I am a big believer that, in fact, it would be very hard to build enough housing in SF to really substantially change the affordability of the city in the relat

I am a big believer that, in fact, it would be very hard to build enough housing in SF to really substantially change the affordability of the city in the relatively short term. So I think that we're much in agreement, but just to quibble over a few things: Sure, if there comes a bunch of new stock into the market in SF, a lot of what happens may be that people who are currently content to live in Daly City may instead get housing in SF proper, and it will be Daly City that has substantial stock available at rates sub, say $2000/month or $1500/month. So what? I mean, if Joe lives in San Jose now because that's the closest he can get to his job in SF and now he gets to move to Daly City, but isn't quite in SF itself, isn't this a net benefit? If SF doesn't really become affordable to people in the lowest two quintiles of income, but does become affordable to people in the middle quintile of income rather than staying in the upper two (or upper one, or upper fraction of one), maybe that's not ideal, but it's an improvement in the status quo, isn't it?