> One would expect San Francisco, with its progressive and environmental values, to be in the forefront of reforming exclusionary practices.
Talk is cheap, but voters consistently prefer increasing property values.
Talk is cheap, but voters consistently prefer increasing property values.
You don't need to care about privacy, just claim to; you don't need to care about poor people when you can claim it's the right wing (who don't exist in SF)'s fault; you can claim to care about diversity and continue to hire only white men from Stanford etc.
Weird world.
I think it is selfish - especially to our children and grandchildren that will never be able to live in SF and/or the bay area, but CA (or more accurately the bay area) asked for this and it will be hard to turn back :( Judging by reports such as this ( http://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265?platform=hoo... ) it will just mean the middle class will be gone soon and this will be the land of the rich only...
This is not wholly unique to the bay - almost every city does this. They champion rising home prices as great and then complain when they are too high b/c they didn't build to keep up with demand. Oh and also blame the techies b/c that is the cool thing to do.