I wrote about it in early 2015, before all these urbanists turned up.https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/stop-being-bullied-lets-sue-mountain-view/?oid=2917759 …
-
-
Replying to @natogreen @BrandonHarami and
Didnt SFBARF begin its Sue the Suburbs initiative in 2015 against Lafayette?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @IDoTheThinking @natogreen and
end of the year vs beginning when Nato wrote this, but that's nitpicking
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @uhshanti @IDoTheThinking and
my 2015 experience with SFBARF centered around them campaigning for my then-supe, Julie "Evictions Are Exaggerated" Christensen, and me going to work for the dude who tried to fight the Ellis eviction of an HIV-positive vet near me. wasn't as familiar with their other work then
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @uhshanti @IDoTheThinking and
in other words I pretty much couldn't stand them the moment they were founded/set foot in my dense, renter-heavy neighborhood, and am the wrong person to ask
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @uhshanti @IDoTheThinking and
I still think
@SFCityAttorney should bring CEQA lawsuits over suburban tech campus expansions in towns that don’t build housing and would get a bunch of $$ for transit and affordable housing from these companies. It would work.2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @natogreen @uhshanti and
If that's the case, Oakland should sue SF!
1 reply 0 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @uhshanti and
Well
@MattHaneySF is trying to update the jobs-housing linkage fee to solve this problem. So maybe support that? As it is, I believe SF and Oakland do most of the housing construction in the Bay, so I’m not sure why you’d focus on SF instead of the entire two counties south.3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @natogreen @kimmaicutler and
𝔇𝔞𝔯𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔩 🍫 𝔒𝔴𝔢𝔫𝔰 Retweeted 𝔇𝔞𝔯𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔩 🍫 𝔒𝔴𝔢𝔫𝔰
Well heres the data from MTC and i the housing production as only gotten slower in SF after 2016, and then add onto this the SOMA plan that uses Oakland as a bedroom community. SF produces more than peers but it induces far more than Lafayette doeshttps://twitter.com/IDoTheThinking/status/1126961571819692032?s=19 …
𝔇𝔞𝔯𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔩 🍫 𝔒𝔴𝔢𝔫𝔰 added,
𝔇𝔞𝔯𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔩 🍫 𝔒𝔴𝔢𝔫𝔰 @IDoTheThinkingIn reality, the higher-end grows larger in SF because the pool itself of housing seekers in SF with higher incomes is substantially larger relative to the amount of homes produced. This is a fancy way of saying jobs/housing ratio. The capacity is capped, people are traded pic.twitter.com/a2PZ1mNNB2Show this thread4 replies 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @IDoTheThinking @kimmaicutler and
I am in no way defending the status quo in SF. I support more density on the west side. But there’s a lot of induced demand without housing in the peninsula, South Bay, and other parts of Alameda and Coco County.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Induced demand is not really the right term since it usually applies to roads, which are typically *free*, unlike housing, which is usually the most expensive part of a consumer’s budget.
-
-
Thanks. 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.