>which will make rents higher, which will create more poverty. At some point though don't rents become high enough it's almost a 'luxury' to live there? What

>which will make rents higher, which will create more poverty. At some point though don't rents become high enough it's almost a 'luxury' to live there? What proportion of people paying say $15k/month in rent are in poverty? If the tyranny of the majority decide they want SF to be an ultra-rich enclave I'm trying to imagine how that can even be stopped, regardless. There's no constitutional right to free-market housing. IMO the 51% of best situated home/property owners will always have the incentive to impose their tyranny on others, and if they flush out the 49% due to elevated cost and repeat this iteratively you end up with an ever-concentrated hyper-wealthy enclave. That kind of self-reinforcing loop appears to be what SF is getting locked into.