It’s an interesting proposition, but if wealthy private citizens started unilaterally building homes for homeless, wouldn’t that also create a backlash from public bc the wealthy are “working outside the system of government,” etc.?
-
-
Replying to @SamJ_Coffman @AdeleGermane and
I think there are trade offs for more wealth moving into a city - asset values are going to appreciate due to high demand. To me, combating this problem is an issue for city government to fix. It sounds like affordable middle class housing is what is getting squeezed the most..
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SamJ_Coffman @AdeleGermane and
...so young professionals are overpaying for rooms in cheaper and cheaper housing, putting downward pressure on less wealthy people who have less housing options. The solution is obviously density... mid rise buildings (not exceeding 4-5 floors), with walkable urban planning.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SamJ_Coffman @AdeleGermane and
Paris is a great example of a densely populated city with beautiful architecture and urban design that is scalable to human mobility (ie mostly walking)...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SamJ_Coffman @AdeleGermane and
If there’s one policy I think wealthy people could do that makes sense, it’s providing money for grants for city officials to travel across the world and see non car centric urban planning - literally go see it and experience it for 3-4 weeks per year to get a different view.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SamJ_Coffman @AdeleGermane and
Democratic Party has full@control of the government in SF and the Bay Area, from the state government all@the way down to the municipal government. They could enact whatever las they want, yet they haven’t done anything constructive to solve the housing problem to date.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SamJ_Coffman @AdeleGermane and
Ultimately, housing and public services are the responsibility of elected officials who represent their voters. So imo this is a dynamic issue that requires dynamic solutions, not something the wealthy can just solve on their own....
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SamJ_Coffman @AdeleGermane and
...sure you could take more money from the wealthy, but they’ll just move away, and then the city is less wealthy and can’t pay its bills. I have no idea what the relationship is between city council and wealthy citizens inside the city, but it seems extremely antagonistic..
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SamJ_Coffman @AdeleGermane and
..and lacking trust from both parties. That’s an issue that needs to be addressed, so everyone is moving towards a unified goal if you really do want wealthy citizens to take on more burden.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Wealthy citizens can fund solutions. No one should have to convince them to help their own city. Marc Benioff is such a billionaire. He has advocated for funding for projects around homelessness. Just imagine if all the other billionaires did the same. Problem solved.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Maybe - but I think competent planning and policy is more important than simple allocation of capital. Lots of cash and poor planning = corruption. Laws and regulations make it complicated to build new buildings. And many of those rules protect a narrow field of constituents.
-
-
There is truth to what you say. You definitely think through these issues with care. I don't know exactly what all the right answers are. But if a city has the most billionaires of any other in the world, the uber-rich can certainly do better than they are currently doing in SF.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.