The discussion on "if SF (or wherever) didn't have X, we could..." is amusing. Communities have building regulations for a reason. Despite all the towers goin

The discussion on "if SF (or wherever) didn't have X, we could..." is amusing. Communities have building regulations for a reason. Despite all the towers going in in SF around SOMA/etc., you can still venture out to the pan handle, the haight, etc. and find houses and neighborhoods that aren't high rises. Here is Santa Cruz, we have progressives that tell us that we must accommodate every tom, dick, harry, and jane that wants to live here whether or not they can afford to do so. Bullshit. Companies building and hoping to scale in an area need to take the cost of living, availability of housing, and how that impacts attracting talent into consideration. They shouldn't suddenly demand that blocks of 5 story buildings be replaced with 20+ story buildings. As a bay area native, what people desiring to live in SF and what they have to pay amuses me. Yes, there is a direct impact on job growth and housing demand, but rather than insisting that a community change and build such housing, maybe the businesses wanting to grow, expand, and hire in said city should fund the development of said housing -- even if it is outside the location of the office. We already have "corporate buses", why not bring back company towns and corporate housing? Or, maybe, rather than requiring people on-site full time, think about fostering distributed teams. It's amazing how many companies refuse to even allow a modicum of "work at home" in this day and age. Any engineer is likely to get contacted by recruiters from some of the big bay area companies. Shuttle buses are better than driving solo, but you are still sitting going from point A to point B for 45-60min each way, plus your work day.