And underlying that problem is Prop 13 - the insane multi billion dollar tax break that Californians bestowed on all land speculators. Until it's gone nothing will change.
Until the landowners start to feel some downside from the housing disaster don't expect anything to change.
That makes sense to me. I don't keep up with exact SF policies but I'm guessing there are zoning and the NIMBY factor to deal with.
Underlying this problem is? Money, influence and power? I know a soon to be ex-POTUS that might be the perfect man for the job! He can come in and cut all deals needed. Then SF is saved and then he goes from city to city and country to country to redeem himself.
The Board of Supervisors are elected from districts instead of city wide. This means they're heavily influenced by neighborhood associations with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Throw in the normal, human fear of change and... the result isn't pretty.
I am all for building more and more dense housing. I'm not sure how to accomplish it. The way I see it, SF either becomes more dense, or it becomes even more of "a toy city for rich people" & loses all hope of economic diversity.
I grew up in Michigan. I am well aware of how cities can fall into decline. My wife on the other hand grew up in Minnesota. So in my mind, I often compare Detroit with Minneapolis. I think the problem with Detroit is that, it never diversified. It was all auto industry. Minneapolis's economy has several pillars: finance, insurance, healthcare, industry. You can ask yourself whether or not SF is either Detroit or Minneapolis in this example. I tend to think of SF as the New York of the West coast. It has very unique geographical advantages. It will have ups and downs, but will continue to be reborn.
This is the case for the tech industry, not categorically. Important distinction there.
Rent prices are the underlying problem pushing people out. Underlying _that_ problem is a lack of supply. SF zoned for and issued permits for a large number of offices, but not the corresponding residential structures to house those new workers. So they came here and were forced to compete with existing residents for a place to live.
The fix is to keep the economic prosperity and build more housing.
> Meanwhile socioeconomic disparity is an oozing sore in San Francisco
I'd argue that mixed income neighborhoods are the best kind. Many of the mechanisms for disadvantaging poor communities require geographic segregation. School quality, policing practices, etc