I'd like to see planning advocates address @ezraklein's "strategic fallacy"—the problem in thinking there is always an answer.
-
-
Replying to @kristoncapps
It's easy for planners and advocates to get lost in counterfactuals. I think housing in SF, like traffic in Austin, just isn't solvable.
2 replies 2 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kristoncapps
@kristoncapps Because it doesn't make much sense to separate SF from the rest of the region in regards to housing. It's a regional problem.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kristoncapps
@kristoncapps They can do some things, but they can't build nearly as much as everyone wishes they could, for geographic & cultural reasons.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kristoncapps
@kristoncapps Right, and can't-make-enough-money reasons, and prop 13 reasons.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @susie_c
@susie_c@kristoncapps properties. New property would end up subsidizing services for older, not-recently-assessed property.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
@kimmaicutler@kristoncapps I meant prop 13 reasons like land bankers who don't want to develop on vacant parcels.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
@susie_c @kristoncapps Henry George to the rescue!
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.