[eschaton]

While I understand the historic roots of the belief that allowing multi-family zoning lowers property values, I am not sure there's any evidence to suggest this is the case - when talking about market-rate development anyway.

I mean, look at it this way: Real estate is an asset, and zoning constrains what can be done with that asset. If the square footage your home is on could also be used to build a wider number of things (a larger home, a mini-apartment building with 6 renters, consolidated as part of a larger acquisition for a new mixed-rate development, etc.) you will come out with more money in the end. Indeed, typically when developers are assembling a parcel for development they will buy out owners at many multiples of market prices.

I'd also say that the fact that the bay area has a sizable number of unrelated/not dating people co-renting a home (like, individuals with near six-figure salaries each renting a single bedroom in a common home) shows the market is distorted. Typically you only see things like this in college towns, where it is - once again - a sign that the market is distorted and not enough multi-family is being built.