The slogan is "Yes in my backyard." But the people saying it don't have a backyard. They should not be coercing people with backyards and imposing their will.
If I live in SF, I have the right to vote in local elections, and I have the right to vote for people who represent my interests, regardless of whether I rent or own. If you're hoping for the ballot box to be restricted to homeowners, you're about 300 years too late.
It's more conversationally natural for me to refer to the yard adjoining my property as 'my backyard' than my landlord to (who likely has a yard of his own for which that is more semantically assonant).
That's technically wrong, the worst kind of wrong. If you rent a house, the backyard is owned by your landlord. Sure in casual conversation you will say "my backyard", but we're talking about ownership here.
And we're talking about how a (loose) organisation is branded, not the legal implications. The "backyard" in question is already one metaphor deep, for crying out loud.
This is like complaining that Amazon has little to do with the rainforest.
Jesus Christ, it's not literally referring to the backyard attached to your particular house. I can't believe I have to explain this, but "backyard" in this context means neighborhood.
That's a feature, not a bug. High cost is an efficient barrier to growth that exceeds the carrying capacity of the region.
California is suburban. Changing that will take decades. Cramming more people in to the Bay Area will not result in transit solutions springing up...these will take decades.
Don't forget that the State continues to have long term systemic issues providing water to current residents.
California is at 40 million now and I have no desire to see it reach 50 million. The Governor needs to start thinking about how many people we want here.
