your candidate touted 40% affordability rates... that really were a couple hundred BMR units predicated on approving millions of sq ft of office space or thousands of more high-income workers that would've had nowhere to live & would've displaced more people into homelessness
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @czernobro
I'm intrigued to hear that millions of sq ft of office space is a bad thing.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tbreisacher @czernobro
millions of sq ft of office space without matching housing supply is a bad thing. That is what Bay Area municipalities have been doing for decades.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
I think I've been fairly clear and repetitive for several years at this point that I want a new consensus, which is unapologetically about approving a lot more of all kinds of housing and is also not about criminalizing people without housing. No single party offers this.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
so if I get one part of what I want, I am happy to hold whoever is in power accountable for the other part.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Progressives are actually not all that great about homelessness either. They spent the last two election cycles campaigning against or deliberately not endorsing measures that would've raised more $50-70M more in funding per year for homelessness.
0 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Jane getting 841 BMR units on 2 million square feet of office space (or 13,000 tech workers' of office space), or approving 40,000-50,000 jobs with 7,000 housing units also effectively creates regional homelessness.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @czernobro @tbreisacher
“... if we got housing with it” you literally said the conditional I care about.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of 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.