"This is manifestly untrue." Actually, everything I wrote is a fact, and you can verify it. SF rents went down as recently as 2012, and are currently in a pron

"This is manifestly untrue." Actually, everything I wrote is a fact, and you can verify it. SF rents went down as recently as 2012, and are currently in a pronounced, acute period of hyperinflation [1]. San Francisco's population declined rather dramatically from 1950-1980 [2] I'm sorry if this doesn't fit with your preferred narrative, but citing opinion articles does not provide data for your position. [1] https://medium.com/@mccannatron/1979-to-2015-average-rent-in-san-francisco-33aaea22de0e https://medium.com/@mccannatron/1979-to-2015-average-rent-in... [2] https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/2FrCiZiCNaMFiUqWC_RK8sh3NnU=/1600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4660089/Population-Growth_SF.0.jpg https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/2FrCiZiCNaMFiUqWC_RK8sh3NnU=... Edit: even your sfist link confirms the basic facts, despite its (inaccurate and hyperbolic) headline. To wit: "Dips in the population, urban flight, and a decaying Edwardian housing stock — much of which was built between 1907 and 1910 and was in great disrepair by 1970, when areas like Alamo Square were extremely "low-rent" and dilapidated — may have made life cheaper for the hippies, but that all began to change by the early 1980s." So yeah...SF hasn't "always" been an expensive city. No more than any other city, anyway.