With a moderate density like 40du/acre, that amounts to about $130,000 in land cost per unit, which is not so bad!

even at our grossly inflated land costs, simply allowing density throughout the Bay Area would enable much more housing affordability, allow more transit, and reduce our emissions and enhance our social contact. But a side benefit of broad legalization of density would be that those land costs would drop dramatically too, as there would be a much greater supply.

California cities like Atherton, Woodside, Bradbury, San Marino, etc. are bad metrics to use for anything approaching affordable housing.

It just highlights the craziness of the area and zoning rules

There's also the matter of cause and effect

- Is it a desirable location, and the zoning laws cause the prices to skyrocket because not all the people that want to live there can

- Is it desirable because the zoning laws make sure it's a certain type of environment, and the desirability is what causes the price to increase

- Is it a combination of the two.

I think any reasonable person would say it's a combination of the two. And removing the zoning laws would both make it less desirable _and_ lower the price of housing. It would not leave it just as desirable, but with more people living there.

that's about 90 apartment units, or ~ $60k/unit in land cost...

Currently atherton zones only allow one family house per acre (with this change you could convert it into flats now though!)

No doubt the $5.2MM anticipated the zoning changes. No one would be stupid enough to sell property based on the law today if you knew it was going to change tomorrow.

Atherton is the Beverley Hills of Northern California.

But think about the aesthetics!!!! /s