The natural way that markets behave is when prices are high, the price is an incentive to create more supply, which then reduces the supply/demand mismatch. Wi

The natural way that markets behave is when prices are high, the price is an incentive to create more supply, which then reduces the supply/demand mismatch. With reduced regulation, there would be much more housing supply in SF. E.g. the city's footprint is slightly larger than Paris proper, which has 2.5x the population thanks to a consistent building height of ~6 floors. Paris is hardly a free-market bastion, or a place known for low quality of life, but SF out-regulates Paris with its tyranny of the vocal minority and regulation by bodies driven by perverse incentives. Apart from directly adding supply, building up increases tax revenues and local population which enables / justifies transit expansion, which then increases the practically accessible pool of housing for anyone desiring to live in the city. So, in trying to understand your point: do you not believe that housing costs would be lower if there was 3x the supply of housing, ala Paris, and a faster, more comprehensive farther-reaching transit system?