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 …
-
-
Replying to @zackstern
You mean to non-profit developers including Mission Housing, Bridge, etc.?https://missionhousing.org/mhdc_project_type/balboa-reservoir/ …
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zackstern
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @zackstern
And then if you want to do middle-income Housing, you basically can’t use state or federal funding bc they have conditions that the units have to be below 60-80% Area median income.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
So you have to use local taxpayer dollars, which is hard to optically justify bc you’d be taking away $$ for low/very low income to shift to middle-income, or you have to use market-rate to cross subsidize middle income.
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.