There's a great irony in the liberal/conservative (left and right) dichotomy. On the one hand, you have left-leaning people who build their platform on the prem

There's a great irony in the liberal/conservative (left and right) dichotomy. On the one hand, you have left-leaning people who build their platform on the premise that they are champions for the poor and lower/middle classes and multiculturalism, while the right-wing is perceived as only looking out for the wealthy white people. And yet, I can't help but compare one left-wing enclave to a right-wing one. The Bay Area always shocked me as to how segregated it is, with whites and upper class people living in their suburbs with almost all blacks living in Oakland and the lower-income whites living in suburbs that are oppressively distant from job-centers. And the Bay Area has a housing affordability crisis, while at the same time being surrounded by plenty of land and low-density building that could be built-out to increasing the housing supply and thus affordability. But, this doesn't happen because the local incumbent populations are extreme NIMBYs. NYC deserves a mention, too, because while they are limited on space on which to build, there's still lots of low-rise stock that can be replaced with much denser development, but gets blocked due to NIMBYs and historical protections. I can sympathize with wanting to preserve the historic aesthetic, but we could at least find a few locations to build a massive development to disrupt the housing supply and bring down prices. I compare these with the so-called right-wing bastion I grew up in, Houston, TX. In Houston, whites and blacks live in close proximity, they shop at the same stores and malls, they actually interact in daily life. Wealthy neighborhoods are directly across from lower-income neighborhoods. More importantly, housing is affordable. There are almost no restrictions on the housing market: you can tear down and build almost anywhere. Middle class families can afford to buy houses. I'm not arguing for one philosophy or the other; nor am I saying I'd rather live in one place or the other (I'd live in the Bay if I made $200k, I'd live in TX if I made $50k), I'm only pointing out the irony and that a lot of these political diehards are full of crap. There are simple solutions to the affordability crisis in SV and SF, but NIMBYs and protectionists would rather see the poor suffer rather than risk a decline in their property values.