I don’t think that’s a good faith reading of the article, which suggests QK entering could carve out some of Weiner’s support and leave the door open for a progressive third candidate. I appreciate your position but maybe argue it against real opposition rather than straw men?
-
-
Replying to @DanRaile @Scott_Wiener
OK, well if SF wanted to build more housing, and maintain local control absent state influence, they could choose to do it all by themselves and zone 4-6 floors on the Westside, and de-concentrate pressure on lower income communities on the East side. But they haven't.
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @Scott_Wiener
Sure, but the burden for you, et al, is to convince the dubious that upzoning would result in more affordable housing, rather than encouraging a false equivalence to smear them. If you could do that you might get the votes for the local option proposed. But, it’s hard.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @DanRaile @Scott_Wiener
If you looked at the underlying cost of producing one affordable unit in SF -- $750K/unit with 5+ years of process -- 200-250K/unit that has to be raised at the local level (and up to $350-500K/unit if it's middle income)...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
you'd realize that massively restricting housing (which protects and enhances financial returns on existing housing), while only running one affordable housing bond every five years is a joke.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
getting cross-subsidy from market-rate isn't perfect either, but
@UCBDisplacement looked at Scott's plan and found that it would quintuple capacity for on-site inclusionary affordable units while also quadrupling overall market-feasible capacity in the affected geography.2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @DanRaile and
Tim has literally run giant essays by landlords like Zelda Bronstein, who have evicted low-income tenants, arguing that radical conservation is progressive. That is textbook bad faith.
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @DanRaile and
Also you need to ask yourself -- what affordable means to you? Affordable for what income level? Because the current institutions, state/federal tax credit programs, are really geared to roughly 60% AMI and below.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes, but comparing what’s been built in upzoned areas of SF to RHNA targets demonstrates that upzoning has led to disproportionate construction at high end. I recall seeing a chart (can find if you disagree) where SF had met market-rate target, but none of the other AMI sections.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
RHNA is an easily manipulated system that has been unenforceable since its inception more than 50 years ago:https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-housing-supply/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Wealthy communities can get out of it because they can use low prior numbers to set low future numbers.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @DanRaile and
then it asks cities to build 10X as much low-income housing as there is state/federal funding for. The cities have minimal tools - a bond every 5 yrs, and inclusionary (which is like 400 units/year in SF and becomes infeasible the higher you raise it) https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/2019/05/10/rhna-flawed-law/ …pic.twitter.com/3VntbNreJa
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Right, RHNA numbers are politically determined. It’s not a good way to assess need and measure results. But do the existing upzoned, transit dense parts of SF where new builds are online support the thesis that upzoning improves affordability?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - 5 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.