Hacker News Reader

"Somewhere else" but not in South SF or Millbrae or Belmont or Redwood City or Atherton or Palo Alto or Mountainview or San Jose. Because while other towns and cities in the Bay Area might not all be quite as bad as SF, they all still impose extremely limits on building anything. And what's the point of building something in the middle of the desert, away from anyone who might benefit from it?

> Which only affect those builders who keep wanting to build in San Francisco. Just go and build somewhere else, that's the entire point of San Francisco regulation!

Builders are building elsewhere, and that is precisely the problem. The lack of construction in the city is the main reason for the sky high COL there.

EDIT: You know I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not.

Right. The point of the regulation is to empower evil people to do an evil thing. That’s bad. Such powers shouldn’t exist in the first place, but especially ought to be revoked once they are found to be abused in this way. And fortunately, the State of California is working on it.

Is that the purpose of the regulation, or a side effect that some happen to be content with? I'd have thought there would be better tools for the purpose of limiting throughput.