What's determining the "200" here? Could you get this up to say, 2,000, if you allow for further cross-subsidization, even if that involves non-educators making more than 160% AMI?
-
-
Replying to @bufordsharkley @MattHaneySF and
Also, how many educators are making 160 AMI%? That seems (tragically!) rare, given how AMI is increasingly being determined by tech salaries
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @bufordsharkley @JDBonabike and
It’s household. About 196k. Not that rare. Some teAchers make 95k and have a spouse that makes 100k. This would also include principals, administrators and city college faculty, who could definitely be in households at that level.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @MattHaneySF @bufordsharkley and
But these teachers are not really in need of dedicated affordable housing. Why build it? Why not just let anyone rent it and use the money to fund the more deeply-affordable housing for teachers who truly need it?
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @A_p_walker @MattHaneySF and
This is a really good point. Is it a clear goal of the project to create housing that's only occupied by teachers, for its own sake, or is this negotiable? (To be honest, I think it's honestly a bit weird to have everybody in a building have the same profession)
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @bufordsharkley @MattHaneySF and
I agree. I take back my criticism of this proposal as purism--instead, it's more form over substance. Rather than using market-rate rents to support affordable housing for teachers, it's using higher rents from higher-income teachers to support affordable housing.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @A_p_walker @bufordsharkley and
This allows the proponents to claim that they are supporting only "100% affordable housing for teachers," but the end result is something that's basically the same as using 33% market-rate but much more kludgy (because only a select group can rent the more expensive units).
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @A_p_walker @MattHaneySF and
That's rather cynical (if only because it presumes that the public is innumerate enough to care more about "100% teacher" branding, rather than the reality of helping as many teachers who need help as we can) Cynical, but I fear correct
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bufordsharkley @A_p_walker and
I’m not sure a cross subsidized market rate approach actually helps more teachers in this case, as opposed to subsidizing with higher income educator households. I don’t think that it does, especially because both approaches require some public subsidy.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MattHaneySF @bufordsharkley and
Based on other comparable scenarios, I look forward to you justifying shifting extremely limited public dollars away from very low/low income units (which we only raise once every 5+ yrs in bonds) toward middle-income housing to achieve ideological purity http://default.sfplanning.org/plans-and-programs/planning-for-the-city/public-sites/balboareservoir_CAC_Presentation_MOHCD-031416_FINAL.pdf …pic.twitter.com/eEFZoa5MT6
3 replies 0 retweets 15 likes
It costs a *lot* more per unit to subsidize a middle/moderate/teacher unit at the local level than it does for other types of units bc you can’t rely on state/federal programs to the same extent. http://default.sfplanning.org/plans-and-programs/planning-for-the-city/public-sites/balboareservoir_CAC_Presentation_MOHCD-031416_FINAL.pdf …pic.twitter.com/7Fu1JeNam7
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @MattHaneySF and
I wonder if
@Scott_Wiener would be interested in writing legislation that would create a state program to help fund teacher and public sector worker housing built by localities? Seems like a good cause and a statewide issue.0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. 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.