A thousand towns and cities in Europe would disagree.
and it is good
Your opinion. Fortunately, not the opinion of the majority of voters in San Francisco.
Which cities of any significance in Europe have avoided high-density development? There'll often be protected areas of historical interest, but it's not normal to freeze the city as a whole in time.
A mere electoral trick. If every person that works in SF voted you would get the opposite result.
Also, all the people you mention will die and will be replaced by others.
As will you. And people who don't respect or understand what you love will destroy it and replace it.
Countries have declared independence protesting taxation without representation.
But this is now a red-herring. Arguing that its justifiable because the voting has resulted into this can only be contested with a vote, not with any other argument like "destroy the city" or "good for whatever X". Is a pure political power argument.
By whose measure? If it is more than plenty then you dont need to put any rules limiting it, it already satisfies the demand.
> 100% apartments would destroy SF. People fighting to get to live in SF because of its character. Destroying that you won't have San Francisco.
San francisco has been destroyed many times over. Its not the gold-digging town it used to be in the quaint 1800's, or the low-cost, cheap city it was in the 1930s, etc etc. If san francisco doubles its population it will be another city: it is inevitable and it is good. This is not SF's first iteration and wont be its last.