It is not a conspiracy or an inevitable consequence of growth. It is not because of the concentration of wealth (also a problem!). It is because there is not en

It is not a conspiracy or an inevitable consequence of growth. It is not because of the concentration of wealth (also a problem!). It is because there is not enough housing. There are many kinds of restrictions, some you probably agree with. Most of the restrictions are popular with liberals, conservatives, Democrats, and Republicans. Restrictions like: * must build parking per housing unit * zoning restrictions to limit density * long approval processes for construction * many blocks to construction approval even after complying with all the restrictions This is a bipartisan problem, it's really a culture problem. It's understandable, even on the micro scale. When you move into a place (and are done renovating it), you'd prefer that the neighborhood never change and that no one does any construction in it. There's a little tinge of atavistic fear of strangers too, even though people are moving in and out of neighborhoods all the time. In 1960, San Francisco population was 740,000. 50 years later in 2010 it's 808,235. The east bay and peninsula have been as reticent about housing. Despite wanting to live in SF and ending up in San Mateo once they get there they don't want anyone to build anything - no more density. Despite wanting to live in the mission/noe valley/haight and ending up in the less dense sunset once people get there they vote against more housing. The solution is more housing. Transit oriented development (denser zoning and no parking requirements near transit), allowing people to convert illegal inlaws to legal apartments, converting garages into apartments, and allowing people to add stories to their homes are all possible good moves. Maybe there are some of those you don't like, but each one we don't do is less housing and higher costs. And when you do vote for more housing you are getting: * cheaper housing * less climate change * less pollution * less homelessness (because homes) * less inequality (housing costs are a regressive expense) * a more prosperous city (you personally will have more money) * a more interesting city (you personally will have more interesting restaurants and things to do) You think that cute 4 story victorian in Noe looks cool? Maybe make it legal to build it anywhere in the city or bay area. The whole sunset and richmond are filed with 1 story single family homes. Even pretty dense mission/noe/haight have lots of individually low density properties. Regionally why not let people build 4 story houses with apartment flats anywhere along caltrain or bart? But does it work in practice? Check out Tokyo: https://www.ft.com/content/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c60 https://www.ft.com/content/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3... (SF resident)