Spars suburbs do no one any good other than those fortunate enough to be wealthy enough to live in places that end up being subsidised by high-density neighbourhoods, often home to poorer residents.
California's forty-year "just say no" anti-housing campaign simply cannot be sustained while retaining functional cities, towns, and a state as a whole.
Or to put a twist on the tired argument: propertyowners and banks have no right to an ever-accellerating rate of asset inflation if it renders both society and economy unsustainable.
(That housing is now a crisis across the US, and in numerous other countries, doesn't diminish this argument at all.)
The median home price is $800,000, over 10x the median income of $75,235 (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA)
This isn't 100,000 people, an entire city's worth of people, who would prefer a shorter commute. It's 100,000 people, an entire city's worth, 40,000 families, a generation of children, who need a roof over their head, a bathroom, a kitchen, places to study and rest.
Your comment utterly ignores and misrepresents the reality.
