Not sure I agree… Redevelopment Agency by this point was mostly just finishing up its old projects
-
-
Replying to @enf @kimmaicutler
Middle-class professionals were still flowing outward to the suburbs in the 1970s.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Yes, exclusionary goals were in the mix then, but it's unlikely that 1978 SF ppl meant to create 2016 SF.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MBridegam @enf
yes but some effects were evident less than a decade later http://articles.latimes.com/1985-04-03/news/mn-28445_1_san-francisco-s-skyline …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
or the initial appearance of homeless in 1983 as the lowest-quality tier of housing was cannibalized
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @enf
The new economic inequality under Reagan created need for rock-bottom housing after a lot was demolished.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Housing since the 1980s has worsened, yes. But that is not the fault of SF's pro-tenant left. Sorry, no.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @MBridegam @enf
tenant rights aren't the issue. An ultimately self-defeating alliance w NIMBY neighborhood associations is
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @enf
If this alleged unholy alliance existed, wouldn't there be more city funding by now for eviction defenSe?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MBridegam @enf
SF has one of the, if not the strongest, rent control ordinances in the country.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
the loopholes are largely at the state level.
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.