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.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @jhscott
SF is turning itself into Atherton plus a cohort of orgs that are able to wrest some nominal concessions for a token amount of low or very-low-income deed restricted units. If you're not part of one of those two buckets, you can't really live here long-term.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @jhscott
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @eric_young_1 @kimmaicutler
I’d guess low income is a focus from combo of • low income folks being the first to be pushed out as rents rise • alignment with general concern about rising income inequality • for NIMBYs, affordable housing can serve as a DoS strategy—it is slower to build, so less growth
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jhscott @kimmaicutler
I believe low-income/homeless were pushed-out of housing market long time ago... and it will take a long time to get them back (it will be very costly and see little benefit/upside) The immediate crisis facing the Bay Area is lack of overall housing for current workers (techies)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @eric_young_1 @kimmaicutler
why is there little upside for low income housing and why are techies a crisis? If anything, techies are more resilient due to their earning power.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jhscott @kimmaicutler
there's less little upside for the city (financially). Net-net, low-income/homeless costs the city/taxpayers in aggregate.... Vs younger techies (non executive level).... that have an entire lifetime of future buying power & tax revenue.... plus future family
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
though please not, I'm arguing against helping low-income/homeless housing... I'm arguing the market will eventually provide relief to all income groups.... as the overall supply of housing continues to increase Right now, middle-income workers (techies) are forced to flee
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @eric_young_1 @jhscott
Not going to work. It’s like $900K to build a new unit in SF (assuming mid-rise density). You can never make those numbers work for working-class people. That said building enough housing to accommodate pop growth can relieve reverse filtering pressure on existing housing stock.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
If you want to build housing affordable to people on working class wages in a high land value area like SF, the local government has to find tax revenue to subsidize it at $300K per unit on top of state/federal programs.
-
-
But somehow, homeless shelters are big business in "cheap" NYC: Homeless Shelters are Big Business in New York Cityhttps://www.corleyre.com/nyc/homeless-shelters-big-business-in-nyc/ …
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.