> It has nothing to do with police powers, it's called zoning and it's absolutely a legitimate part of our governing structure.

Zoning is a mechanism of economic suppression to appease the haves and separate them from the have-nots. They de-diversify and oppress.

> If the residents of SF wanted to go Hong Kong style full on skyscrapers everywhere, they would have.

Yes my point is that they didn’t, and now they’re paying the ridiculous cost: $3000 for a bachelor. Do anything other than work for FAANG? Sorry, you don’t get to live here. Please bus an hour so you can serve me coffee.

> Bulldozing communities to create utopian/dystopian hyper density is one of the most short-sighted urban concepts going.

Bulldozing exclusive communities and replacing them with inclusive ones, which create more local business opportunities and reduce dependence on transportation. Calling high density planning short sighted in favour of single family dwellings is absurd.

> There's plenty of space, go elsewhere.

This mindset is what causes suburbia, which has an absolutely disastrous impact on the environment and local economies. And leads to class segregation (which is a proxy for racial segregation in the US.)

"Zoning is a mechanism of economic suppression to appease the haves and separate them from the have-nots. They de-diversify and oppress."

The above sentence could be said about building codes.

I sort of jest but also shudder to think: How soon will progressive SFBA thought leaders call out building and health and safety codes as pushing up costs and excluding homeowners (and potential homeowners) that cannot comply with them ?

Because they absolutely do that. God help us if we act on that knowledge ...

> The above sentence could be said about building codes.

Dezoning is not an argument for deregulation, it’s about creating new economic opportunity in a very direct way. You don’t have to sacrifice building safety as a next step. Sure, you could. And you might be right that it is economically positive to do so. But that’s a sort of deregulation extremism.

"Zoning is a mechanism of economic suppression to appease the haves and separate them from the have-nots. T"

This is a ridiculously false statement.

Everyone wants zoning laws, you can't put up a gas station or an industrial facility right in the middle of xyz residential neighbourhood, nobody wants that.

"Yes my point is that they didn’t, and now they’re paying the ridiculous cost"

So you're saying that people are making a choice, but because you're not happy with the choice, they should change?

Are you arguing for rights or not? Which is it?

SF residents wanting to keep zoning laws intact are making their own choices, and that's fine.

"Calling high density planning short sighted in favour of single family dwellings is absurd."

Just the opposite when in fact the citizens are adamant that their city not turn into Hong Kong.

"This mindset is what causes suburbia, which has an absolutely disastrous impact on the environment and local economies"

Total rubbish. Suburbs are some of the most peaceful, plentiful, conscientious, and safe places in civilization ... which is exactly why those types of people move there. They are downright boring in their concientiousness.

That they lack trendy cafes, and hipster fentanyl needle clinics is not a problem for some.

> Everyone wants zoning laws, you can't put up a gas station or an industrial facility right in the middle of xyz residential neighbourhood, nobody wants that.

That’s not reality. It doesn’t make economic sense for a an industrial business to set up shop in a supposedly “residential area” - there will still be commercial clusters because that makes sense economically. And you can still define environmental regulations and build infrastructure where you want industrial commerce to happen. Zoning laws are mostly abused.

> So you're saying that people are making a choice, but because you're not happy with the choice, they should change?

The people who are making the choice are the ones who can afford to make the choice. Everyone else is forced out. So what you end up with is a bunch of entitled rich people who forced everyone else out of the market, bleeding the city of its charm and diversity.

> Just the opposite when in fact the citizens are adamant that their city not turn into Hong Kong.

You don’t reach the density of Hong Kong without need. For HK that need is to be included in the region of (former) autonomy. Naturally things aren’t going to get that dense. You can double the density of SF and it still won’t look anything near like HK. And once again, the people who are adamantly against densifying the city are not the ones who have to commute an hour by transit to work in it. They are the stakeholders because they forced their way in. What about people who used to work in SF but got forced out by rising rent, but who still work in the city. They don’t deserve a say?

> Suburbs are some of the most peaceful, plentiful, conscientious, and safe places in civilization

This is so painfully ignorant it’s hard to unpack. Do you understand the toll it takes on small business owners to not be able to buy commercial land where people live? Do you recognize the damage that daily mass commuting into and out of the city has on both the global and local environment? Do you understand that the “peace” is actually just economic segregation? Take a drive outside the gated communities and go on down to the economically segregated “suburbs” of the less fortunate. I believe they call those “ghettos” in the US. Not sure you’ll find much peace or safety there.

> That they lack trendy cafes, and hipster fentanyl needle clinics is not a problem for some.

Man you are a piece of work.

Zoning is a police power.