BraveSirZaphod , 11 months ago

Only a third of those are in the 'other vacant' category that represents housing that's not being used for any purpose. The other two-thirds are currently for rent or sale, have completed that transaction and are awaiting actual occupation, or are seasonally used.

I wouldn't be opposed to a tax on season homeownership, but that's only 10,000 units a city of 800,000.

The real question to ask is why the hell is it literally illegal to build anything other than a single-family home in 38% percent of the city's land, nearly two-thirds of land zoned for residential purpose?

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/sf-map-single-family-homes-17699820.php

Sure, snapping your fingers and making those ~30,000 units come on to the market would have a small effect, but it pales in comparison to how much supply could be added if such a huge chunk of the land wasn't legally mandated to be single-family homes.