meanwhile, the intense price competition for land in SF, which will not magically go away with a mass upzoning, means that any subsidized housing we build has to outbid the private market, which will have to price those land costs into rents over decades.
-
-
from an ideological standpoint, "build for the rich people first and throw a couple peanuts to everyone else" is not in my mind a morally justifiable plan, nor will the outcome be anything near as equitable racially or economically as the people advocating for it seem to think.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @MattHaneySF @uhshanti and
If you don't ban apartments in many areas and force developers to go through years of legal battles in the few areas where apartments are allowed, 500k is 30 years is easy to do. Tokyo does far more than that.pic.twitter.com/eEZ4TvWUY0
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @dan3944 @MattHaneySF and
housing in Tokyo/Japan works very very differently than it does in the US. Kim-Mai Cutler and I have approached this from different ideological angles but she's also talked about the massive ideological shift required to make this apples-to-oranges fantasy workpic.twitter.com/4einQmm2OP
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Well I also said Vienna comparisons were absurd bc it took WWI, pandemics to crash land values enough to make a large scale social housing program viable. Or the UKs council flats program is only geographically equitably distributed in London bc they were bombed the shit out of.
4 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @uhshanti and
I read conversations like this and I’m like OK, Matt and Dean are basically cool and complicit with a larger hemorrhaging of the middle class from the Bay Area bc subsidized affordable is harder to pencil there plus their political bases will never (understandably) accept
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @uhshanti and
shifting scarce, limited public subsidy dollars from very low/low AMI housing to middle. So no middle income housing will effectively get built, the bar to get into market rate will get more forbidding and everyone will be complicit in entrenching the region’s widening inequality
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @dan3944 and
we had a public housing system in America. homelessness skyrocketed as it was dismantled. it isn’t preposterous utopianism to suggest we have one again, period
5 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @uhshanti @kimmaicutler and
also, if you look at job growth in the Bay Area over the past 10 years, there is a huge increase in both high wage and low wage jobs and the middle is net flat.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I agree with this statement. That said, if you look at RHNA numbers, the only category that is almost always 0 is middle/moderate housing production.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @dan3944 and
for SF yeah it’s 16% to target (should be at 50%). low income is 33% (should be at 50%). above moderate income is at 70-80% (so, past target)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I think this RHNA reform proposal is interesting.https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/2019/05/10/rhna-flawed-law/ …
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.