Unfortunately, you don't give me much to go off here. I consider myself somewhat moderate where it comes to regulation, though that's probably because, as a programmer who hangs out on HN, I interact with a very tech-ish libertarian crowd. In short, I do see an important role for regulation of industry, housing, and so forth. I also do tend to agree that a lot of regulations are onerous and harmful, but I don't nod in agreement when someone simply says "government" or "regulation", as if the problem has now been adequately identified and analyzed. I do prefer that people actually explain what regulations caused this problem and how, and consider what problems might exist in the absence of regulation.
So… if you are pointing out that SF has caused a problem with anti-grown measures, I'd generally agree. If you are pointing out that that peninsula towns have contributed to this problem, I'd overwhelming agree, the behavior from places like Mountain View has been pretty shocking.
On the other hand, if you are telling me that zoning is obsolete and that the concept of residential neighborhoods in urban areas, where residents of some neighborhoods trade their right to run a hotel out of their house in exchange for for a legally enforced expectation that they won't have to live next to a house suddenly converted into a hotel - if you're telling me that regulation is the problem, then it's unlikely I'd agree with you, though I am all ears.
Do you know that adage that goes: "... then they say, I know, I'll use a regexp. And then they have two problems."
It's regulation that got SF into this problem.