San Francisco did not make a law about how much housing to have and then enforce it. It crafted a system of discretionary reviews, lawsuits, and other project-level activism that turns each building permit into its own little lawmaking exercise. A major pro-housing goal is to shift the system towards one that's more law-governed, where the requirements are written down in advance and a building that meets the requirements must be approved.
The accusation "NIMBY" does not even properly apply to a consistent, principled stance against development (that would be BANANA). It applies to e.g. people who agree in principle that a city needs apartment buildings, but grab onto any straw they can find to block the actual apartment building proposed on their block. San Francisco offers very many of these straws.
The democratic solution is to shift decision-making to larger polities (e.g. state government) where the balance of interests is different, where you can get people dealing with the system of housing in abstract rather than only about their own block. Scott Wiener has already had some successes with this approach and I think we will see more. See also several municipalities responding to the YIMBY push by eliminating their single-family zoning categories and allowing duplexes everywhere.
That system at city hall exists because the Mayor (elected) and Board of Supervisors (elected) wish it to be so, and they wish it to be so, so they stay elected.
All the measures you’re talking about are about point #3 - talking about housing abstractly so they don’t notice how it will impact them on their block, for instance, or shifting the ‘balance of interest’ to state wide so they don’t/can’t connect the laws they are voting for to their local impact.
It might work - locals will be angry when they figure it out though, and there will be a backlash.
The reality is, if the people living in San Francisco wanted development, they’d get it. If they don’t, you can try to trick, cajol, force, or ignore them until you get development - but don’t expect them to go along quietly.
This sort of “efficient markets” claim is fully general: you can use it to discourage any kind of activism. If voters wanted things to be a certain way, they would already be that way!
In practice we’re seeing engagement from people who weren’t previously engaged. NIMBYs are more loud and tenacious than they are numerous. Also support from people who perhaps thought (and perhaps still think) that developers are kind of slimy, but are now weighing housing supply effects as well. None of this was happening when only project sponsors and reactionaries cared.
Are activists making some inroads? Sure. Things change! The generation with the largest vested interest is dying out and the changes snuck in during the last election that neuters a lot of the longer term prop 13 issues is going to help with some of the transition. I’m looking forward to when it happens.
Until one of those 3 items I talk about happens though, it ain’t, and this is still hot air - I’ve been in California nearly 30 years, and this hasn’t changed yet. I’m hoping sometime before 50 it will, but I’m not holding my breath.
The accusation "NIMBY" does not even properly apply to a consistent, principled stance against development (that would be BANANA). It applies to e.g. people who agree in principle that a city needs apartment buildings, but grab onto any straw they can find to block the actual apartment building proposed on their block. San Francisco offers very many of these straws.
The democratic solution is to shift decision-making to larger polities (e.g. state government) where the balance of interests is different, where you can get people dealing with the system of housing in abstract rather than only about their own block. Scott Wiener has already had some successes with this approach and I think we will see more. See also several municipalities responding to the YIMBY push by eliminating their single-family zoning categories and allowing duplexes everywhere.