You can always count on SF to approve one of the largest business taxes in recent memory to address homelessness and then not be able to spend it because no one actually wants services or beds in their backyard.https://twitter.com/DominicFracassa/status/1105691943051321345 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler
@kimmaicutler disregarding NIMBY bs, there’s another great reason to build somewhere else. That land is so insanely valuable they’d could sell it to a developer and use the proceeds to build a far larger center in a less expensive area. It’s not about NIMBYism but ROI.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler
Unless it’s owned by the port authority or something and being gifted to the city below market. I have no idea what the ownership structure is. I just know that it’s a massively inefficient use of very valuable land
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @maxcan
Is it? We have king tides regularly flooding the Embarcadero multiple times every year and this is before climate change-induced sea level rise.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
If I’m wrong and the land isn’t as valuable as I imagine then I completely support building the nav center. I just don’t believe that the land in question is anything but insanely valuable.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The land is valuable; it’s also insanely expensive to retrofit considering sea level rise and the currently seismically unsafe seawall.
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.