Anteater

Maybe. I'd say the root of SF's problems is its archaic land-use code that effectively prevents anything taller than three or four stories from being constructed throughout the vast majority of the city.

While I don't generally advocate bulldozing existing homes to make room for newer, taller multifamily buildings, it's basic common sense that San Francisco needs far greater levels of urban housing density to even *begin* meeting the increased demand for it. The situation in Silicon Valley proper (and the East Bay) is vastly worse. Despite becoming one of the priciest housing areas in America, roughly 95% of its residential land contains traditional, suburban-style single-family houses. I've done a fair amount of business over there myself: I'm sure anyone who lives their can attest to what I'm talking about.

I'll also say this: despite a few scattered attempts over the decades to increase the area's housing density, neighborhood activists are the ones who created these problems originally...people who view practical change as anathema. This attitude has arguably spurred the region's housing crisis more than any other single cause. The rise of big Tech has only exacerbated and sped up the timeline for an inevitable collapse.

The video doesn't tell you "what to think" buddy: it was an investigation and a series of interviews with people who actually live there. The real estate situation over there is a legitimate crisis and the video does a better job than I could at illustrating all of the history associated with the issue. Your initial response, however, was a dismissal of the video itself because it came from Business Insider. If you think my response was a "lazy copout", then why would you bother responding the way you did?

__________________
Anteater's 21 Fav Albums Of 2020

Anteater's Daily Tune Roulette