as noted, many of the objections to 827 are actually being discussed as amendments to 50. but at the time, the people responsible for pushing the changes you see in SB50 today were lambasted with the exact same arguments made in this thread, and by the same people.
-
-
Replying to @uhshanti @kimmaicutler and
a scant year ago, the SAME people saying "well there are sensitive community exemptions in this!" were screaming AT *the people asking for sensitive community exemptions* for doing so, claiming the prior version had sufficient protections, and calling them NIMBYs.
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @uhshanti @kimmaicutler and
not to throw another match in the gas tank, but the 2 points in Mar's resolution about sensitive community exemptions being temporary and value capture/density bonus questions, are also in the concern letter of the 55 orgs, many of whom are working with Wiener's office on changes
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @uhshanti @kimmaicutler and
and also a third point: enforcement of the demolition provisions. people are in dialogue with Wiener's office and we'll see what comes out of that! but I don't see the "oppose unless amended" text of this resolution to be as outrageous as SB50 Twitter is making it
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @uhshanti @kimmaicutler and
to conclude this diatribe: I personally find it really disappointing that SB50 Twitter ALREADY appears to be washing its hands of the open questions coming out of a negotiation and amendment process between the senator and equity groups.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @uhshanti @kimmaicutler and
reinforcing the perception (right or wrong) that SB50 folks are invested in making the minimum possible change to the bill, regardless of how communities may be harmed. they listened last time only when forced; they seem uninterested in convincing us they'll do otherwise now
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @SanFranciscoJim @kimmaicutler and
I think that's a pretty reductive way of looking at the greater question between the housing that the disenfranchised need versus what is being proposed (and, in other places, blocked), but I don't believe you're malicious. I think you're just not listening.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @uhshanti @SanFranciscoJim and
some people actually get evicted from gentrifying areas, can't afford new housing in the neighborhood, and don't have any power to change things. a lot of people, actually. maybe you don't have to experience the sheer daily scale of that in your advocacy, but a lot of us do.
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @uhshanti @SanFranciscoJim and
it's not just market forces or whatever. it's that new richer people move into gentrifying areas and proceed to call the police on the POC who have lived there. RIP Alex Nieto. That is the mechanism by which putting housing for the rich in poor neighborhoods causes displacement.
3 replies 1 retweet 2 likes
that happened without Bernal actually building any housing.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @natogreen and
it’s a pernicious assumption that redlined neighborhoods aren’t devalued and revalued on race and class lines deliberately by capital. it’s a pernicious outlook to criticize the people organizing to change that.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 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.