Idk people are on here suggesting discretionary review is a poison pill for affordable housing. Seems like that’d be easy to verify.
-
-
Replying to @natogreen @noah_arroyo and
Quite rare, a few cases. All rejected. And since SB35 went into effect Jan 2018, state law makes projects fully ministerial, so no DR appeal. It is the rezoning of sites, triggering EIR, that is the real delay and vulnerability to potential appeal. ie, Booker; Forest Hill; FSK.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @pcohensf @natogreen and
See? This is what happens when I publicly wade into territory that's opaque to me:
@pcohensf schools me. (I should do that more often.)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @noah_arroyo @pcohensf and
SB 35 only works if you're 100% compliant with the local zoning. Almost all affordable projects need some kind of variance which means they don't qualify.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
-
Replying to @noah_arroyo @pcohensf and
Basically: until you upzone the West Side etc, you aren't going to see SB 35 projects on the West Side, which means they're going to continue to get DR-ed or -- more likely -- never be considered because a developer knows it would be a death trap
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @noah_arroyo and
Yep, which is what the Affordable Homes for Educators & Families NOW measure by Supes Walton, Haney, Fewer and Peskin does. That'll be a game-changer for westside/outside lands nhoods affordable housing. Hopefully after cooling off from Thrs, folks'll come together around that.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pcohensf @kimmaicutler and
I must be naive in wishing our elected officials and “affordable housing advocates” would want to remove the horrible law in our charter & the reason we had to write SB35 to bypass in the first place.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @sammymoss425 @pcohensf and
Also the Irony is not lost on anyone who experienced the amount of absolute HATE lobbed on those of us who got SB35 passed. Those using it the most as the reason we don’t need the charter amendment were the most awful to be frank.
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @sammymoss425 @pcohensf and
I think this exchange helpfully demonstrates why casting DR as THE make or break issue may be hyperbole, in a way that comports with
@EskSF ‘s original point that the rhetoric obscures the nuance underlying the policy. Calling people “anti-housing” is not illuminating.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
that's ridiculous. If you're like everything's the problem and therefore nothing's the problem, you're not fixing anything.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @natogreen and
In no way does anyone who’s pushing the charter amendment believe it’s “make or break” at all. It’s a self imposed hurdle that came about because the federal government made it illegal to simply say “we don’t want the poors in our neighborhood” why can’t we just get rid of it?
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @sammymoss425 @kimmaicutler and
I get it. I don’t care about DR. I’m just suggesting that if we are going to propose policy, we should have evidence that is not anecdotal about why it’s necessary, or at least not tell people to STFU if they are skeptical about the lack of data.
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes - 8 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.