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)
-
-
I think the last part (can't really live here long-term) is what PropE will help solve I think the focus should be on increasing overall housing development/supply. Not focus primarily on affordable no/low-income housing Right now middle class Bay Area workers (techies) leaving
-
because of overall shortfall in housing supply. Gradually increasing overall housing supply will first open up market for techies, and then gradually with further increased supply it will provide relief for lower income tiers (eventually) I don't understand focus on low income
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
My viewpoint is certainly colored by living in the east bay... while I don't think I disagree (much? at all?), I think my primary interest is ways in which externalities for these unfortunate decisions can be limited. SF making decisions that preclude outside-bucket residents
-
is one thing, cascading failure where that impacts the whole metro is another.
- 2 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.