I didn't downvote you, and I'm not offended, but I sure as hell rolled my eyes at your comment.

Nobody in a city deserves their own yard. Public parks where everyone can BBQ make far more sense. Want a dog? Move to Montana, or get a housecat instead.

You seem to want sprawl; cities need density.

Thanks. But what are we defining as cities? Are suburbs included? Where are suburbs allowed to remain, as we force zoning shifts to high density?

The YIMBY movement is strong throughout the Penninsula, between SF to San Jose -- areas previously considered suburbs.

Clearly a 5000 sq ft lot is unacceptable in SF, but where _is_ it acceptable? San Bruno? Menlo Park? Mountain View? Sunnyvale? Pleasanton? Oakland? And for how long?

The article is talking about State laws. Presumably they would apply to all cities, not just SF.

Cities area already defined. Yes suburbs are included. They should allowed to remain as long as it's economically viable to do so.

If you're neighbors want to sell for $10MM each to a developer who wants to build an apartment, they should be allowed to. If your other neighbor wants to tear down their house and build a duplex and rent the other out, they should be allowed to. If you want to keep your dog and bbq, you should be allowed to.

The general idea is to allow people the ability to extract the wealth from their property. It's possible that they are "drinking your milkshake" by extracting wealth from surrounding properties too. But everyone was given the same opportunity.

The problem exists in the suburbs, too. Everywhere from San Bruno down to santa clara.

You are twisting what people want to do. I don't think the goal is to force people out of the homes they own, but to allow property owners to build on the property what the property owner wants to build. If that ends up being a condo or apartment complex where there used to be houses, that is the choice of the property owner.