Your meta-question is great, but before considering it I'd like to talk specifically about your favorite example. Is it actually absurd? Sure, it's unlikely i

Your meta-question is great, but before considering it I'd like to talk specifically about your favorite example. Is it actually absurd? Sure, it's unlikely if you interpret it completely literally, but equally, "no one lives there" does not imply an empty "giant scrubland". A more "charitable" interpretation might be that many long-time SF residents are fearful that if rents continue to rise, they (and those they associate with) will be forced to leave the city they love, and their former homes will be converted to office space and short-term rentals --- non-residential uses, hence "no one lives there". Is there a scenario where this happens? Sure, it seems possible that tourists, businesses, and real estate speculators are willing pay more more for space in SF than long-term residents can or will. And as the city switches over to be less residential, the number of people willing to pay a premium for permanent residency may drop, accelerating the process. The real question might be who benefits from preventing this "change" from happening. Someone who likes their current SF lifestyle would seem to have legitimate self-interest in preventing the city from changing in a way that would prevent them from continuing their lifestyle. So at least in this case, I think people are really trying to say "We've got a good thing going here in SF, it's starting to move in a bad direction, let's not destroy what we have in an attempt to maximize economic gain." One can disagree with it, but I don't think it has a hidden agenda.