This applies to any city that seeks some form of income and social diversity and it only applies to you if you choose to live in that city.

If you lived in SF and this happened, your options would be pretty simple, contribute to the subsidies via your tax dollars or move out of the city.

> This applies to any city that seeks some form of income and social diversity

This seems like a tautology. "A city that seeks income diversity should seek income diversity"... the point is that I and crazygringo do not think that the city needs to seek that; it is a-okay in my book if a city becomes gentrified.

> and it only applies to you if you choose to live in that city.

Okay, I choose to live in Malibu. Sadly I cannot afford it. Who is going to think of poor jlgreco, unable to afford living in the beach community of his choice? Is my desire to live in Malibu less valid than anyone else's desire to live in San Francisco?

I'd personally love some subsidized beach front property with a private beach.

Just to be clear, "income diversity" in this case could/should mean income for the city, as in a diverse tax-base. This is definitely a desirable thing for a city, so that when the inevitable tech crash happens, the city's financial base won't collapse.

Not Malibu, but right next door in Santa Monica they have a crapload of subsidized housing in the most expensive part of town close to 3rd St Promenade and the Ocean/Pier.