The YIMBY versus NIMBY debate rages on in San Francisco, and as is the case in American political debate, neither side is willing to develop a nuanced position or find a practical compromise.

Does San Francisco have a housing crisis?  Certainly, there is a homeless crisis, and there is crisis of affordability. The later, at least, is partly the result of geography. San Francisco is not Austin, Houston, or Tokyo, despite how loudly the YIMBY side insists on the comparison. We have limited land, they do not. Developers and their politician friends cannot solve the geography problem — the amount of land is fixed, limiting how affordable property can realistically get.

Moreover, building high-rises and apartment buildings in high-demand areas does not magically result in affordable housing. Manhattan is some of the most dense, developed lands in the country and also the most expensive. Keep this in mind when developers and their allies make the absurd claim that, in order to solve the problem of homelessness, building regulations and codes such as height restrictions must be eliminated.

The homeless cannot afford a tent, let alone a condo, and despite the construction of high-rises and condos all over the Bay Area for decades, prices continue to rise. At the time of this writing, the city has thousands of vacant condos for rent and for sale. Still, the homeless remain homeless, and housing costs remain astronomical.

What then, should we do? One obvious solution would be to lower property taxes. This would ease some of the burden on property owners and potentially renters. Property taxes (the amount, not the rate) are among the highest in the country.

City Hall, however, has no interest in lowering property taxes, as Democrats desperately need the revenue to fund their failed social experiments (Republicans, on the other hand, would lower taxes and eliminate many of these failed programs).

Yet another solution would be to limit or outright ban foreign investments on city property, as Vancouver has done. This should be on the table for San Francisco. Property in San Francisco is often scooped up by foreign investors looking to diversify their assets. Real estate developers and the city have no problem with this, as long the property taxes are collected.

What else can be done? We must also, of course, build more housing, but smartly, and with restrictions, and without erasing the city’s heritage and beauty.

What makes San Francisco a destination for tourists, nomads, and transplants, is largely her architecture and natural beauty. The ornate Victorian and Edwardian single-family homes (which were restored and maintained by the gay community originally), are treasures that must be conserved, and also guide and inform new construction. They make the city beautiful, and positively affect the mental health of San Franciscans — beauty, after all, makes one feel good.

We envision a new architectural style, one that re-envisions these highly ornamental, decorative styles, incorporating their design language in new constructions.

San Francisco is also unique in her hybridization of wilderness and urban spaces, exemplified by Golden Gate Park, the Presidio, Ocean Beach, and her flora and fauna. As conservatives, we believe in conserving the architectural and wilderness heritage of San Francisco.

Height and density restrictions, as well protections on historical buildings and land-use, will ensure that San Francisco continues to be one of the the most beautiful cities in the world and a destination. If these aspects of the city are not conserved, the city’s economy and uniqueness will decline, fast.

We need to build, yes, but we must not simply remove development restrictions. Why do we have height, density and historical restrictions in the first place? Before you tear down a fence, you should understand its purpose, so the saying goes. Height restrictions allow for equitable access to the most precious commodity of all — sunshine and peace. Sunshine and quiet make people happy, and affect mental health. Density restrictions limit traffic, and in an earthquake, can make the difference between life and death.

Constructing giant, dense towers surrounding Golden Gate Park, as many YIMBYs have suggested, will not only prevent future generations from experiencing what is perhaps the world’s only urban wilderness, but will also have an environmental and health impact on San Franciscans, both human and animal. Wild spaces, with wild sounds and wildlife, positively affect and improve mental health. Unchecked development will disturb the equilibrium Golden Gate Park provides, erasing its mental health benefits, and will also make it impossible for its flora and fauna to thrive. Furthermore, during the covid pandemic, the population density of high-rises in New York tragically contributed to high covid infection rates, while San Francisco was spared such a tragedy. Density, then, in more ways than one, affects mental and physical well-being.

Golden Gate Park must be radically protected, as any precious resource should, and access to it must be equitable rather than reserved to the highest bidder (do not fool yourself, if building restrictions are lifted, luxury condos right next to or within the park will be built, and they will not be affordable).

As Republicans and Conservatives, we believe is it our duty to preserve and conserve not only San Francisco’s cultural heritage, but also what makes people and the environment healthy and happy, and this includes height, density and land-use restrictions.