>Jobs + great weather + anti-development policy = high prices.
The thing is, the anti-development policy is a big chunk of that, and it derives directly from "real-estate investing" (and not just renting, owning.) - so you could say that you are agreeing with the parent, I mean, if you take a generous interpretation of "real-estate investment" that includes homeowners who consider their house to be an investment.
Who votes? mostly people who own property and want that property to increase in value. This means we (here in silicon valley) have a regulatory system that makes building new high-density housing quite difficult.
In California, the problem is exacerbated by measures like prop 13, which insulates property owners from the tax consequences of increased home values.
Leasing, I agree, is super unpleasant. Especially in commercial situations. (It's like buying, only less flexible!)
But, it's a really difficult problem to solve. I mean, encouraging or subsidizing homeownership seems like an obvious first step, but that has non-obvious negative effects on the regulatory regime, because more homeowners means more voters voting for policies that make building more housing difficult.
I mean, obviously, parent comment isn't being productive; but one can trace a lot of the high cost of living at least here in silicon valley to homeowners blocking high-density construction in an effort to drive up the value of their own assets.
Of course, the parent comment seems to think that renting out real-estate is a major part of this... and personally, I don't think that is the case. I don't think that landlords are the political force that homeowners are, and the scarcity of housing, at least in silicon valley, is largely a political problem.