This is kind of silly. One project was delayed 46 days, another 101 days. It’s likely that funding them took a lot longer than this. It’s offensive that people oppose low-income housing, but a Charter Amendment is a bit much.
-
-
Replying to @AlisonB916 @kimmaicutler
this is my basic question. requiring discretionary review of every project is crazy, but i don't understand why addressing that requires a charter amendment?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @upwithppl @AlisonB916
because the appeals process is embedded into the charter.
3 replies 0 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @AlisonB916
that's what i was wondering. which is also insane
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @upwithppl @AlisonB916
If you're tied to a grant or tax credit deadline, an extra few months here or there could totally fuck up your fundraising stack. Like Berkeley's teachers want teacher housing to be eligible for the city's bond money this year
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @AlisonB916
but if they miss the first tranche of bond money, they'll probably have to wait another 2 years for the next tranche of bond money. There's a lot of dependencies built into the stack when you have 6 or 7 funding sources.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @AlisonB916
I’m guessing there’s going to be no compromise wherein greater affordability mandates and a DR ban are combined?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @uhshanti @AlisonB916
this is just for 100% affordable housing projects. I'm sure if people eventually wanted to go a similar route on other types of projects, then people could negotiate that.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @AlisonB916
the definition of 100% affordable is dicier in Breed's proposal than that of the supes', which I prefer, except for the DR part, which is why I'm asking
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Real question we ought to work out...how do we do social housing with deep affordability cross subsidized by high market rents if our entire advocacy framework is only about 100% affordable?
1 reply 0 retweets 15 likes
I don’t know. You have to ask all the people who have spent years advocating for less housing that costs the city more....
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @RevClown and
i guess the obvious question there would be: during what SF regime, under what SF mayor, what Board, in what era, were those (theoretical) advocates the voices that played a genuinely dispositive role in how housing was done in SF?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @upwithppl @kimmaicutler and
that goes along with imponderable questions like: what's the point of pointing out that SF has only passed two housing bonds in its history when it relied on TIF bonding authority for the vast majority of that history?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 29 more replies
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.