NIMBY is a huge problem in parts of California and other states, and it's one of the factors that makes housing so scarce.
Exactly.
In most places, developers can build up to what a location is zoned for. In SF, everything requires neighborhood approval, which quickly devolves to political approval.
Here in SF, the building regulations and political rancor surrounding development are so severe that we added fewer than 300 housing units per year for a long while, all while the economy expanded.
The new political balance on the Board of Supervisors is pro-development, so cranes have been popping up all over. If things continue on the current path, the number of housing units in San Francisco will increase by over 10% across the next 7 years.
However, for this upcoming election, SF's only contested race is a blast-from-the-past anti-development guy against a slightly weak pro-development Supervisor. If the balance of power on the Board of Supervisors changes, anti-development is in again.
One more note: Economists keep saying that rich homeowners keep development out in order to inflate their property values. That's not the case in the bay area. Here, representatives of poor people (or folks who claim to be so) oppose new housing on the theory that rich people would move into it.
Then all the poor people get priced out. So the activists get more admant that there be no new housing, lest rich people move in. Vicious cycle.
Know what else is on the ballot this time? A ban on new housing in one of SF's most popular neighborhoods. Sigh.