This is a good story worth reading and not as simple as the quoted tweet. The story references the transfer of public land to private developers as a reason many oppose it. Yeah I’ll wag my finger at the “overcrowding” nimbys but it sounds like more involved this time.https://twitter.com/kimmaicutler/status/1140742014809432065 …
-
-
I didn’t understand the mix of traditional and non-profit developers. Thanks for drawing my attention to it; I see that now I don’t have the answer on this one and didn’t mean to sound like I’m against it. Just that there seemed to be more going on than traffic/crowd complaints.
-
Because one set of housing cross-subsidizes the below market rate housing so that the city/taxpayers do not have to spend an additional $200M, especially at a time when the trust fund is running low.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
If you want to do 100% affordable, you have to have like $300K/unit in *local* taxpayer dollars to do it, which in the story is like $200M for this project alone.
-
City funding is basically almost out for the short term. https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/SF-s-affordable-housing-projects-hit-hard-by-13621283.php …
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.