Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

You're simultaneously framing the problem in several ways that make absolutely no sense.

Hmm, they make sense to me. Where do you see the contradictions?

Like, I see housing and food as necessities. I don't see SF housing or Coca Cola as necessities. I still think people enjoy SF housing and Coca Cola and we should produce more & lower their price.

SF housing is similar to Coca Cola in that the owners of SF housing can prevent more being made. Just like Coca Cola can stop more Coca Cola being made. But neither can stop production of generics. E.g., suburb housing or Pepsi.

This is just how I'm thinking about it and I'm interested to hear your perspective as well. Already this conversation has helped me see housing in a new light, so thank you!

Both housing and a job are indeed necessities. The jobs exist in cities due to the density effect of the cities, and the cities need to build more housing.

In recent years, the median SFBA home has risen in value by **more than the median household income.** Developers want to build; NIMBYs want to prevent it so they can continue enriching themselves without creating value at the cost of everyone else, including the broader economy.

My argument is that it is indeed deeply antisocial to use political sway to restrict the supply of a basic good required by newcomers to participate in the best economic opportunities in order to enrich oneself without creating anything. NIMBYism doesn't manifest in a vacuum.