An entire committee of non-profit and market-Rate developers studied that issue for a year and found that 25%, which was an arbitrary number she picked because it sounded good, wasn’t actually feasible. http://sfcontroller.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Economic%20Analysis/Final%20Inclusionary%20Housing%20Report%20February%202017.pdf …
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @daniscoville and
The proposal, in addition to rising construction costs, contributed to new proposals falling to a six-year low so now that production is going to fall to half of what it was in the last few years, rents will probably be rising again barring a recessionhttp://www.socketsite.com/archives/2018/05/proposed-development-in-san-francisco-tracking-a-six-year-low.html …
2 replies 5 retweets 58 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @daniscoville and
Breed also tried to skew sub-quotas of the overall percentage away from low-income levels and toward moderate ones, basically robbing Peter to pay Paul.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @uhshanti @daniscoville and
low-income and very low-income subsidies come from dedicated federal programs. There are no such programs that subsidize moderate income, so it falls to the city to take it upon itself, if it wants to do that.
2 replies 1 retweet 24 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @uhshanti and
If you only want a city of VLI, LI and market-rate, then go do that. That's been prog standard for decades. So *shruggie*
2 replies 0 retweets 20 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @uhshanti and
Maybe we shouldn't have the legislative branch arbitrarily raising or lowering inclusionary rates for political theater, just like we don't have Congress raising or lowering interest rates whenever it's electorally convenient. Maybe minimum wage should also be indexed to CPI!pic.twitter.com/AfrVNxkaN7
3 replies 1 retweet 37 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @daniscoville and
then come up with a formula for IZ and propose it! not to have this discussion like 1000 times but no one on the pro-housing camp showed up in support of EITHER proposal besides one person saying "we need more studies" after studies had already been done.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @uhshanti @kimmaicutler and
and by the way, I have problems with IZ too, but people are suffering now and they see it as relief. it's VERY popular citywide according to some local polling I've seen. the thing about having an idea is that you have to sell it
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @daniscoville and
cool storypic.twitter.com/tgsR7IPA75
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You said you had problems with IZ. I think mixed-income zoning is good as long as electeds are honest about its limitations — which they are not.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @daniscoville and
of course there are limitations, but IZ is a tradeoff. Different people have different policy preferences about that tradeoff. A lot of people felt 5,903 LI units was worth the decrease in MR units considering SF overproducing above-moderate and underproducing below per RHNA.pic.twitter.com/G05YSuwLuI
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @uhshanti @kimmaicutler and
in:re "25% of 0 is 0", this analysis doesn't bear out that lower IZ in this range leads to more BMR units. incidentally, developers weren't exactly up in arms about Prop C, because the proponents grandfathered in a ton of projects.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 4 more replies
New conversation -
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.