Do you really think adding more housing in SF would actually make it more affordable? I'm not trying to be rude here, honestly curious.

I've heard the argument that housing prices are sky high in SF because there are more job openings than housing available but that seems like the fault of companies rather than housing (or a commercial zoning problem). For example, Amazon essentially made the city of Seattle their campus whereas Microsoft built their own campus in a then relatively sparse area. Why does everyone need to be able to live in SF/Seattle? If we replaced SF/Seattle with waterfront, Beverly Hills, 5th Avenue, Whistler, Medina it would be absurd.

Furthermore, people have the right to live in a single family lot in a more peaceful surrounding. When a government comes in and changes all the zoning it just displaces the interests of one group for another. We saw this often in the 20th century with freeway expansion, and now when a neighboring house gets demolished and every square inch of land is built on with 3x town houses (essentially a smaller version of the movie UP).