Agreed. Another irony is that what has happened to SF is basically what every city would like to happen. Just like every startup, they've met their goal -- th

Agreed. Another irony is that what has happened to SF is basically what every city would like to happen. Just like every startup, they've met their goal -- they're hip, and have traction, and now, basically, they're having problems scaling their success. If you squint hard enough, you could draw parallels to Twitter's early success -- lots of users, and not enough infrastructure to support it. San Francisco is now looking at a number of fail whales, but, at the same time, housing regulations prevent them from scaling. They've made that as a deliberate choice, and a pretty baffling one. As I stated elsewhere (so won't bother repeating at length), I believe the market would ultimately correct for this except for the artificially constrained supply being imposed by the building regulations. As an east-coast dweller that only works in SF, it's interesting to watch from afar. I mean, the idea of a class war ensuing as a result is obviously not a great one -- I'd hate to have to navigate SF like I would some war-torn country when I'm there for work, but one assumes the issue will resolve itself, some way or another, well before it ever gets to that.