Did you even read point 3? Says drastic increase needed.
-
-
Replying to @WatsonLadd @yimbywiki and
Your interpretation, not mine - it says "short term supply cannot create a dent in affordability or displacement crisis"
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sf4sfsite @yimbywiki and
If we zoned to permit Manhattan level density across all of SF, result would be meeting demand for housing
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @WatsonLadd @yimbywiki and
"IF". In practice can't happen fast. Will be incremental. It's political and economic. Big real estate won't allow a pace that lowers profit
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sf4sfsite @yimbywiki and
You're ignoring competition. Explain why postwar rebuilding actually happened.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WatsonLadd @yimbywiki and
Maybe projects penciled better before income inequality allowing builders to build for large middle class and coming boomer market
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sf4sfsite @yimbywiki and
Builders can build affordable housing for ordinary incomes. Do so every day. Why do you suppose they won't?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WatsonLadd @yimbywiki and
Evidence is housing balance reports. Building 297% of Above Moderate AMI target 50% of Affordable target. And fact that subsidies req for AH
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @sf4sfsite @WatsonLadd and
RHNA is and has been a deeply flawed method for estimating housing demand for decades.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @WatsonLadd and
Aside from RHNA the numbers show we're primarily building for the rich. Nobody I know believes that's right (except the far right)
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
If you did this whenever you decide to sell your house (or pass it on), then you wouldn't be a hypocrite. http://cityobservatory.org/a-1-6-billion-proposal/ …
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.