A 19% decrease in housing prices, even assuming that that number were true (it's not even close to that for the SF property I own, for example), is not nearly enough to make SFBA affordable. Your argument was stronger when you were simply expressing your aesthetic preference for lower density instead of denying the existence of the housing crisis.

If it happens in again next month, maybe it will.

May arguments stem around letting communities make their own decisions and abiding by the laws, as silly and antiquated and biased as they maybe, make their own decisions. I am heavily pro-building, but I don't want a jail built next door. There are nuances.

But we don't have a housing shortage in California, any longer.

> But we don't have a housing shortage in California, any longer.

You keep saying this, and yet home prices are still unaffordable for a median earner. What magical economic factor aside from demand greater than supply do you think is driving these high costs?

> I am heavily pro-building, but I don't want a jail built next door.

And no one I am aware of is seriously promoting changing zoning to allow something like that.

How about we go one step further and allow individuals to make their own decisions about the land that they own? Perhaps individual freedom is an alien concept for many Americans?

19%, great. Only 81% too little to make things actually somewhat affordable. But even then only somewhat.