looks interesting. But in California, you'd have to overturn Prop. 13 to do this. :)
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
and also Prop. 58 and Prop. 193 from the 1980s.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
one of the things that most people don't really understand is that Prop. 13 basically bakes it into the California
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Constitution that most kinds of residential development will be revenue negative to CA municipalities.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
the boomers basically wrote a profound anti-density bent into the CA Constitution & municipal financing system
-
in ways, created high-density bent b/c made only such residential tax rev +vehttps://twitter.com/kimmaicutler/status/767591362694778880 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
San Jose found that more housing construction was only tax revenue net positive above 43 units/acre
-
@alon_levy@mattocko@mishachellam Reference-maybe-please? That sounds useful and interesting to remember.ˋ
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
which most CA jurisdictions don't have the zoning to support.
-
don't choose the zoning to support. It's in their local power, not imposed, they choose not to do it.
End of conversation
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.