It’s absurd that SF spends so much time arguing over the allocation of the ~2,000 we units we build a year while owners of the existing ~400K housing units generally see their assets appreciate by $130 *billion* a year. https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2016/01/san-francisco-home-values-zillow.html …https://twitter.com/emilymbadger/status/1155817124541206528 …
-
-
Against this backdrop of existing residential property owners seeing their assets appreciate by $100-130 billion a year, SF runs one $600 million affordable housing bond every five years to offset the impact for non-owning lower-income households? https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/amp/SF-voters-to-decide-600-million-affordable-14084026.php …
Show this thread -
Anyway... Proooooop. 13 means the tax assessments on existing housing do not keep up with the costs of servicing residents with schools, fire and police so cities resort to a kludgy, ad-hoc process of extracting revenue from new housing and development. https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3497#Did_Proposition.A013_Increase_Fees_on_Developers.3F_ …
Show this thread - End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It also means more and more of the various government budgets go not toward helping the less fortunate or providing great public services, but rather into the pockets of landlords and real estate speculators.
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.