Different line of argument: think of that which is not seen [1]. Most of the arguments presented here take only the current residential population, and current

Different line of argument: think of that which is not seen [1]. Most of the arguments presented here take only the current residential population, and current time into account, but cities evolve over time and see large in- and outflows of residents (how many people on HN have lived in New York at some point in their life? how many New York residents aren't from New York?). Even the most solidly conservative areas of the world change - I grew up in London's South Kensington in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and recently visited again to find it had turned into a sparkling clean pedestrian area with hipster smoothie bars and back-to-back Ferraris... Rent control coupled with NIMBY planning restrictions benefit connected locals who are able to secure the resulting limited spots and hinder the ability of non-residents to move in. In the short term, this freezes the existing situation - you keep your historical streets, you avoid SF turning into Hong Kong or Singapore ([2]). In the long term, (relatively asset-) poor entrepreneurial people move elsewhere (New York, Chicago, Austin... even Houston). Of course, it takes a LOT to move a global hub. We might not see it in our lifetime (how long did it take for New York to dethrone London as the global financial HQ). The only way I'd move to SF would be if a company paid me a significantly larger amount of money, or once I retire to take advantage of the weather and food. So, do you as an SF resident see the city as a beautiful museum to be preserved, like Venice or EC2 in London, or is SF really about frontier spirit, which today looks more like Hong Kong than suburbia? A better way to deal with bubbles is to tax them, as many nations such as Norway do with natural resources. If there is an enormous inflow of Chinese money, who are taking advantage of the great rule of law and property rights afforded by the American taxpayer to anybody willing to pay for said property, tax the property holder for the privilege. The bases at Guam and Okinawa aren't paying for themselves... how about 5% of the assessed property value a year, if you aren't a citizen or tax resident. The foreign money will STILL come because they still derive value from owning foreign property in attractive places, the probability of it being politically seized being virtually zero (I guess property taxes on foreigners are a form of seizure, though). The people who made the neighbourhood what it is benefit from the increased tax revenue (e.g. in decreased taxes or better services). Singapore has a form of this - citizen can purchase HDB fresh builds (~80% of the market) at up to a 40% discount and without foreigners bidding for the first 4 years of the building's existence. (France also does, the ISF [3], but it applies to citizen and, due to rising property values, is chasing retired working class folks from their own homes as they do not have the liquidity to afford the tax.) [1] http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html [2] http://scifanatic.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/stid-t3-08.jpg http://scifanatic.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_tax_on_wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_tax_on_wealth