The only place you could build up is San Francisco. San Jose is problematic due to the airport. Sprawl probably wasn't the right word, although the Lucas thing was sprawl. It's easy to say SF should build up but maybe the residents don't really want that?
Why should the residents of San Francisco be the only ones who have a say in how it is developed? San Francisco is not a sovereign entity. It is merely an administrative subdivision of the State of California. Do you think San Francisco would be more built up if all the other people in California who wanted to live there got a vote?
Do you think San Francisco would be more built up if all the other people in California who wanted to live there got a vote?
Nobody in California outside of San Francisco really thinks or cares much about The City, so nothing would be different. It's always been it's own weird microcosm of reality, and will likely stay that way forever.
Clearly people outside SF in California must care, since they're moving in...
Also, I've never come across this use of "The City" but there it is, according to Wikipedia. The term can refer to: New York, London, Rome, or San Francisco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_City). I don't think "The City" would ever evoke SF to anyone outside of SF...
It's just anecdotal, but I don't think many people in California care about San Francisco's housing problems. Southern Californians tend to think SF is "weird" and "too cold." If they pine for a dense urban experience, it's in Manhattan.
That's why we have a representative government, and not a direct democracy. People tend to make dumb choices, and sometimes the government needs to make the unpopular decision.
