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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @DanRaile and
Wealthy communities can get out of it because they can use low prior numbers to set low future numbers.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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 -
Kim-Mai Cutler Retweeted 𝔇𝔞𝔯𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔩 🍫 𝔒𝔴𝔢𝔫𝔰
We live in a world where SF added 13 jobs for every housing unit between 2010 and 2016 and just approved a plan last winter to add another 32,000 jobs/8,800 housing units to Central SOMA.https://twitter.com/IDoTheThinking/status/1157437062963843072 …
Kim-Mai Cutler added,
𝔇𝔞𝔯𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔩 🍫 𝔒𝔴𝔢𝔫𝔰 @IDoTheThinking#betterbayarea here is a graph of the jobs housing imbalance. What action is being taken in SF and the Peninsula to reduce the regional housing pressures they created to job expansion? How should we go about repealing Prop 13 so that corporations like Chevron in Richmond pay? pic.twitter.com/Cg9ylFJlrlShow this thread2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
That plan enabled the city to claim a 33% affordability threshold, but again, if those numbers are based on a 4:1 jobs-housing ratio, what do you think that means for the rest of the city's housing stock? And, what if the Westside and the rest of the city does nothing (again)?
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.