Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

That seems wrong. How much someone is willing to pay to live in San Fransisco isn't a measure of their "eagerness", but also a function of wealth. Marginal people in San Fransisco are also poor people who love the city, and are barely able to live there because they spend such a high proportion of their income on costs of living. Relative to their household income, they spend _more_ than someone not marginal to live in the city, but that wouldn't be reflected by their migration patterns. They're not less eager, just less rich.

The GP make simple and correct point - those with more money can wind-up choosing to buy something they "don't want that much" while those with less money overall money forgone things they very much want since they also need to eat.

Reading that, I can't help but think that the canonically best methods for how to "build and design cities" have been pretty well understood for decades [0], if not much longer [1]. We in America have just been doing it wrong on purpose for quite a while (perhaps in order to goose suburban construction and automobile sales?) So the problem isn't lack of knowledge-how, but rather one of political organization to wrest control of the built environment from the groups and organizations that presently control it.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_Ame... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8090190

  I am one of these SF oligarchs, and I benefit from high rents of 
  both types. Nevertheless, I have long called for an end to the 
  rent-seeking. To me, the problem started when the boomers of 
  old voted themselves two enormous market distortions over 30 years ago.

  Proposition 13 was sold as a means of keeping granny in her home, 
  but it does not particularly benefit the elderly, the sick, or the 
  needy. It benefits land owning incumbents (like me) at the expense 
  of everyone else. Kill it. Start with the grotesque subsidy for 
  commercial property, and then phase out the residential subsidy.

  Not to be outdone, SF renters voted themselves a rent control 
  ordinance. This also does not particularly benefit the elderly, the
  sick, or the needy. Like Prop 13, it benefits one thing only - 
  incumbency. I know fairly wealthy 50-somethings who have rented 
  apartments for decades, and now pay a third or a quarter of market 
  rates thanks to rent control. They keep these now as pied-a-terres, 
  while they own comfortable homes in Marin or the wine country. For 
  each one of these old renters, there are ten smart ambitious young 
  people desperate to contribute new creativity and energy into the 
  community if they could just find a room. Only the wealthiest of 
  these can compete for the few remaining market rate units, and they 
  must pay plenty of both kinds of rent, to people like me.

  This may be seem like daydreaming, but I hope Governor Brown and SF
  can someday create a grand bargain. Kill Prop 13 AND rent control 
  with the stroke of a pen.

  As for overall supply and demand, I would support a state law that creates
  1 - an estimate of statewide population growth
  2 - a requirement that every municipality periodically rezone to 
      accommodate a   portion of that growth proportional to its current 
       size; or
  3 - pay another municipality to take its share

  This would create something like a reverse cap and trade system to 
  manage the   supposed externalities of growth. This way, NIMBY cities 
  would have to pay growth-friendly cities, and NIMBY voters would have to 
  pay for their selfish rent-seeking behavior. Who knows? There might even 
  be less of it. [1]