It cost the San Francisco city government $323,071 to acquire or rehab a single affordable housing unit last year. Not build new, because that’s more expensive, but just acquire and rehab. 83,733 very low- to low-income households applied for 1,025 rentals in 2017.https://twitter.com/apmortgagemarin/status/1004728516922040321 …
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler
It's amazing to think that as recently as the 70s, San Francisco was building enough public housing to satisfy all demand.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bedwardstiek
Is this an ironic statement? There was a massive federal effort to move the middle and upper-middle-class away from cities, thereby depressing real estate values and the wealth of those left behind in cities.
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @bedwardstiek
I thought a large part of the problem is affluent professionals moving back to the cities and driving up housing prices, forcing out people who rented while cities were cheap.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JamesPhipps @kimmaicutler
There's definitely been a generational shift in affluent peoples' preferences for suburban vs. urban living, but rents are even higher in many of Silicon Valley's suburban tech cities than in core urban areas like San Francisco and Oakland.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
The issue is *all* cities face an incentive structure that rewards building office and commercial, but not building housing. The worst imbalances here come from suburbs that greenlight corporate campuses without allowing housing for the people who work in them.
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
That leaves tech workers in, say, Menlo Park, looking for places to live -- hello, Mission District! Their long commutes clog the roads and trains. Tech employers respond by setting up private shuttle services. The convenience of the shuttles draws more tech workers . . .
3 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Voila!--you've got a gentrification machine turning a San Francisco neighborhood near the freeway into a bedroom community for Menlo Park. MP homeowners get rich. SF renters get evicted. SF govt gets the tab for providing services to the ones that land on the streets.
3 replies 2 retweets 10 likes -
And San Francisco, in this scenario, doesn't get higher property taxes from the apartments that are suddenly being rented out for 5x what people used to pay, because prop 13. But it does need to spend more money on services. So where does it turn for the money?
4 replies 2 retweets 14 likes -
More offices. (San Francisco taxes payrolls and gross receipts of large companies).
2 replies 1 retweet 8 likes
this is one of the ironies of taxation... when you tax an entity with the underlying goal being to redistribute more of its wealth/wealth creation, your entire system also becomes more structurally dependent on said destructive entities.
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.