Not so. We have a societal obligation to ensure those who consume the "commons" share in the burden of its consumption. The BOS is as good a choice as any since it is democratically accountable. There is ample evidence of regulatory capture when accountability is lacking.
-
-
-
who is consuming more of the "commons" in SF? The single family homeowner on in St. Francis Wood, or the SOMA apartment dweller. Why does a buyer of a new condo have to effectively pay 20+% extra to fund affordable housing while the buyer of the St. Francis Wood mansion doesn't?
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
We should just let developers regulate themselves and decide what % of BMR units they would like to include. Somewhere around 0%
-
you realize that that whole reason we even have inclusionary is because existing home and property owners decided they didn't want to tax themselves to fund affordable housing? And so they probably pay close to or effectively 0% for BMR.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Perhaps citizens could fund a Housing Reserve, with a mandate to maintain regional affordability. What such a reserve would need to have a lot of is land. It would provide land to developers on 45 year leases, targeting certain numbers of units and unit types.
-
Politicians are simply not qualified to make the kinds of intricate, long-term macro-economic decisions necessary to regulate the money supply and housing supply.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
We knew this would happen.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'd support a state-wide agency that sets the inclusionary rates for every zipcode.
Thanks. 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.