Right. Another aspect of this is that SF is one of the few cities where minority groups have been able to use housing laws effectively to try and prevent them b

Right. Another aspect of this is that SF is one of the few cities where minority groups have been able to use housing laws effectively to try and prevent them being kicked out of the city as prices rise (in most other American cities, these actions have failed). Look at the Tenderloin or Chinatown. This creates a pretty difficult where mostly poor minority groups feel like they have to be anti-development, because otherwise they won't be able to live in the city anymore. In theory given enough building and enough time, prices will go down and SF could be diverse again, but most people think that would be along time. It's a compounding situation of bad choices. I also think you're giving short shrift to the effect that Milk's and Moscone's assassination had on city politics. It heightened everything that was going on elsewhere in the late '70s - the rise of the environmentalist movement, urbanism, increasing power to minority groups. I would also say that a lot of the blame belongs to the cities outside of SF: SF only has 11% of the total population of the Bay Area and most of it's suburbs are even more anti growth then the city itself, they just hide it better by being zoned for single residency housing.