Over the last 100 years, the Bay Area has created a regulatory environment which essentially has made increasing housing supply 100x more difficult than the average American city. This would be "fine" if the population of the area was constant.

"Unfortunately" the area has been a source of economic growth for the last century as well. So you need two things for high housing price growth: 1) factors that restrict housing supply from responding to the market 2) economic growth or some other factor to make people want to move to the city.

For the NIMBYs, they are ok with #1. They desire that their city stays the same, it has the same architecture, unblocked vistas, the density they are used to, the natives they know.

So the NIMBYs argue to those affected by high housing costs that #2 is the real factor, i.e. "if rich people stopped moving here we would be ok". #2 is the easier argument to make, as it casts the narrative as outsiders vs natives. #1 appeals to the existing natives since they don't want change.

We have to figure out a way to change the message to awareness of #1. The average Bay Area resident has no idea how many of our state and local laws are in place to make sure that market rents / housing prices can be as high as possible.