> Perfect is the enemy of good. > commercial space with minimal low cost housing, green space or anything else using public transit as an excuse. Privatize the

> Perfect is the enemy of good. > commercial space with minimal low cost housing, green space or anything else using public transit as an excuse. Privatize the profits and socialize the loss. Correct, and while not perfect, this is good, because it still results in a net increase in housing! The question to ask is not "is this as good as the original plan" but instead "would this project have proceeded at all if not for the changes to the plan"? Something we consistently see in SF is grand housing plans with significant low income requirements that sounds fantastic in theory, but are never actually built. The YIMBY response to that is absolutely yes loosen regulations so we actually build real housing today, instead of theoretical better housing in 3-5 years. > YIMBYs saw this as gentrification YIMBY's are completely fine with gentrification. Once again, the YIMBY position is that literally only building market-rate luxury-techie-fishbowl-highrises is still progress, because it results in more housing, lowering rates for other properties. > So they pushed hard for lots of mitigation for locals and low cost housing This is not the YIMBY position. YIMBY's are against low-income housing requirements. (that is, generally, streamlining permitting and densification to allow the construction of some housing takes precedence over ensuring income accessibility within any individual project) YIMBY's do generally prefer funding and incentives for low-income housing, but that's positive incentives, not blockage.