1. No one is going to get violent because they can’t find housing in the Bay Area. More professors are radicalizing kids, and there are even examples of indoct

1. No one is going to get violent because they can’t find housing in the Bay Area. More professors are radicalizing kids, and there are even examples of indoctrination of children at grade school levels documented. There are more campus 2. Violence is a very expensive endeavor for human beings. There is an expansion of the amount of it committed by the Far Left in the US for the past several years. Before Christchurch, the Far Left had doubled the death toll of the Far right for the past two. Trying to cram everyone into one tiny desirable geographically area in California is... A part of how cities create wealth. The economic activity of SF would be expanded by taking up the difference in density between it and NYC. 5. Asking property owners to give up quality of life and environment for higher density homes with minimal benefit to them is most definitely asking them to GIVE UP something. Is not asking them to give up quality of life. They could also move, by your same logic. Having more money, this would be far easier for them than for people working in restaurants and assistant professors and teachers. Your "Asking property owners to give up quality of life" is actually rich and powerful people manipulating laws to stymie growth and market forces. 6. There is dignity outside certain zip codes in California. Is there dignity in being forced to move away from one's home? It depends. 7. No. We can’t cram everyone who wants to live in the most desirable zip codes in California We have historical precedents that indicate we can have about 30% more. We can’t control how people feel about their entitlements or inadequacies or whatever. We can avoid obvious rigged games and broken markets. Those things stick out like a sore thumb as something unfair.