SF gets a lot of flak for housing - quite deservedly so - but we give a free pass to cities like Mountain View and Palo Alto. They have much much more restrictive zoning. Palo Alto outright bans a second storey. That’s where people go to work as well. They want to keep the offices there but not let the people live. What would be good is a tax system that’s distributed based on where people live nullifying the advantage of the lopsided advantage for favoring businesses over residents.
I agree with Palo Alto, but how is Mountain View restrictive by Bay Area standards? It's added a higher percent of people than Oakland on the past decade.
