This is the key passage:
[It’s pretty obvious what to do: Encourage more building by reducing the state’s land-use controls and other regulatory burdens to construction. But progressives have no clue about economics.]
Well, first you need “flat, open space” near where people want to work and live.
But the coastal mountains, the coast itself, the bays and harbors and rivers, and interior mountains, and interior deserts pretty much limit the “flat, open spaces” to what is already developed.
But it’s even worse than that.
Then the enviro’s and liberals demand EVEN MORE limits be placed on what areas CAN BE developed, place EVEN MORE limits on what CAN BE charged, and allow EVEN MORE (illegals) to enter to get EVEN MORE (democrat) voters, and encourage EVEN MORE out-of-state immigration of welfare and freebies (500.00 per month of free money) to literally low-renters with no skills, and then add EVEN MORE restrictions and taxes on income producers (companies and manufacturing) and actual workers ....
What else do they actually expect to happen?
never forget that the vast majority of legislators are failed lawyers.
and
The median home price in the entire San Francisco Bay Area has topped $820,000. It has topped $600,000 statewide, which is amazing given that those statistics include downtrodden and rural markets.
So if they successfully encourage more building, and the law of supply and demand kicks in and prices go down, what happens to all the median price home owners who still owe $500,000 on their median price $600,000 home that is now worth $400,000? They're stuck.