Big Tech can't build housing units commensurate with their office growth unless the suburban peninsula govts, um, actually zone for and allow them to build midsize or large residential buildings. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ https://twitter.com/HowardKushlan/status/1103485357327212545 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
But also as
@emilymbadger pointed out earlier this year w/ Microsoft's $500M affordable housing loan for Seattle, it's not a single company's job to make up for the fact that the federal government spends 1/3 of what it used to on low-income housing.https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/18/upshot/microsoft-seattle-affordable-housing-plan.html …5 replies 15 retweets 70 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @emilymbadger
Good point. The federal (and state) retreat from housing and community development investments has been disastrous over the last 35+ years. So now the job falls almost entirely to local sources. Would be interesting to see how corporate tax rates have changed over same timeframe.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @pcohensf @emilymbadger
corporate taxes are not really ideally implemented at the municipal level, or else you end up in a regional race to the bottom, like w/ the Amazon HQ2 debacle.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @emilymbadger
Okay, let's make municipal taxation a debate for another thread. But the question here is what is today's federal corporate tax rates in comparison to 1975 during peak periods of federal investments? And years in between. Is there any correlation between those two trendlines?pic.twitter.com/VHZ3NbBfFP
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pcohensf @emilymbadger
I'm generally pro-progressive and corporate taxation at the federal level and state level (though a little more particular on design at the state level), and mostly anti-Reaganist... so are you trying to create a point of disagreement?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @pcohensf
Of all the current primary candidates, I'm probably closest (on a policy front) to Warren, in terms of exploring co-determination at the board level and re-investing in public/affordable housing at the federal level.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
but at the Palo Alto level, which is what this was originally about, I'm just trying to call out a bad faith argument for what it is -- which is that PA really struggles to zone for anything beyond single-family and has repeatedly killed low-income housing developments.
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.