Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
Everything since I moved away (1999) counts as new.
I guess building a LOT of housing might be the answer, but it seems like part of that solution is alleviating demand by increasing supply, but part is alleviating it by turning Berkeley (SF or any of these high demand locations) into a place where fewer people want to live.
I don't disagree with this at all, other than to note that the relevant metric is not how many people in total want to live in Berkeley. That doesn't matter, since the law imposes a de facto limit of ~120k people being allowed to live in Berkeley. The question is *how much* the people who currently or might be allowed to live in Berkeley want to live there. And it's absolutely clear that the people who currently live there think higher density is desirable, either because of "neighborhood character" or because of the potential impact on the financial value of their real estate investments. That's the reason they use the political system to block the construction of housing on historic parking lots.
The controversial questions are whether it's moral to enforce those preferences and whether the political system should permit it. Zoom out enough and it's really the same question as the immigration debate--how much power should the existing inhabitants of a region have to prevent outsiders from breathing the same air? (There is a get out of jail free card here from charges of hypocrisy at least. It's morally wrong to object to ethnic diversity, and it's not morally wrong to object to mid-rise apartment buildings. Maybe that's where you stand.)