In most places in SF, the resistance comes when housing is being replaced and/or the developer doesn’t want to build low-income units (instead preferring to donate to the low-income housing fund). It’s not a clean story.
In SF, the resistance often seems centered on the idea that however much subsidized housing the developer proposes isn't enough for the interest groups fighting it. Often the push is for 100% subsidized, plus assorted "community benefit" donations to non-profits.
Jesus Christ, you wouldn't believe the opposition to it. The preschool next door will be shaded for 2 more hours! The proposed mural doesn't align with the community.
Unbelievable! This would bring another 90 units to the Mission with 15 of them for low income residents.
To be honest, people like to extol the virtues of Bay Area liberalism, but to me the housing policy in the Bay is one of the most systematic (and regulated) form of prejudice. Cities like SF are losing their minorities, their middle class, all to fatten the paycheck of existing landowners. Almost the entire black population has emptied out of SF. It's one of the most pervasive form of class discrimination I've seen.
If you are a home owner or landlord, reduced supply results in asset appreciation.
If you are a renter with rent control, then building more housing in your neighborhood may not seem like much of a benefit either.
Policy makers are always looking for piecemeal solutions, e.g. let's give teachers a rental subsidy, tweak the % of affordable housing that must be build, etc.
Lawmakers really need to create incentives so incumbents have a reason to want more housing.
Almost the entire black population has emptied out of SF.
https://sf.curbed.com/2016/10/6/13189882/1296-shotwell-affor...