> Whining about not being able to afford to live in a neighborhood where multi-millionaires want to live is not very productive. You make it seem like solely a

> Whining about not being able to afford to live in a neighborhood where multi-millionaires want to live is not very productive. You make it seem like solely a demand-driven problem, but supply is being artificially restricted, which is a form of protectionism that is unbecoming of the otherwise highly capitalist homeowners of Palo Alto. The point has been made well here: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/08/collective-land-ownership-in-palo-alto.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/08/col... "The people who bought their homes a long time ago lucked into a windfall and they resentfully lash out at anyone trying to cut in on that windfall. But notice how un-American these claims are. The current residents want to protect their gains by telling other people how they can use their property. When a new restaurant starts to take patrons from an old restaurant we generally don’t think that the old restaurant–the long-term resident–has the right to prevent the new restaurant from opening. The same is true, by and large, for new technologies and ways of doing business. Yet when it comes to residential land we give the old residents a veto on the new."