Yeah, I'm no lawyer, but there are many many cases of court orders leading what would otherwise be monumentally long legislative actions. Slavery, voting rights, eminent domain, asset forfeiture, and tons of others.
Housing isn't in the bill of rights directly, but equal protection is.
Basically, SF housing comes down to a battle of:
- I have a right to defend my housing equity/wealth (currently winning and will continue to win legislatively because the money is here)
- I have a right to a house (the moral choice, but far and away the less-monied, and therefore zero chance of legislative redress)
It isn't just SF, this is fundamentally a generational war across the entire US, practically everywhere.
It’s more a fight between “I want my area to stay the same” and “I want to develop my property” - those wanting housing have effectively no say at all.
> those wanting housing have effectively no say at all.
One of the points that William Fischel makes in Zoning Rules! is that when a developer responds to the profit motive from the market, he is representing the interests of future tenants who need housing. Conversely, when San Francisco Leftists oppose developments because they oppose developers making a profit, they are unwittingly opposing the interests of future tenants. This is part of what makes housing in San Francisco such an unsolved problem: those who claim to represent tenants seeking affordable housing (such as the trade group CCHO) actively fight private development.
Housing isn't in the bill of rights directly, but equal protection is.
Basically, SF housing comes down to a battle of:
- I have a right to defend my housing equity/wealth (currently winning and will continue to win legislatively because the money is here)
- I have a right to a house (the moral choice, but far and away the less-monied, and therefore zero chance of legislative redress)
It isn't just SF, this is fundamentally a generational war across the entire US, practically everywhere.