your argument, they have no right to tell people living there what they can do with their property.

That's obviously not how it works though. By voting and electing people who want to change the status quo, they can tell people what to do with their property.

(edited for typos)

> By your argument, they have no right to tell people living their what they can do with their property.

That's a false equivalence. People moving in aren't telling people in San Francisco what to do with their property. There is a mutual transaction (between a developer in San Francisco that wants to build say a high-rise apartment and people who want to rent it), that is being blocked by NIMBYs who have no property interest in the land on which the apartment would sit.

> By voting and electing people who want to change the status quo, they can tell people what to do with their property.

Only because Euclid was wrongly decided: http://oldurbanist.blogspot.com/2011/11/ever-since-euclid.ht....

Tax policy and zoning is clearly telling people what they can do with their property. Eminent domain is clearly telling people what they can do with their property. The problem is that those who want cheaper housing don't have the votes to win on that issue.

And if building a high rise damages the value of an adjacent property with no compensation, that's a taking, no?