Seriously, this. It's one thing for Hong Kong or Manhattan to have high housing prices. It's something else for a fucking suburb to have high housing prices.

We'll have one hell of a housing boom, and there will be more of everything. At least until we run into infrastructure issues such as providing enough water for everyone. Or perhaps we will have cogged roadways. (Although that probably mean we can start building subways that pay for itself.)

Also, it will let entrepreneurs and startups live on ramen noodles more.

The ironic thing about these "progressive" anti-development policies is that they end up hurting laborers and low income people by suppressing the construction industry. There is a two-for-one solution to high housing prices and falling wages for e.g. Hispanic families.

Water, environment, earthquakes, and NYIB is why the valley doesn't get much more density.

Check out Tokyo (the largest suburban parts) for what the valley could look like with a bit more density; there still wouldn't be that many high rises. Tokyo also has a bit more fresh water to work with.

The roadways are already clogged. Imagine what it would be like if they actually built enough housing.

I would hope that the roadways would be less clogged if people didn't have to commute ten miles.

I don't believe communities in SV would sign onto this.

One important reason is the lack of core infrastructure like a centrally planned transit system. The thing to remember about the bay area is that it's not one city like NYC. It's a number of smaller cities and counties each with their own local governments, rules and constituencies. See San Mateo and other counties opting out of BART. Another example are various communities with maximum density regulations.

This is the kind of thing where you need a strong central hand to force these issues if you want your community to scale, but it's not clear that any local community would cede that power.