The latest installment in my infinity-part series about why SF progressives lose more than we need to: http://www.sfexaminer.com/?p=167710
-
-
So why not do more to promote ADUs, room rentals, denser occupancy?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MBridegam @kimmaicutler and
Better to promote1-fam-to-apt upzoning than to trash anti-displacement work.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MBridegam @otterlycynthia and
we'd love to do that except the *same* people oppose upcoming 1-fam neighborhoods
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @MBridegam and1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @MBridegam and
and when YIMBYs ask for alliances in promoting more housing in Brisbane, Mission
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @MBridegam and
anti-displacement balks and is nowhere to be seen.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
it's weird how some people are incapable of discussing sf politics without returning to this same tired argument. Every time.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @natogreen
it's not tired because it's true. http://cityobservatory.org/housing-cant-be-a-good-investment-and-affordable/ …http://cityobservatory.org/a-1-6-billion-proposal/ …
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @natogreen
the same laws that protect returns for developers are the ones that protect returns for property owners (which are a larger class
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
progressives whine and complains about getting the <2,000 units we build here a year perfectly allocated between low-income, mkt
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @natogreen
while the owners of SF's owner 380K units profit even more under conditions of deepening shortage + CA's favorable property laws
0 replies 0 retweets 0 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.