The only argument he made that I agree with is that people resisting what they perceive as negative changes to their neighborhood is natural and not particularly blame worthy, but it’s not particularly convincing as an argument to heed their wishes. One of the things that government ought to do is force people to do what they don’t want to, when it benefits the people as a whole. That’s the thinking behind eminent domain, for example. This is particularly true when people’s fear of change isn’t particularly rational. My parents used to swear up and down the dc metro expanding would bring crime out to the suburbs (by which they meant black people, of course), but the reality is that it increased property values and improved quality of life in almost every case.

I do think that moving tech companies out of San Francisco is the only feasible solution to housing prices. I don’t understand why people keep starting them there, or why they stay there. There’s no way the premium they pay to have an office there can be worth it.