Very candid assessment of the facts of Prop C @OurHomeSF potential to deepen & build on existing SF work to combat homelessness & mental health crisis -plus challenge of opposition misinformation. Credit to @hknightsf for not letting go of this bone! #VOTEhttps://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Puzzling-logic-in-arguments-against-tax-on-big-13337931.php …
-
-
... but your faction hasn’t put any funding measures for homelessness on the ballot for as long as I can remember. Every option like the commercial rent tax, transfer tax, etc. was always allocated for other priorities and you voted against putting J/K on the ballot.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @AaronPeskin and
Hmm.. what was 2016 Prop C which allocated $260.7 in bond funds to the rehabilitation of buildings for conversion to affordable housing?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LeeHepner @AaronPeskin and
Oh you mean the thing that, in addition to increased construction costs, made lots of potential housing units infeasible to produce?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @AaronPeskin and
Well, I’ll give you that awful take on June 2016 Prop C, which, as you well know, was followed by an impartial feasibility study and trailing legislation. But no. I’m talking about Nov 2016 Prop C, the affordable housing bond reallocation.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @LeeHepner @AaronPeskin and
You know that dedicating affordable housing funding and funding specifically for homelessness are interrelated but different things right? Does that money go to
@sf_hsh or services, mental health or rapid re-housing?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @LeeHepner and
The point is, the Coalition, which is behind the current Prop C, would’ve loved to see those other revenue sources like commercial rent tax or transfer tax go specifically toward homelessness but Progressives always had other priorities.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @AaronPeskin and
I’m not sure your point in pitting affordable housing and homelessness against each other but to double down on your first stab in spite of its being incorrect. To be clear, 70% of ppl experiencing homelessness used to be housed here. It absolutely is about affordable housing.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Do you think that the city’s 6,000 permanent supportive housing units should be under a single homelessness department or do you think all BMRs, PSH, public housing units, etc should be under a single dept focused on affordable housing instead?
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.