In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with the residences of a city saying "this city is done". I'm not saying that I agree with SF being "done". It's not all th

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with the residences of a city saying "this city is done". I'm not saying that I agree with SF being "done". It's not all that different from arguing with a manager asking when some complex IT system is going to be "done". My answer is always the same - it will never be done until you pull the plug on it. But back to cities like SF. Who other than the people who live there should be able to say it's done in terms of new development? I certainly don't want to give a vote to anyone who benefits from development (unless they live in the city, and in that case their vote should count no more or less than anybody else). There is plenty of good greenfield and brownfield space in the USA. Developers and people that want cheaper housing have places to go. There are so many great medium and large sized cities. There are places that may very well be the next SF. If I were a young adult, I'd be collaborating with other like-minded young adults to do some urban homesteading. But do your homework. And decide if what you are trying to do is get in on the ground floor of the "next happening thing" or just find a place that you like just the way it is. Rarely if ever can you have both. Go to local planning meetings to verify that others mostly share you point of view. And later when other claim NIMBYism, call them out on it and say "we came here because we like the way it is and want to keep it that way". That is neither elitist nor racist. The consensus may change - that is democracy. If the place you are changes into something you don't like then just go look for a new place. Change can be a good thing. It clears away the cobwebs and detritus of being in one place too long. Clearly this "5th-generation San Franciscan" thing carries no weight. One's dead ancestors don't get to vote.