I’m double quote tweeting this because the rational response to “we need the market to keep roaring and misallocating to the top end in SF to get $$$ for subsidized housing” is “let’s unlink their dependence” FFShttps://twitter.com/LondonBreed/status/1096804473333178368 …
-
Show this thread
-
“inclusionary zoning was a mistake because it cut into fee-out money” LEARN TO ASK FOR BARE BONES SOCIAL DEMOCRACY FROM YOUR SOCIETY. start organizing instead of blathering on “25% of 0 is 0”, that logic is legitimately why we have no welfare state anymore
3 replies 1 retweet 27 likesShow this thread -
“well listen if you ask for mustard on this poop sandwich then we won’t be able to have bread” is not the correct response. the correct question is “why do we have to eat a poop sandwich?” and the correct answer is “organize so you don’t have to fight over a poop sandwich”
1 reply 4 retweets 30 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @uhshanti
She is running another affordable housing bond, which is not a cyclical source of capital, FYI.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
the proposal is to reschedule other bonds so as to avoid the dreaded raising of property taxes, no?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @uhshanti
There’s that, um, state thing in our state Constitution that prevents changing our property taxes tho (which is why we’re doing split roll in 2020.)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
so this is what baffled me. maybe you can explain this, but I know when Jane Kim proposed a $1B bond Breed specifically put out campaign mailers suggesting homeowners’ property taxes would go up
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @uhshanti @kimmaicutler
bond payments are usually attached to property tax bills, right? seems like a reasonable slippage between "your rate of assessment will go up" (unconstitutional) and "the amount you pay when you pay your property taxes will go up" (s.o.p.)
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Unclear whether it would actually pass. Before state Supreme Court uncertainty about majority or super majority, Ed Lee shied away from anything larger than $300M because he didn’t think it would win two thirds. Prop C $$ currently in this purgatory.
-
-
If you did a citizens thing w signatures them maybe the approval threshold is arguably lower and you can pressure the bond amount to be higher.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.