By fixing the law so it's at least somewhat enforceable from a tax-collection standpoint, at least we're potentially going to see the hotel tax revenue, which helps fund subsidized low-income housing.
And until the voters want more housing (which they don't, since they have a financial incentive in keeping supply low so their property values increase), don't expect the supes to jump on the supply & demand bandwagon any time soon. People who want to move to San Francisco but can't afford it don't get to vote in San Francisco elections, so the electorate is--not surprisingly--anti-growth.
I suppose we could start landfilling part of the bay a la Boston.
[0] https://www.google.com/maps/place/San+Francisco,+CA/@37.7738...
There are those that do who would gladly fork over a good chunk of change for their lots.
> It would also require displacing current residents, who won't have anywhere else to live while the new building is constructed.
Yeah, lets inconvenience 99% of people just so those few won't be.
And yes, those that would like to live in the city but can't because of the ridiculous rent or simply lack of rent-able places.
"But for the tight limits on construction in California’s Bay Area, they reckon, employment there would be about five times larger than it is. In work that has yet to be published they tot up similar distortions across the whole economy from 1964 on and find that American GDP in 2009 was as much as 13.5% lower than it otherwise could have been. At current levels of output that is a cost of more than $2 trillion a year, or nearly $10,000 per person."
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21647622-land-centre-...
If you could live comfortably in SF on $30k/yr like you can in a lot of college towns, you'd be able to bootstrap a company for a couple years on just your savings, which would increase the variation in startups -- you could see more genuinely ambitious startups which didn't depend on getting funded.
One of the drawbacks of renting is that you aren't guaranteed housing when your lease expires.
Suffice to say, the lease isn't the problem.
For reference, the street view below is the heart of the Mission. Unfortunately, most people here would rather preserve the slums than build enough housing to support a diverse bunch of people.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.765862,-122.419784,3a,75y,26...
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/How-San-Fran...
It took 6 long years with lots of fighting to try and develop a relatively modest 12 unit condo complex that met all zoning requirements.
On a relative per capita basis, SF is building a lot less than lets say houston or similar. And the reason why it's a lot slower is because of all of the above.
The developers are not entirely innocent since they always, without exception, ask for more than they are allowed, hence the endless reviews.