-
Show this thread
-
And also, add the fact that SF is about to ban future office space so we're just going to have more exurban/suburban office campuses with shuttles. (Congrats everyone.)https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/SF-economist-Prop-E-office-limits-would-slash-15007843.php …
6 replies 12 retweets 95 likesShow this thread -
Kim-Mai Cutler Retweeted fry
Don’t vote for Prop E. Sounds good, but is actually bad. https://twitter.com/anniefryman/status/1232848065565839360?s=21 …https://twitter.com/anniefryman/status/1232848065565839360 …
Kim-Mai Cutler added,
2 replies 14 retweets 49 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
Or, pass Prop E, meet housing goals and continue to build offices in San Francisco. If those affordable housing goals are so unrealistic, then WTF are we doing?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @theartdontstop
They have always been unrealistic, you have to be able to raise $300K locally for each one on top of slotting in state and federal money. If you look at the RHNA goals in here, SF would probably need $5B min every 7-8 years. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2015-23_rhna_plan.pdf …
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @theartdontstop
Maybe $32B regionally. (SF only did it's 3rd ever housing bond last year at $600M)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
RHNA is deeply flawed. Looks at only affordability of new units. Pits new market rate vs. new affordable in a zero sum structure, ignores that the whole existing stock of housing might be reverse filtering because of underproduction across the board.https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/2019/05/10/rhna-flawed-law/ …
-
-
Thanks. 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.
vote NO ON PROP E if you live in San Francisco