What a simplistic article. Any examination of the housing woes in SF will reveal...

jdavis703 · on March 11, 2016

Which the article says, "The new wealthy are ruining everything because the old wealthy decided not to let them live anywhere near them."

kafkaesq · on March 11, 2016

No it doesn't.

It points to only two factors, and clearly implies that zoning (the decisions of "the old wealthy") was the more important of the two.

As if decades of voting patterns in this (once) famously and beautifully economically diverse city might not have also had something to do with it.

simoncion · on March 11, 2016

> Any examination of the housing woes in SF will reveal multiple factors, playing out over decades.

Is "new money" more or less significant than zoning restrictions? [0] If it's less significant, is it so much less significant as to be nearly insignificant when compared to the effect of zoning restrictions? (Spoiler alert: I expect that it is.)

[0] Restrictions which include the ability of SF residents to effectively veto new development that they don't want to happen, for whatever reason.

kafkaesq · on March 11, 2016

You can debate that all you want.

But an article which attempts to explain the SF housing situation by listing just two factors (ignoring several other very obvious factors of equal or greater weight) -- just doesn't seem to explain very much.