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 …
-
-
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 -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
I’m open to talking about the policy and looking at the data honestly. Ive been consistent about that. We need to build housing.
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @MattHaneySF
Kim-Mai Cutler Retweeted Kim-Mai Cutler
I would look at this model and see if it's feasible in the U.S. Vancouver basically takes 75% of whatever the expected $$ increase in land value is when they upzone as a community contribution. But their approach means projects always pencil.https://twitter.com/kimmaicutler/status/1128480451604221958 …
Kim-Mai Cutler added,
Kim-Mai CutlerVerified account @kimmaicutlerReplying to @kimmaicutler @MattHaneySFI 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/Q9fjiPgAem2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @MattHaneySF
Another weird thing to look at is if people keep complaining about construction costs, how is Oakland, which should have the same regional labor/construction costs and lower rents, shipping 6K units this year, which is more than SF has done in decades?https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2019/01/03/these-are-the-biggest-oakland-housing-projects.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @MattHaneySF
When is the last time Oakland killed new housing because it would slightly shade a park in early evening?
0 replies 0 retweets 19 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Oakland went through a foreclosure crisis in 07-09 and projects didn’t really pencil until 2014. It’s just interesting they’re able to triple SF’s annual historical average with rents that are 2/3s of SF’s and the same construction costs.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @MattHaneySF
Another difference: Oakland sees new housing development as raising desperately needed city tax dollars; SF does not push new housing for its revenue potential.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 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.