> I read in the SF Chronicle that there’s permitted and approved projects that developers are not moving forward with, like around the new hospital off of Van N

> I read in the SF Chronicle that there’s permitted and approved projects that developers are not moving forward with, like around the new hospital off of Van Ness, due to the “tightening of capital markets” and “soaring construction costs.”[1] Not NIMBYs or government regulations. No doubt that construction costs exacerbate the problem. But there absolutely are people deliberately blocking housing construction. There was a proposition to outright block private housing construction in the Mission that got ~40% yes votes. For further examples, see the infamous case of the developer that wanted to replace a laundromat with an apartment building: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgxwKnH8y4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgxwKnH8y4 > And then I dig a little deeper into the “it’s just supply and demand, dummy” narrative and find articles that document how luxury housing development actually is associated with a rise in rents for the working class.[2] Who would have thought macroeconomics is complicated? This is a fundamentally dishonest objection. New housing is "luxury" housing because the housing market is so expensive that even 1 bedroom apartments rent for $3-4K. Blocking "luxury housing" is blocking all housing, because the market is so expensive that even the smallest units are expensive enough to be considered luxury. Seriously, even 300 sq foot studios rent for 2.5K: https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/d/san-francisco-immaculate-studio-with/6885463159.html https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/d/san-francisco-immacul... Of course "luxury housing" is correlated with rising rents. When rents rise, newly constructed units get more expensive too and get pushed into the "luxury" price bracket. This is essentially a tautology, and it is not at all indicative that building more housing increases rents.