@sknthla @elidourado that only 200 parcels will turn over in the next 20 years, producing an addl 7,000 units
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler
@kimmaicutler@sknthla I bet removing land use regs, esp. height limit, + adding a land value tax would do the trick. Politically hard.4 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @elidourado
@elidourado@sknthla labor force do not have enough income, capital to obtain shelter.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
@kimmaicutler@sknthla What land use regs would you keep? The way to make housing affordable is (approximately) to maximize density.8 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @elidourado
@elidourado@sknthla so you do have to have some kind of subsidy scheme for the lower-end of the market *in addition* to adding supply.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
@kimmaicutler@sknthla If we need housing vouchers, so be it, but I’m surprised denser construction wouldn’t drive costs down.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @elidourado
@elidourado@sknthla it doesn't because the taller you get, you move from woodframe to glass & steel, which has higher materials costs1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
@kimmaicutler@sknthla Right, but other cities make glass/steel buildings work, right? Is it something SF-specific?3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @elidourado
@elidourado@kimmaicutler@sknthla I believe@markasaurus has good info on how SF has uniquely high construction costs5 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @riccoja
@riccoja@kimmaicutler@sknthla@markasaurus Uniquely high due to regulations or is it something else?3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
@elidourado @riccoja @sknthla @markasaurus land costs. Limited construction labor pool. Some permitting, fees. Then on the demand side
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.