&gt;This is why I think that SF&#x27;s opposition to new development isn&#x27;t really driven by property owners who wish to maximize the dollar value of their asset. I think it&#x27;s rooted more in a very preservation minded populace [...] and a deep suspicion of redevelopment projects that they worry will tear out the soul of a community and replace it with something corporate and soulless (plenty of that has happened).<p>Even worse has happened in living memory: the Embarcadero Freeway. For those not familiar with it:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lostsf.wordpress.com&#x2F;2010&#x2F;11&#x2F;07&#x2F;the-elephant-obstructing-beauty-the-embarcadero-freeway&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lostsf.wordpress.com&#x2F;2010&#x2F;11&#x2F;07&#x2F;the-elephant-obstruc...</a><p>I too think that way too much weight is placed on the &quot;NIMBYs stopping new housing supply to drive up their property values&quot; theory. The one friend I know who owns a house in the Mission wants to see more density as he thinks that will drive up the value of his home. And here in Mountain View, over the last few years the voters have become increasingly pro-housing, and the city council is responding.<p>In the case of San Francisco, there was a lot of truly destructive behavior in the name of progress and development in the 20th century. The development process we see today emerged in reaction to that, in an effort to limit the destruction, and then to roll it back. That doesn&#x27;t mean that there aren&#x27;t old hippies who are against anything new, of course. But that doesn&#x27;t mean that all development ideas are good either.<p>I really wish everyone would take a good long look at the pictures of the Embarcadero freeway before lecturing people on how it&#x27;s always wrong to oppose development. NIMBYs need to be reassured, not mocked for thinking there&#x27;s such a think as bad development.