Well, then, citation needed regarding "wealthy heirs with East Coast educations, [and] vestigial Mexican land grants, ...[whose] plan of record really is to block all solutions to SF's housing crisis and wait for a recession," And, are you willing to even consider the possibility that people in the tech industry actually are "gentrifying techie scum," or, some significantly less loaded version of that?

It's pretty indisputable that the tech industry has raised housing prices in the Bay Area, mostly because Silicon Valley is no longer a gigantic orchard. Basic economics says that when you take land and put it to a more productive use, as measured by how much money one can make using said land for said new purpose, the price of the land + improvements goes up. That's literally what's happening, and people are being forced out because of it. That's the actual definition of "gentrification." "Scum" is just a pejorative qualifier that would be used by those who don't approve of this dynamic, which, while it displays an ignorance of basic economic principles, is entirely understandable in terms of human psychology.

And, it seems utterly stupid for these people to want to crash the local economy, just to get rid of the most productive sector of the economy. Unless there's some other master plan you're not elucidating, and, for which you'd need to provide an actual citation, Occam's Razor says this is absolutely absurd.

Do you see where I'm going with this? The scenario you posit, in the terms you describe it, makes city leadership sound like a bunch of literal cartoon villains. While I don't believe they are immune from self interest, and the influence of money in politics, chasing that money away deliberately just doesn't fit in with the simpler "follow the money" scenario, unless there's something more to it than you're alleging.

Edit: moved the bit about SF leadership being deliberately obstructionist to the correct quote.