> Those zoning decisions are anything but stupid. They're carefully thought out to achieve a certain goal.
There is a pretty strong consensus that poor zoning in SF, NYC, etc. is a major cause of housing unaffordability. e.g. https://www.nber.org/papers/w8...
> The question that's being asked in TFS is: is that goal forcing families and lower income people out of San Fransisco?
Where do you get that from? TFS blamed long hours and public school quality.
> Remember, the young rich people there need poor and lower middle class people to cook food, clean, fix toilets, etc, etc. They're gonna get those people one way or the other. Abusing them (in the form of 4 hour commutes or tent cities) is one option.
4 hour commutes... I don't see how you'd ever get there. If these abused lower middle class people are necessary, then prices would increase until those people could continue to live within commute distance. This is the kind of comment people make by projecting a line from current state onward without any concern for counteracting market forces.
Regarding tent cities, well that is pretty much what I said in my comment. If you impede efficient sprawl, your only option is density.
If you are interested in this, I would suggest digging into the housing affordability debate. It is pretty rigorous and does not break on party/ideology lines as closely as you might expect. It is one of those rare topics where nuance is appreciated and you have some "civil wars" within party, especially in local elections. For example, here in Austin, there is a heavy debate between the people who want to use zoning to protect NIMBYs in their district while pushing high density housing into specific locations, and the people who want to encourage SFH growth everywhere, and people who just want to remove a lot of zoning restriction and let the market fix it (yes, these people are on the left). Another interesting source: http://marketurbanism.com/