TLDR, old Stanford professors want to make money off of young Stanford professors by making their housing less affordable and so they took over the residents’ board. (Again, assets of the old are the debts of the young.) https://twitter.com/ClaytonNall/status/1184990594818396161 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @rohit_x_
The biggest valid complaint is equivalent to SF ruling that a person buying your home gets a fixed low appreciation going forward. It could significantly affect your homes value when you sell. You could lose a lot of money, even wipe out your equity, depending on parameters.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NilsBunger @rohit_x_
I mean... SF does try to do this on new home construction by setting almost arbitrarily high inclusionary rates, fees to intentionally lower land values or capture a portion of land value increment for affordable housing. Problem is it does this in an ad-hoc, unpredictable way.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @rohit_x_
Is the inclusionary policy changed on an existing building when it changes hands? My understanding is it’s done at building time, which I can imagine is still a nightmare for the builder but more limited in scope than a homeowner having the conditions change from under them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I don’t think it matters as much when it technically triggers, since the expectation of it being imposed later would affect land values, feasibility.
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.