I think at least the housing policy is an egregious failure (if a metric is that locals should be able to afford it), although other cities around the bay area should also get some credit. Even if you take being anti-development as reasonable, creating office space (jobs) without proportionate housing just seems like an inevitable disaster (unless you sell your property and/or are a landlord).

At least the democrats here aren't monolithic, there are frequent initiatives at the local or state level to increase the supply but they've (sometimes narrowly) lost.

Also some of California's unusual policies (like the special property tax system and very high income tax) are actually due to a political system where ballot initiatives have more influence and weren't top-down planned by the legislature to begin with.

Anyway, yeah it does seem self evident. I think San Francisco is somewhat extreme relative to the national level though.

I think the city could have done a better job taxing the large tech companies and spending the money on supporting the displaced residents and building more public services.

Taxes would help slow their expansion and in turn the increasing rent. Unfortunately the city has been toothless in this regard for fear of loosing some of the businesses that are causing many of the problems. IMO the threat of of them actually leaving is low given the whole echosytem set up here to support them but they would likely grow a little slower which would actually be for the good of the city.

At the end of the day, even extremely effective policy can't fundamentally undo the economic realities of San Francisco - there is not enough housing to meet demand. You can only do so much for the homeless when you can't actually give them homes or jobs.

The argument is that not enough housing to meet demand is because of the policies and politicians of SF. There are levers with which they can control both the demand and supply.

Right, taxing large corporations more and making their takeover of the city slower would have slowed the increasing demand for housing. SF's government could have chosen to not sell it's soul entirely to big tech while still supporting smaller startups and businesses. I would argue that the policies have not been left wing enough despite the perception that SF is very left wing. Reality is that the leadership of the city is in the pocket of the tech industry.

Let some of the money go elsewhere and boost some other city's economy rather than having it all focused in one place to the point of it causing major problems.

The Democrats are a center-right wing party by European standards. Even in SF they put business interests first. You don't see this problem to this extent in major European cities.

Policies of democrats? Who's failure was brought in itself by local government and lobbying constituents.