Wow, this is incredible. Two neighboring suburbs, one blockbusted, segregated and disinvested for a half-century and the other among the most affluent cities in the entire country, having a joint city council meeting.https://twitter.com/Levitskyyy/status/1125788364324524034 …
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler
East Palo Alto has an unusually high number of vacant lots given its location. For a city whose residents are arguably feeling disproportionate pain due to housing costs, they've done shockingly little to encourage higher density in their own city.
7 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MikeFernandezCA
Are you from around there? In communities w similar demographics to EPA like Oakland, nothing pencilled it was financially feasible to build until 2014.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @MikeFernandezCA
Wasn’t feasible until 2014. About one third of the single family homes there went into foreclosure a decade ago
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
Haven't lived in the area since 2013. But agree on the "penciling" issue, which in my mind points to much bigger issues with construction costs in CA which make raw up-zoning not actually get to the heart of the problem.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MikeFernandezCA
Well yes and no. It’s not going to be the solution to produce new housing that is affordable to minimum wage workers; you need massive subsidy for that. However,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
There are lots of neighborhoods where we can’t even get the subsidized units to be feasible bc the density is too low for inclusionary policies to set in. Meanwhile federal/state credit/funding are trying to incentivize higher density to get more bang for the buck on taxpayer $$
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.