The basic problem is that non-residents who would like to live there can't vote.
Until the 1970s, anyone could basically build whatever residential housing they wanted to anywhere. Not coincidentally, prices were low and relatively stable (by modern standards). During the 1970s, the city of Petaluma in CA passed the Petaluma Plan, which drastically restricted development. Courts accepted this and more and more residential restrictions.
In the short term they didn't seem to matter much. But in the last 40 years, as the population has grown and as people have realized that cities are pretty awesome in many ways (including economically), supply and demand have gotten way out of whack. One example is Santa Monica, which has the same number of residents it did in 1970 but vastly higher prices: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/10/12/sustainable_s.... Existing property owners, especially of existing single-family houses, like restricting property so the value of their property goes up (although they often disguise this in other rhetoric). Potential new residents can't vote, and courts have empowered existing residents and municipal boards.
Hypothetically, if we had some kind of national zoning / municipal board setting policy across the country, people in Texas or Arizona who wanted to move to SF would get equal weight with the people already in SF. As it stands, property owners in SF can exclude Texans through voting. I cite this as a thought experiment, not as a proposal.
Further reading: Edward Glaeser, The Triumph of the City.
I'm looking for an e-mail address and can't find one in your profile or G+ or Twitter; this is probably too late, but if you see this send me a message at seligerj AT gmail DOT com.
Until the 1970s, anyone could basically build whatever residential housing they wanted to anywhere. Not coincidentally, prices were low and relatively stable (by modern standards). During the 1970s, the city of Petaluma in CA passed the Petaluma Plan, which drastically restricted development. Courts accepted this and more and more residential restrictions.
In the short term they didn't seem to matter much. But in the last 40 years, as the population has grown and as people have realized that cities are pretty awesome in many ways (including economically), supply and demand have gotten way out of whack. One example is Santa Monica, which has the same number of residents it did in 1970 but vastly higher prices: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/10/12/sustainable_s.... Existing property owners, especially of existing single-family houses, like restricting property so the value of their property goes up (although they often disguise this in other rhetoric). Potential new residents can't vote, and courts have empowered existing residents and municipal boards.
Hypothetically, if we had some kind of national zoning / municipal board setting policy across the country, people in Texas or Arizona who wanted to move to SF would get equal weight with the people already in SF. As it stands, property owners in SF can exclude Texans through voting. I cite this as a thought experiment, not as a proposal.
Further reading: Edward Glaeser, The Triumph of the City.