The headline feels so disingenuous just to garner clicks. First of all, this article is about San Francisco. SF is parodied within many groups for being exactl

The headline feels so disingenuous just to garner clicks. First of all, this article is about San Francisco. SF is parodied within many groups for being exactly the way that it is. However, put that aside. Are the problems of SF cause by liberals or are they cause by people who happen to be liberal. This is an important distinction. If it's the latter, then the problems are caused by the inhabitants, and you could substitute any politically identifying individual in to get similar results: >Then there is the refusal on the part of wealthy progressives to live by the values they profess to support at the national level. Creating dense, economically and socially diverse urban environments ought to be a paramount goal of progressivism. That's what I mean. Is that due to liberals only paying lip service, or is that due to wealthy people not wanting to co-mingle with commoners? I agree with some of the base reasoning in the article: NIMBYers make it hard for a major city to be inhabitable by others. However, how much of this politics compared to people?