Dilemma of the Bay Area city. 1) Say no to office growth = will be harder to keep up with deficits & $10B pension/OPEB liability + big companies that are more resourced and adept at tax evasion will crowd out everyone else + gentrify East Bay.https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-mayor-orders-budget-cuts-as-city-takes-on-14911585.php …
-
Show this thread
-
2) Say yes to office growth = gets disproportionately priced into residential real estate with little recapture from existing property owners to compensate for impacts because of Prop. 13.https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2016/01/san-francisco-home-values-zillow.html …
2 replies 4 retweets 67 likesShow this thread -
But this measure won't meaningfully add more funding for affordable housing. It will just ban office space in SF, and then shift the calculus of office space feasibility into other Bay Area cities.
8 replies 6 retweets 93 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
Coupling office space growth to housing growth makes sense to me -- it prevents cities from capturing the "ice cream" benefits (tax revenue, restaurant spend) will externalizing the "vegetable" costs (building housing, NIMBY tears, etc). (1/X)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jhscott @kimmaicutler
Of course the gap between "any housing growth" and "affordable housing growth" is... large. But, if SF isn't going to add housing, isn't it "more fair" (somehow?) for it to not add office space?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jhscott
it doesn't have to add office space, but SF's tax base needs to grow in order to keep up with its costs. Otherwise by California law, some of those costs (tied to pensions) can't legally be reduced. They can only cannibalize other existing services.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
from an (mildly but not aggressively contextualized) incentives / systems / externalities POV -- doesn't building nothing still net out better than building the office space and not the housing? SF voters need to figure their shit out, this way they don't get all the ice cream
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jhscott
the office space is probably still going to get built regionally, just in South SF or Oakland. SF voters want to keep their property taxes low, have their home equity double every 10 years and make new people pay for maintaining their existing service levels. They love ice cream.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
those cities could tie office space buildout to housing buildout (imo overall, not affordable)? And/or funding for public transit? Then you have a chance at dense, vibrant, urban, good job / good culture growth in South SF / Oakland*? * need to dodge gentrification dystopia
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jhscott @kimmaicutler
If SF wants to turn itself into Atherton that's like... yuck.. but at least it doesn't contribute to worsening Bay Bridge traffic & etc?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
it's a false choice they're presenting. They're presenting it like -- as soon as we build the affordable housing -- we'll allow office. But the only kinds of affordable housing funding that voters support are the kinds where they don't have to pay for it themselves so there's
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @jhscott
structurally never enough affordable housing funding. In fact the affordable housing funding that the city generates is structurally dependent on having a hot real estate market bc it's tied to new construction or
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @jhscott
it's dependent on property values rising so much that assessments on recently resold property ensure that no pre-existing property owners have to experience property tax increases if they vote for an affordable housing bond.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 11 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.