Because there are two cities: One of the ultra-rich and one for every one else. If you take your Maserati or Model X from your garage to an underground parking lot with a security guard, you don't care that there are thefts happening on the streets. Similar reasoning applies for every other issue people complain about. Don't like open-air markets for selling stolen goods in the Mission District? Simply don't go there. Out of sight, out of mind.

That's how desperate people are for walkability in the US. Cities that offer something different from the car-dependent postwar sprawl that pervades this country are so few and so desired that they face no real pressure to be well governed.

It's mostly engineers who either used to work around there, or still work around there. There isn't that much housing so you still get a high demand low supply kind of problem.

It is the momentum from last 30 years of innovation in SV/SFBA. Measuring current state of wealth is not a good indicator, you need to look at the rate of change and the acceleration of people moving out of bay area.

You can't just look at a snapshot in time.

I've found official stats to be a lagging indicator of anecdata, and my anecdata shows a lot of people moving away. If I owned an expensive condo there I'd sell ASAP.

Things don't change overnight.

New Jersey used to be a major economic hub in the US. Now it's a state with corruption, high taxes, low quality of life and a net migration out for a long time.

Nothing says it can't happen here. Hell, SF lost like 20% of it's population between 1950 and 1980.

Everyone has Google stock from 10-20 years ago

Even the new techies can’t afford houses at this point