I wasn't suggesting that I had four different rebuttals to your comment. I was saying that I didn't understand your comment because it seemed to hop from one argument to another, sometimes within the same sentence.
(3) and (4) aren't the same argument.
Argument (3) concedes that increasing housing supply in SF is a good thing, but that it can't happen because of political obstinacy. If you believe this, you're on the same page as I am, and we don't have much to debate.
Argument (4) suggests instead that increasing the housing supply of SF is a bad thing, because it's more important to retain the character of San Francisco than it is to accommodate people who want to live there.
There may be some argument (5) that I missed as well.
We remain in a place where I still don't understand your objection to my argument that San Francisco should resolve its housing problems by drastically increasing the supply of housing units.
Where we differ and where I was probably unclear is that I'm not arguing either for more housing or against more housing. I don't think that there is generally a good state or a bad state that exists independently of the desires of the voters of SF. So I don't think increased housing supply in SF will likely happen to any great degree because of "political obstinacy" but I don't have an opinion on whether that's a positive thing or a negative one. If I wanted to move there, I'd probably think it was a bad thing but would also acknowledge, it's not really my call.
Put another way, I don't consider growth to be a universal positive. I would certainly tend to vote against zoning changes that created more development in my semi-rural town.
(3) and (4) aren't the same argument.
Argument (3) concedes that increasing housing supply in SF is a good thing, but that it can't happen because of political obstinacy. If you believe this, you're on the same page as I am, and we don't have much to debate.
Argument (4) suggests instead that increasing the housing supply of SF is a bad thing, because it's more important to retain the character of San Francisco than it is to accommodate people who want to live there.
There may be some argument (5) that I missed as well.
We remain in a place where I still don't understand your objection to my argument that San Francisco should resolve its housing problems by drastically increasing the supply of housing units.