It's tragic that the SF city government is so set in its ways. There's a lot of people who are priced out of SF because of the city's reluctance to increase housing stock and to maintain rent control.
SF has limited space. Price is not the only way to allocate space. Local government can, within limits, set other ways such as rent control (essentially a form of seniority). The local government representatives are democratically elected in seemingly uncorrupt elections, so I have to assume this is the will of the majority of the city residents. Get over it and deal with it.
The will of the majority is no evidence of fairness or moral rectitude - the will of the majority is what was responsible for slavery, institutional racism, and now marriage inequality.
I was referring to the will of voters as opposed to a cabal of corporations or corrupt influences. Obviously, majorities that impinge on civil rights need to be overruled. It is not a civil right that just because you want to live in the city and you have more money than a current resident, you should be allowed to do so. Nor is it a civil right for a developer to build an oversized and overcrowded building when their property zoning allows a modest residence.
It's not like any of these rights are free, they come at steep costs, and it's hard to say who should actually be the stakeholders of any given decision. Should it be the people owning property in the city? (that's how decisions in condominium buildings are made -- by owner's vote, not by resident's vote). Should it be people living in the city right now? Should it be people who would live in the city if the measure in question was adopted? How much influence should people in one neighborhood have over what happens in another neighborhood (i.e., should there be a neighborhood level of city government, and what powers should it have relative to the city government?)
The same set of stakeholder definition issues come up when thinking about granting work visas to a foreign national -- should that individual's desire to work in the United States be part of the decision to let him in, since once you do, he'll be a voting American citizen, or should he not have a say in that decision since he's not yet a citizen?
Blaming high rents solely on city officials and rent control overlooks these realities which shape the economics of real estate in the city.
I suspect the next major quake (long overdue) will sort much of this out anyhow.