Thread: My views on housing have come a far way since 2015. Where I was viciously against SB827 to cautious about SB50 to where I am now which is “I’m cool with force-feeding new market rate housing into rich suburbs.”
-
Show this thread
-
But I, as I’ve mentioned before, I still don’t believe market rate housing will solve our problem and will not support a bill without buy-in from gentrifying black and brown communities. Too long our housing policy has ignored those communities and historically it’s been bad.
1 reply 3 retweets 31 likesShow this thread -
I want to see the amendments to SB50 before I weigh in too much, but I hope Senator Wiener will meet with orgs like
@medasf and United to Save the Mission who are at the front lines of fighting gentrification in his district. Their buy in is key to making this bill work.3 replies 0 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
On the other side it is entirely fair to demand exclusionary cities begin contributing to housing construction. San Francisco and Oakland, two diverse cities with massive income inequality, are bearing the brunt of market rate construction. Cupertino, Palo Alto, etc need to help.
4 replies 1 retweet 36 likesShow this thread -
Alternatives to SB50 could be bills that charge hefty fees to cities that fail to meet a jobs to housing balance. Those fees could go to a regional pot to help cities who ARE building pay for affordable housing and homeless services as well as transit.
5 replies 2 retweets 13 likesShow this thread
Backdoor to this is the regional housing bond.
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.