>Why should they? Of course they can commute, just like many highly-paid professionals choose to commute too. Nobody considers a short commute a fundamental human right.
A car is extremely expensive. Unless you're planning on making the public transportation system usable (which would be a herculean task).
Honestly, I think that's what the Bay Area needs to aim at. But of course it's probably more impossible a problem to solve, even more so housing issues.
I think this was one of the points of the article - that this isn't a SF specific problem. The entire region needs to get together to start to plan better for growth. Lack of housing isn't a SF problem, it's a problem for the entire Peninsula. (I'm not as familiar with the Easy Bay).
With decent urban planning, the region could maximize its growth potential. Without it, we'll have major issues in the near future.
Not exactly. The free market is also what enables neighborhood preservationists to keep redevelopment out. Well that and the horrid examples of redevelopment 40 and 50 years ago that are getting uglier and less livable by the decade.
Developers have done a good job of buying off the media, and the Chronicle has never waivered from its support of those sectors that still advertise in its pages. That's why many of us are not sad to see the otherwise well written paper giving way to Internet new sources that, this article excepted, are less inclined to skew their editorial policy in favor of anything real-estate (-development) related.
A car is extremely expensive. Unless you're planning on making the public transportation system usable (which would be a herculean task).