Housing developments are regularly proposed that have a certain percentage of units that are "affordable housing" in that their price is artificially held low.

Housing developments are regularly proposed that have a certain percentage of units that are "affordable housing" in that their price is artificially held low. (And there are restrictions on purchasing such units, so that a well-off person can't simply sweep them off the market.) But even such developments are also being rejected by SF, even ones that would increase the number of affordable housing units available overall. For example, a project in SoMa was unanimously rejected because it overshadowed — on the day with the most shadow — 18% of a nearby park[1]. It is clear to anyone who is watching that SF is not concerned about the affordability of its city, or the livelihood of those who are not well-off enough to afford homes whose median price has been as high as $1.6M. (And while I disagree that you can't build affordable housing now, I do agree with your treatment.) [1]: https://sf.curbed.com/2019/4/10/18304717/shadow-housing-sf-park-supervisors-vote-reject-nimby https://sf.curbed.com/2019/4/10/18304717/shadow-housing-sf-p...