I'm sympathetic to this particular cause but not to the solutions a non-profit in SF like them would probably propose. (because generally a story like this is

I'm sympathetic to this particular cause but not to the solutions a non-profit in SF like them would probably propose. (because generally a story like this is here for the lessons to be taken by others, not for their particular situation to be solved) What we need is less picking and choosing who is to receive specific housing, and setting aside of property or units for them. Because all that picking and choosing by well-intentioned (but bad overall outcome producing) people is exactly what's creating the problem. Everyone who has a special interest in preserving <x> or helping group <y> puts in their request to their San Francisco supervisor, solving their little corner of concern but making it worse for everyone else. One by one all the little barriers (unaware of what the other hands are doing) get erected to make it impossible to do anything productive for housing. We need planning at a city strategy level, that admits that San Francisco cannot stay the way it has for decades, protecting the landlords and people who've lived there for 30 years from any kind of change. The tax situation is a given constraint, and we're not going to change that anytime soon barring a miracle, so the thing that has to be compromised is "neighborhood character" (whatever that means as a cover for not letting people live near you) or housing density and your spoiled view of the bay / Muni wires. Specify what outcomes you want to achieve, and let the rules be updated to make that happen. Otherwise we will continue to be in a world where the external factors flooding in (lack of local leadership, jobs creation without housing creation, corporate money) will be making the decisions for us without us realizing it -- and a lot of unhappy people who want to live here but can't, or have been displaced from their housing. My desired outcomes: -- Affordable prices of the general rental and house purchase market (not "affordable housing") -- Owners who actually live in their housing, and are not absentee landlords -- Renewal of the creative, productive population and not creating of a rich / retired class that occupies all the housing -- Good transport and home-work districts, and the attraction of small businesses -- Ability of homeowners (and renters if desired) to easily and cheaply improve their properties and change the look and feel of their neighborhood for better/newer I am not in favor of soft arguments that are disguised attempts to regulate who is allowed to live in a place according to some particular interest's judgment: -- neighborhood character, density -- equity-related arguments -- "I got here first"-related arguments -- what is "fair" You will find that if you set up reasonable rules, the communities that emerge will be just as interesting, good, and pleasant places to live as before. They may not look the same, and may not be what you thought, and that may make some people unhappy. But it's what's best for a city.