Well, aside from the strawman about somehow convincing your employer to move as well, then that IS more realistic that paying SF's absurdly inflated real estate prices, yeah. The alternative is for you to use the power of the government to prevent all the people who want to move into your neighborhood from doing so, is that fair and realistic? Some people think so, but I disagree. That's just telling one group of people that they can't do something in order to prop up the lifestyle of another group of people.

You have the freedom to choose someplace affordable before you move there. Telling someone who's already been living in SF, with roots dug in, maybe owns some property or has a long-term job there to just up and move is incredibly selfish. Moving is incredibly expensive.

The problem is not the new people moving in and the solution is not to stop them, the solution is to address the pressure those new residents create that is driving the old residents out. Entire families shouldn't be uprooted and have their lives thrown into disorder just because some twenty-something wants to live in SF for a year or two while they're working at a startup, and that twenty-something shouldn't have to practically evict some low-income family to find an apartment.

It's called supply and demand. It's called life. Things change. The world doesn't revolve around families that "shouldn't be uprooted and have their lives thrown into disorder".

If those families wanted to be able to stay there permanently at a fixed rate of housing expenses, they should have purchased the property. Can't afford to buy? Then deal with the risks of renting.

Their desire for low rent that keeps them comfy and entails no inconveniences has no validity. That's just a wish. That's immature. This is not grade school and not everyone gets a trophy for simply showing up.