> you don’t need to be economic illiterate to think something fishy will happen It’s not the city’s job to make good things illegal because they are too good t

> you don’t need to be economic illiterate to think something fishy will happen It’s not the city’s job to make good things illegal because they are too good to pencil out. But by “economic illiteracy”, I was referring to tenant groups’ reasons for opposing unsubsidized housing. Excuses such as that San Francisco had increased vacancies during the pandemic and thus not need any more housing. Or that San Francisco already met its RHNA housing quota for 2014-2022 (which was way too low since it was calculated based on outdated population growth trends rather than rents). Or denial that housing construction has any affect on rent. These are not fringe positions; these are the canon of the self-proclaimed “progressive” faction in San Francisco (see Supervisor Peskin’s statements in https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6412806&GUID=4DEFDA6D-09E3-48E1-8E57-283310D51F54 https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6412806... and https://twitter.com/_fruchtose/status/1729280621313511602 https://twitter.com/_fruchtose/status/1729280621313511602 and basically any article on 48hills.org). The set of policies they support are basically to reduce for-profit apartment development by increasing neighbor veto points, ask for increased funding for favored nonprofits, increase tenant protections, and watch as rents rise.