There are tens of thousands of jobs being created, but very few new units of affordable housing that can house that workforce. By updating this fee, we can create more balance, and get thousands of seniors, formerly homeless people, and low wage workers into stable housing
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @MattHaneySF
Yeah, I wonder what happened there. I wonder if your predecessor maybe had something to do with maybe shortening the entire construction cycle prematurely by misleading voters about what was feasible. https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/07/10/sf-planning-chief-development-boom-housing-crisis.html …pic.twitter.com/7gMrwRHWs4
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
Are you referring to this law raising inclusionary housing requirements: https://hoodline.com/2017/07/city-sets-higher-affordable-housing-requirements-for-new-developments … It was an 11-0 vote. London Breed was the lead sponsor of the legislation, she’s quoted here saying it was a “consensus agreement”
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MattHaneySF
Because who was going to vote against something like that? It's like giving U.S. Congress control of interest rates and not expecting them to always have super low rates that juice the economy but create longer-term structural problems.
3 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
I just wanted to clarify that everyone was for it, and that Supervisor Breed at the time was the lead sponsor, and called it a “major step today towards a more livable and diverse San Francisco for all income levels.”
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MattHaneySF
That vote actually lowered the rate from the 25% figure that your predecessor pulled out of thin air to sound good during her campaign.https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/05/18/sf-affordable-housing-compromise-development.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @MattHaneySF
She also frequently misled people that 40% was the new 30% when rates were actually cross-subsidized by more office, which aggravates jobs-housing balance: https://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/how-supervisor-kims-new-affordability-law-lets-developers-the-hook …
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @MattHaneySF
From 2017 to 2018, inclusionary fees meant to fund affordable housing dropped by 50%. Guess what SF planning chief John Rahaim said? https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/07/10/sf-planning-chief-development-boom-housing-crisis.html …pic.twitter.com/jDhvyzYqc8
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
Have you brought this up with the ordinance’s lead sponsor? Is she for revisiting the law and lowering the inclusionary rates?
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @MattHaneySF
I'm bringing it up with you. I think the politics/optics are really hard, for obvious reasons. It's a thing we signed ourselves up for and basically we're in a situation where things aren't going to move for awhile (and we'll still have a debilitating affordability crisis).
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes
I might look at Vancouver's model where it's calculated as a percentage of how much the land value is expected to rise per project, so you get your percentage (whatever that may be) but the project always pencils. Ask @BrentToderian about it. Think they aim for 75% of land lift.pic.twitter.com/Q9fjiPgAem
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.