Finate,
Totally agree. Everything in life sort of "depends" so I completely understand that due to circumstances, the outskirts are where people "have" to move to. I keep saying theoretically, because there are 300k+ residents in Stockton and it's not realistic for no one to live there. I do remain firm that these cities are "bad" in that their infrastructure, air, schools, crime, etc. are "bad" enough that no one should theoretically live there. I think you are saying it's nuanced because you are MMM and able to make things work where others may not, but again this is because of your privilege of what you already know.
Of course there are counter examples like yours of someone making 100K in tech and can work part time from home or someone who has aging family. These are outliers and not helpful (and they have a ton of better options than Stockton). The truth is, overwhelming majority of 300K are working poor who have never left CA because they think life sucks elsewhere. These are the folks who are trapped in a rat race designed for them to lose. Every known measure confirms this including quality of life scores, school grades, opportunities, homeless & incarceration rates, and more. The irony as you mentioned is that they can enjoy a higher quality of life, just about anywhere else (but don't have the information or tools). I think it's outright wrong for you to say it's "nuanced." There is nothing nuanced about the realities of people who commute 2.5 hours each way to work (again, tech folks don't live in Stockton) leaving their kids in underfunded kindergarten classes with 35+ students with one teacher. All to live pay check to pay check or worse be in crippling debt.
If you must stay close to SF, then there are many, many locations including Sacramento, Lodi, Vallejo, Concord, Martinez, Santa Rosa, etc. Again, Stockton should not be an option when there are so many better choices.
As you and I know, they can own a home, send their children to great schools, not be losing a rat race if they just look out of state, even if they are earning low wages.
I also question if you anyone is truly YIMBY. Personally, I think I am neither NIMBY or YIMBY. As in all things, it depends. I have a hard time believing someone who purchases a home with a yard, who uses the yard for play or garden, would be happy/welcome a 20 story apartment complex (or even a 2-4 story) built right next to you. Now you have no sun and no parking and 2+ years of construction noise all day. Now your school is over populated and there is traffic on your block and forget the peace/noise you were used to. Or how about a demolition of your neighbor's home and a small sized homeless shelter to be constructed next to you? I think it's human nature to not want these even if you mean well. IMO, people are YIMBY until it happens to them.
As mentioned, a city can only grow so much before it gets overwhelmed. I too love the idea that everyone is welcome in the bay are, but I also realize, it's not realistic.
Dang 1,
Welcome and thanks for your input. My only gripe is that all new housing in bay area are high risers. Majority of them studios or 1 bedrooms as there are no more space for SFHs. The studios and 1 bedrooms are built over 3 bedrooms because of the bottom line/profit. I know Seattle built gazillion of these apt/condos, but they only attracted singles and tech employees. If we really want diversity, we need to design more homes for families and I'm not sure that's even possible.