it has produce ~2,000 units since 1993.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @RevClown
That's 2,000 more permanently affordable units than developers otherwise would create. It's a modest but fair share
6 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
what if SF had built at 2X the rate overall w 2X (or more) the number of BMR units over the last 20 years?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @RevClown
Correction: SF doesn't build housing, developers & financiers do. And even if doubled, % inclusionary is the same.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
and we would have double the number of protected BMR units and we would've done a better job at matching pop growth.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @RevClown
...and have been even further out of balance with RHNA goals and preserving income diversity. Gentrification recipe
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
But if you don't produce enough housing overall, all the owners of existing units can sell their stock for a much
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
higher multiple in a scarce market, which is also how gentrification happens.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
if you're fixating on the RHNA breakdown of 1% of the housing stock in new units while the other 99% of existing units
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
are getting insanely more expensive (esp in most CA markets where there is no RC) you're failing.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
if you measured RHNA new and RHNA total, you could compare efficacy of new BMR vs acquiring & rehabbing.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @pcohensf
in other places they call fixing all the things wrong in & around our P&D world, land reform. CA needs land reform
0 replies 0 retweets 2 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.